ZZZ Name Change for Sun-N-Fun?

on 4/20/2008 3:04 PM Ron Wanttaja said the following:
In my opinion, Zoom doesn't refer specifically to Sun N Fun for the same reason
he only refers to Oysterhouse as "That nut from Oregon."

A rare slip into journalistic accuracy??? :-)

In article , John Ousterhout
says...

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:10:07 -0700, John Ousterhout
wrote:

But I'll issue a public apology to Jim Campbell if he ever acts as PIC
in a Rocket Race.


Better define "Race," Filbert...two planes chasing each other, like the fake
Reno races at Oshkosh? Or an actual competition where the winners aren't
pre-programmed?

According to Wikipedia, the race course is at 1,500 feet, following a
computer-generated course. Funny thing is, five minutes worth of clicking on
the RRL site didn't lead to a description that even gave THAT much information.
Until you find out what RRL's definition of a "race" is, I wouldn't place any
bets.


I guess I just assumed that everyone would agree with me that an
exhibition is not a race. But for those in doubt, I meant a real Rocket
Racing League event with multiple rockets competing.


Your right a exhibition is not a race . I think a better race would be to take
bets and see if the new fat zoomy can fit in the cockpit .Last I saw him he was
quite pudgy :-)

Chuck (20 # less )S RAH-14/1 ret

snipped Three more exhibition races will be held at
Reno (September 10-14), at the X-Prize Cup (Las Cruces, NM, date
TBA),
and at Aviation Nation, Nellis Air Force Base (November 8-9).

They'd better use caution at Reno. Frankly, they should cancel. Much
too turbulence there with the Sierra Wave activity going on. Then
there's the Dust Devils (Whirlwind, Zephyr). Tore one of the smaller
IF1s apart when the aircraft inadvertantly flew through one; pilot
killed. That aircraft was composite, roughly 1/2 the size of a
Velocity.

Brent Hisey had an Emergency in his North American P-51D Miss America,
"Race 11," and the winds blew him away from the runway and into the
sage at the last moment. Aircraft should have been totalled but Hisey
rebuilt it anyway. He walked away reportedly covered in hyrdraulic
fluid.

Imagine what that Sierra Wave turbulence can do to a short-wing
"glider" like the RRL Velocity. Rocket power is reportedly only going
to be used in the ascent phase, so how is it "Rocket Racing" when
power is "off" during the competition phase. Speed in the climb only
300 mph...I'll take the 500 mph range Unlimiteds any day.

Three men killed at Reno in 2007, then a fourth after the races. That
event not too big on safety and the (mis-) management is the reason
why. A number of pilots retired after last year's event and either
sold their racers or put them on the selling block, particularly after
the accidents. If the weather at Reno isn't good, you could see the
entire cancellation of the event, which could irk those paying for the
tickets.

I saw one of the Velocity prototypes at Mojave about two weeks ago.
Appeared to feature a single seat with enough room even for a large
man. Even Baby Huey (Zoom) could fit in that thing. (Did not observe
a seat over on the "co-pilot's side. The way they're advertising the
test pilot versions, these look like single seat racers.)

As a side note to Mojave, the Rotary Rocket's move to San Diego was
cancelled and it will now be on display at Mojave Spaceport next to
BAE Systems, about a block away from Flight Ops. They set up a nice
park and walkway there, so hopefully more displays will be added. The
F-4 Phantom that was on display in front of Flight Ops is
gone...perhaps in a hangar being restored? The Convair 990 Galileo
II, from NASA, is now on gate guard at the front of the airport. Has
been for a few years now. The number of airliners parked there
starting to dwindle.

John Ousterhout wrote:
ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

I'd bet a nickle the closest he gets to flying one of those racers
will be a
photo op with him in the cockpit .That way he can get rid of the pic
of him in
the engineless F-104 and replace it with something newer :-)

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"I'll believe it when I see it "


I believe that the chance of Captain Zoom ever racing a rocket is less
than the chance of me ever flying that F-104.

But I'll issue a public apology to Jim Campbell if he ever acts as PIC
in a Rocket Race.

- Filbert


Make sure you obtain verifiable witnesses. I'm sure ole zoom already
has a press release ready for his "I test fly a rocket racer" report.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:10:07 -0700, John Ousterhout
wrote:

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
I'd bet a nickle the closest he gets to flying one of those racers will be a
photo op with him in the cockpit .That way he can get rid of the pic of him in
the engineless F-104 and replace it with something newer :-)
I believe that the chance of Captain Zoom ever racing a rocket is less
than the chance of me ever flying that F-104.

But I'll issue a public apology to Jim Campbell if he ever acts as PIC
in a Rocket Race.

Better define "Race," Filbert...two planes chasing each other, like the fake
Reno races at Oshkosh? Or an actual competition where the winners aren't
pre-programmed?

According to Wikipedia, the race course is at 1,500 feet, following a
computer-generated course. Funny thing is, five minutes worth of clicking on
the RRL site didn't lead to a description that even gave THAT much information.
Until you find out what RRL's definition of a "race" is, I wouldn't place any
bets.

Did find this picture on the RRL site, which is a real howler:

http://www.rocketracingleague.com/ga.../runwaybig.jpg

Note how the runway is just two wingspans wide, and the grandstands are RIGHT at
the runway edge. We're finally seeing the results of Campbell's input. :-)

Each race (again, according to Wikipedia) is supposed to last 90 minutes, with
the planes carrying four minutes of fuel. World record for a rocket pit stop is
something like three hours. Even if they get that down to 15 minutes (including
the time to tow the plane to the fuel station and back to the runway), that's
STILL a lot of gliding time.

Ron Wanttaja


It seems to me using solid fuel rocket engines would make more sense
for racing. Each airplane would have two engines, one high impulse for
take off and the other a long duration burn for the race. It seems to me
rapid engine changes would be possible.

I have always thought a replica Me163 with a solid fuel engine would
be a rather nice air show draw.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
snip
Did find this picture on the RRL site, which is a real howler:

http://www.rocketracingleague.com/ga.../runwaybig.jpg

Note how the runway is just two wingspans wide, and the grandstands are RIGHT at
the runway edge. We're finally seeing the results of Campbell's input. :-)


It could be worse, they could have the refueling pits next to the
grandstand. So you lose a few spectators every so often when the pit
goes boom, but that would only add to the excitement.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:

It could be worse, they could have the refueling pits next to the
grandstand. So you lose a few spectators every so often when the pit
goes boom, but that would only add to the excitement.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

No, No! Not next to the spectators...

Next to the press!

- O Negative

In article , Dan says...

John Ousterhout wrote:
ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

I'd bet a nickle the closest he gets to flying one of those racers
will be a
photo op with him in the cockpit .That way he can get rid of the pic
of him in
the engineless F-104 and replace it with something newer :-)

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"I'll believe it when I see it "


I believe that the chance of Captain Zoom ever racing a rocket is less
than the chance of me ever flying that F-104.

But I'll issue a public apology to Jim Campbell if he ever acts as PIC
in a Rocket Race.

- Filbert


Make sure you obtain verifiable witnesses. I'm sure ole zoom already
has a press release ready for his "I test fly a rocket racer" report.


I bet he'll be the first to loop roll and spin one LOL!! I'm sure jaun will
verify it for zoomy he believes everything zoomy says.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:



I bet he'll be the first to loop roll and spin one LOL!! I'm sure jaun will
verify it for zoomy he believes everything zoomy says.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret


It will be hard for jaun to verify since he is usually head down on
Zoom's cock....I mean in zoom's cockpit.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:31:02 -0500, Dan wrote:

It seems to me using solid fuel rocket engines would make more sense
for racing. Each airplane would have two engines, one high impulse for
take off and the other a long duration burn for the race. It seems to me
rapid engine changes would be possible.

It's an interesting idea, but has some technical drawbacks.

A liquid rocket motor, like they're using now, gets fuel just like a recip:
Fuel and oxidizer are stored in tanks and fed to the engine via pipes. It means
that you can install the motor itself in the best location and put the fuel
tanks on the CG so that the aircraft's balance doesn't change during.

However, a solid rocket is a single, self-contained unit. If you put (for
example) a Star 17A solid rocket where the Velocity's engine normally goes,
there'll be ~280 pounds in the engine compartment when the motor lights off, but
only ~30 pounds left when the motor burns out 20 seconds later. This is the
equivalent of having a recip engine completely depart the airframe in flight.

It's not insurmoutable...you could put a small water tank for ballast way up
front and drain it at the required rate. If you could get five times the moment
arm (which is probably pushing it) you'd only need a six gallon tank. But with
both a boost and a sustainer engine, you'd have to have a larger tank with
variable drain rates. And if the water drain system fails, the plane will
shortly become uncontrollable...no way to shut down a solid rocket short of
blowing it up.

If your solid rocket motor were slim and long, you could install it so that half
the casing was forward of the CG. But that does push it into the cabin.

Due to the heat, I doubt a composite Velocity airframe could stand the motor
near the actual CG. The only remaining solution would put twin engines on the
wings. You'd have to beef up the wing structure to handle it. You'll also need
to ensure the aircraft has enough rudder authority to handle it when one motor
burns out a little earlier than the other.

It would probably be a lot easier to mount a second liquid-fueled sustainer
motor in the current vehicles. In fact, a better solution would be to install
multiple small motors instead of the single large one they're doing now. This
would give the pilots a "throttle" that would be a significant tactical factor
in the event of an actual race.

I have always thought a replica Me163 with a solid fuel engine would
be a rather nice air show draw.

The guys up in Everett manufacturing the Me-262s are building an ME-163. No plan
to fly it, though. Pity....

Ron Wanttaja