Rocket Racing League First Exhibition Race August 1st and August 2nd, 2008

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

OK. I am a bit out of date but my understanding is that it is timed
circuits, not 2 or more in the air at the same time. Not what I
consider 'racing'.

No, from what I understand, it's head-to-head. However, the rockets burn
through fuel quickly...I've heard that less than half of a typical 15-minute
flight will be under power. The RRL is doing pit stops, but of course a plane
just out of the pits will be a lot slower and have less acceleration than those
already aloft (due to still carrying a heavy fuel load).

Further, reading between the lines of the press release. You won't see
the planes flying except on a video screen.

You won't see the *course* any way than on a video screen. Unlike Red Bull and
Reno, there are no physical pylons. The pilots apparently follow their flight
directors, which are programmed with the route. If you want to see how they're
doing, you have to view the information on the video screens.

You'll see the planes flying, but I've heard that most the flying will occur at
1,000 feet or above (one guy told me 5,000 feet!). Since the majority of each
flight is power-off, they probably need the altitude to stretch their endurance.

The most interesting aspect will probably be the pit stops...the current record
for a rocket-powered-airplane pit stop is something like two hours! They've
supposedly reduced that by more than an order of magnitude. However, as most
airports don't have grandstands, you probably won't be able to watch the action
in the pits directly since the people in front will block everyone else's view.
Hence, you'll probably end up watching the pit stops on the video monitors as
well.

It *does* look like the RRL was considering grandstands, at least initially.
Check out their proximity to the runway on this promotional artwork on the RRL
web page:

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

Ten rocket planes going by, a half a wingspan away? I don't think they even
MAKE Excedrin tablets that large... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

On Jun 30, 7:01*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

OK. *I am a bit out of date but my understanding is that it is timed
circuits, not 2 or more in the air at the same time. *Not what I
consider 'racing'.

No, from what I understand, it's head-to-head. *However, the rockets burn
through fuel quickly...I've heard that less than half of a typical 15-minute
flight will be under power. *The RRL is doing pit stops, but of course a plane
just out of the pits will be a lot slower and have less acceleration than those
already aloft (due to still carrying a heavy fuel load). *

Further, reading between the lines of the press release. You won't see
the planes flying except on a video screen.

You won't see the *course* any way than on a video screen. *Unlike Red Bull and
Reno, there are no physical pylons. *The pilots apparently follow their flight
directors, which are programmed with the route. *If you want to see how they're
doing, you have to view the information on the video screens.

You'll see the planes flying, but I've heard that most the flying will occur at
1,000 feet or above (one guy told me 5,000 feet!). *Since the majority of each
flight is power-off, they probably need the altitude to stretch their endurance.

The most interesting aspect will probably be the pit stops...the current record
for a rocket-powered-airplane pit stop is something like two hours! *They've
supposedly reduced that by more than an order of magnitude. *However, as most
airports don't have grandstands, you probably won't be able to watch the action
in the pits directly since the people in front will block everyone else's view.
Hence, you'll probably end up watching the pit stops on the video monitors as
well.

It *does* look like the RRL was considering grandstands, at least initially.
Check out their proximity to the runway on this promotional artwork on the RRL
web page:

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

Ten rocket planes going by, a half a wingspan away? *I don't think they even
MAKE Excedrin tablets that large... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Okay. Still skeptical of it turning into much of a spectator sport.

Harry K

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Okay. Still skeptical of it turning into much of a spectator sport.

I don't think they'll have trouble getting attendees for the first couple of
races. The question is, how many people will be interested in spending money to
see it a SECOND (and third, and fourth...) time.

It could probably survive forever as one of the acts at places like Oshkosh and
Reno, but they're apparently trying to make it a stand-alone attraction like the
Red Bull air races. IMHO, I think the Red Bull events, with their visible
course markers (where a "cut pylon" is REALLY a cut pylon) and the low-level
aerobatics is a much more visceral experience for the average spectator.

Sure, folks will initially come to see the rockets. Once that interest is
sated, though, the question is whether the action itself is exciting enough to
lure them to buy a $50-$100 ticket just to watch the rockets race again the next
time they come to town.

Ron Wanttaja

In article , Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Okay. Still skeptical of it turning into much of a spectator sport.

I don't think they'll have trouble getting attendees for the first couple of
races. The question is, how many people will be interested in spending money
to
see it a SECOND (and third, and fourth...) time.

It could probably survive forever as one of the acts at places like Oshkosh and
Reno, but they're apparently trying to make it a stand-alone attraction like
the
Red Bull air races. IMHO, I think the Red Bull events, with their visible
course markers (where a "cut pylon" is REALLY a cut pylon) and the low-level
aerobatics is a much more visceral experience for the average spectator.

Sure, folks will initially come to see the rockets. Once that interest is
sated, though, the question is whether the action itself is exciting enough to
lure them to buy a $50-$100 ticket just to watch the rockets race again the
next
time they come to town.

Ron Wanttaja


It would seem to me that the way for them to make money is television. Since
you have to watch a screen to see whats going on, why not put it on
everybody's screen and make your money selling advertising?

Proper use of cenematic technique could make it far more exciting in people's
living rooms than it would be to view the action on site.

On Jul 1, 12:37*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Okay. *Still skeptical of it turning into much of a spectator sport.

I don't think they'll have trouble getting attendees for the first couple of
races. *The question is, how many people will be interested in spending money to
see it a SECOND (and third, and fourth...) time. *

It could probably survive forever as one of the acts at places like Oshkosh and
Reno, but they're apparently trying to make it a stand-alone attraction like the
Red Bull air races. *IMHO, I think the Red Bull events, with their visible
course markers (where a "cut pylon" is REALLY a cut pylon) and the low-level
aerobatics is a much more visceral experience for the average spectator.

Sure, folks will initially come to see the rockets. *Once that interest is
sated, though, the question is whether the action itself is exciting enough to
lure them to buy a $50-$100 ticket just to watch the rockets race again the next
time they come to town.

Ron Wanttaja

One of the big problems is teh pit stop plus short flying time. Even
if they get it down to 15 minutes, they have each plane on the ground
for as long, or longer, than they ar flying. I can see the announcers
hyping the pit stops..."looks like Jim Campbell is going to set a new
course record folks, he is almost ready to leave the pits in under....
13.56!!"

With two planes going head to head in the exhibition it will be 15
minutes flying and 15 minutes for the crowd to make their own pit
stops for muchies and p calls. If that is the way it goes, I will bet
the at least half the crowd will find something better to do after the
first pit.

Harry K

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

One of the big problems is teh pit stop plus short flying time. Even
if they get it down to 15 minutes, they have each plane on the ground
for as long, or longer, than they ar flying. I can see the announcers
hyping the pit stops..."looks like Jim Campbell is going to set a new
course record folks, he is almost ready to leave the pits in under....
13.56!!"

With two planes going head to head in the exhibition it will be 15
minutes flying and 15 minutes for the crowd to make their own pit
stops for muchies and p calls. If that is the way it goes, I will bet
the at least half the crowd will find something better to do after the
first pit.

Actually, I got email the other day that says the RRL will be able to better the
15 minutes I'd previously guessed. If what I hear is right, I figure five
minutes might be doable. However, since the planes can't taxi under their own
power, that time has to include towing them back to the takeoff point.

Traffic control might be an issue. The planes are practically identical in
design. If they take off at about the same time, they are likely to run out of
fuel at about the same time, too. How about four planes maneuvering for
simultaneous deadstick landings?

The only solution is to stagger the takeoffs by several minutes, to ensure there
are planes that keep flying when others pit and the conflicts for runway space
don't happen. But then you've lost the head-to-head racing aspect...a Rocket
Racer with half its fuel burned will out-accelerate a plane that still has most
of its takeoff load. You get lots of fast passes, but not the breathtaking
duels of unlimited racing.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is, "Will people find the *style*
of racing interesting if they were prop-powered planes, instead?" The short
flights, the relatively high flying, the long powerless glides, the "virtual"
course that a spectator has to watch a video monitor to see, etc. If the answer
is "no," then rocket racing will be successful until the novelty of seeing
rocket planes glide around wears off.

Ron Wanttaja

On Jul 1, 10:13*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

One of the big problems is teh pit stop plus short flying time. *Even
if they get it down to 15 minutes, they have each plane on the ground
for as long, or longer, than they ar flying. *I can see the announcers
hyping the pit stops..."looks like Jim Campbell is going to set a new
course record folks, he is almost ready to leave the pits in under....
13.56!!"

With two planes going head to head in the exhibition it will be 15
minutes flying and 15 minutes for the crowd to make their own pit
stops for muchies and p calls. *If that is the way it goes, I will bet
the at least half the crowd will find something better to do after the
first pit.

Actually, I got email the other day that says the RRL will be able to better the
15 minutes I'd previously guessed. *If what I hear is right, I figure five
minutes might be doable. *However, since the planes can't taxi under their own
power, that time has to include towing them back to the takeoff point.

Traffic control might be an issue. *The planes are practically identical in
design. *If they take off at about the same time, they are likely to run out of
fuel at about the same time, too. *How about four planes maneuvering for
simultaneous deadstick landings?

The only solution is to stagger the takeoffs by several minutes, to ensure there
are planes that keep flying when others pit and the conflicts for runway space
don't happen. *But then you've lost the head-to-head racing aspect...a Rocket
Racer with half its fuel burned will out-accelerate a plane that still has most
of its takeoff load. *You get lots of fast passes, but not the breathtaking
duels of unlimited racing. *

I think the question you have to ask yourself is, "Will people find the *style*
of racing interesting if they were prop-powered planes, instead?" *The short
flights, the relatively high flying, the long powerless glides, the "virtual"
course that a spectator has to watch a video monitor to see, etc. *If the answer
is "no," then rocket racing will be successful until the novelty of seeing
rocket planes glide around wears off.

Ron Wanttaja

Not sure why everyone keeps making the comment about dead stick
landings. Rutan demonstrated the rocket plane at Oshkosh a couple of
years back with the full ability to start, stop, and restart the
engines.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:51 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:


Here's an interesting bit of information. As of 1 January 2008, there were two
Velocities registered to the RRL (N246RR and N216MR). Both were licensed as
Experimental Amateur-Built, and still are in that category today.

Looks like one of them (N216MR) might be a Velocity purchased from a previous
builder. The other was built by Velocity and lists a Lycoming, so it may be a
conversion as well.

But, obviously, the next question arises: Have these Experimental Amateur-Built
aircraft completed their 40 hours since major alterations (conversion to rocket
power)? With a fifteen-minute flight time per fuel load, that's 160 flights.
If you consider that even that many flights would constitute less than 15 hours
with the motor running.....

So...is RRL going to do a hurried transfer of these airplanes to some other
Experimental category, or is some of their time for flying off their
restrictions going to in front of 500,000 people at Oshkosh?

Ron Wanttaja
Hmmm...

Must be different rules in other parts of the country, or maybe time
flows at a different rate.

Down here in the backwater states, you only need 5 hours test time after
a major alteration.

Charlie
Slobovia Outernational

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:55:40 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

Not sure why everyone keeps making the comment about dead stick
landings. Rutan demonstrated the rocket plane at Oshkosh a couple of
years back with the full ability to start, stop, and restart the
engines.

When Rutan flew, he was the only plane up there. When he hit the "go" button,
all he was expected to do was fly around the airport at least once, then land.
He could keep some fuel back in case he had to go around, or "blip" the rocket
to correct for an undershoot.

In contrast, of course, the RRL pilots will be busy flying the invisible course
and keeping from running into up to nine other rocket planes. It's a little
different problem....

According to the RRL web page, they're going to stagger the takeoffs, so that
should reduce the chances for simultaneous deadsticks. However, it's going to be
interesting if (for instance) a landing gear collapses and the plane stops on
the runway. I'm sure they'll have a backup runway, but the guys aloft may have
to scramble a bit. Trouble is, unless there's a second backup runway, racing
will have to stop until they get the primary cleared.

I surfed around the RRL web page, and found some technical data that I hadn't
noticed the last time I checked, several months back.

"...1,500 pound thrust rocket engine burning liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene...
Each X-Racer will be a single-pilot vehicle with an empty weight of roughly
1,000 lbs and a propellant weight of 1,000 lbs..."

Lox/Kerosene has a Specific Impulse of about 300 seconds, so this comes out to
200 seconds of engine run time (web page says 4 minutes of intermittent powered
flight, so that ties in). Ten minutes of glide time, Pit times are listed as
5-10 minutes. So that makes less than four minutes of powered flight per
aircraft every twenty to twenty-five minutes.

"...the Rocket Racing League will feature multiple races pitting up to 10 Rocket
Racers going head to head in a 4-lap, multiple elimination heat format on a
5-mile "Formula One"-like closed circuit raceway in the sky."

It's a twenty-mile course (five miles around, four laps). The planes should be
able to complete the course WITHOUT a pit stop...the plane has to average just
80 MPH during that 15-minute flight.

However, the web page says they have to pit after "3-4 laps." They may be
requiring some sort of fuel reserve. But it seems weird to plan for a 5-10
minute pit stop when the plane could practically *coast* around the course for
that last lap. My guess is that the "pit stops" are more to get planes ready
quickly for the next heat before the spectators wander away.

Still didn't' find anything on the web page about flight altitudes. It might be
something they leave up to the teams to decide...either go up high and coast
downhill at high speeds, or stay low and run the engine in short blips.

Ron Wanttaja

On Jun 30, 6:50�am, DABEAR wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:34�am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

So...is RRL going to do a hurried transfer of these airplanes to some other
Experimental category, or is some of their time for flying off their
restrictions going to in front of 500,000 people at Oshkosh?

Ron Wanttaja

Saw one in ground test at Mojave many months ago so its aerial work
should be well underway. �The progress of the second aircraft will be
an issue.

Their two top pilots including Rick Searfoss are tagged with the
demonstration flights based on a previous press release.

Reno is a dangerous location to fly. �Folks may have to get up early
to witness any flying there due to the Sierra Wave factor. �Mornings
are usually calm.

They'll be trying to put gliders down on fixed runways when those
aircraft need something more in the way of a dry lake. �Unless they
found a way to put power on for landing, they're at the whim of
turbulence and winds in the area, and a few years back (2002), Brent
Hisey got pushed off the runway centerline during a landing attempt
and nearly got himself killed in the North American P-51D Mustang
"Miss America." �They aircraft was technically "destroyed," yet Hisey
managed to rebuild her and by the following year, won the Silver at
Stead. �Two miracles in one year from that guy.

If the idea is to turn those aircraft around within one hour for the
racing they have planned, and if their designs accomodate such a slow
"Pit Stop" feature, then they should be able to accumulate enough
hours if their are no mishaps during the flight test and performance
period.

However, those craft will need the most experienced pilots in the
World because in my opinion, what they're planning to do in the
landing phase without an open area like a Dry Lake in a Desert Region
(known for unpredictable dust devils [tore an International Formula
One air racer apart in flight killing the pilot], tremendous heat,
severe crosswinds, headwinds and tailwinds, dangerous updrafts and
downdrafts and Wave-produced turbulence) could prove to be the most
dangerous issue of their flights; moreso than the climb to altitude
under full power.

i would love to know just what Stead Field you have been going to over
the last years. You are certainly not describing the one I know.