New Gliding World Altitude Record

[JohnT]

Well done the Perlan Project team.  Clearly a head for heights.

They broke their own record by 3% raising the bar to 52,172 feet.

 

Full article here:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41172587

 

[Mike]

That is impressive.  I can't imagine that kind of cold.  I think I've experienced -20 something C on a ski-lift once, and that was pretty bad

[John B (Sc)]

Oh excellent news. Thanks JohnT - I missed that information.

 

This was something that has being worked on by a number of teams, including fairly recently Steve Fosset until his death.  I think he was involved in Perlan.

Quite a few soaring pilots have flown seasons in Argentina;  the wave systems there are extraordinary, though the distances and remoteness makes all these efforts extraordinarily challenging, even before the survival at height issues. A lot of study and thought needed to manage risks reasonably.

 

For along time the height record was limited by the need for a pressure cabin -  around 48,000 ft  is the unpressurised limit.  And as Mike says , the cold as well is a major issue, both for the aircraft  structure and the crew.  

So many problems to solve. At those heights - what is the margin between stall and flutter limits? I see the wing is theoretically good to ~90,000 ft, but how quickly do the theoretical margins reduce?   How long would an emergency descent take? What limits on airbrake use and g loading turns?  Etc, etc.  How high did they need to tow - with those specially designed high altitude optimised wings, lower level soaring may have been hard.  What towed them - was it an exciting exercise for the tug pilot? 

 

It makes our UK soaring height record of 37,000 ft plus look low - and that was challenging for cold and crew physiological limits. (Set in Scotland some years back, from Aboyne.)

 

I'd really like to know more about what the systems were and what back-ups (if any) they had, so thanks again for the 'nudge'!  

 

I bet we don't see a a kit of this for  awhile - though maybe Airbus might 'sponsor' it. 

 

John B

 

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by John B (Sc)

[Caerbannog]

Cool. Now Revell needs to do a new glider kit :-)

[John B (Sc)]

47 minutes ago, Caerbannog said:

Cool. Now Revell needs to do a new glider kit :-)

 

Yes.

 

I was most impressed years ago after building their 1/32nd LS-8 to find its wingspan to fuselage length ratio was almost the exact inverse of that of the F-104 - I had a 1/32nd Hasegawa 104G and laid one on top of the other to check ! 

[JohnT]

On 9/7/2017 at 15:28, John B (Sc) said:

 

Yes.

 

I was most impressed years ago after building their 1/32nd LS-8 to find its wingspan to fuselage length ratio was almost the exact inverse of that of the F-104 - I had a 1/32nd Hasegawa 104G and laid one on top of the other to check ! 

 

One might be cruel and suggest that observation may explain why so many F104s appeared to drop out of the sky.

 

(To be fair in the end the loss ratio does not appear to have been worse than many other Cold War Warriors of the same period.)

[malpaso]

And to be even fairer to the Starfighter, it's dreadful record is down to use in a role it wasn't really designed for, unlike the sainted Lightning which is the real widow maker!

[John B (Sc)]

On 9/8/2017 at 5:43 PM, JohnT said:

 

One might be cruel and suggest that observation may explain why so many F104s appeared to drop out of the sky.

 

(To be fair in the end the loss ratio does not appear to have been worse than many other Cold War Warriors of the same period.)

 

I recall a Canadian friend who told me their drill in the event of engine failure in the CF-104 was to pull up immediately while trying the relight procedure. If  you hadn't got a relight by the time the aircraft was dropping back down through 10,000ft, you ejected.  That saved a few Canadian crews.

 

 

Malpaso, I agree it wasn't the ideal machine for low level reconnaissance or attack, though it did surprisingly well at that. For Germany, leaving complex machines with sensitive electronics out in Northern European conditions didn't help their serviceability. Nor did a ten year gap in trained NCOs and maintainers.  Some countries had an excellent record with the 104, losing very few. 

 

The Lightning had a dreadful accident record overall. Fortunately a rather good ejection seat. It was a complex and awkward design from many aspects - and multiple failures not surprising in such a tight packed airframe.  A machine successfully used well outside its original design role, but very limited too.

 

John T - yes, other Cold War machines were notably dangerous to fly. The F-100 and the F-101 come to mind. Brave and determined pilots

Edited September 9, 2017 by John B (Sc)

[Head in the clouds.]

A fantastic feat. It states'" In theory the wing can handle the kind of wind speeds found at 91000ft, but no higher". Really. I thought 52 was something to shout about, I had to chuckle to myself, if they get to that height I would love to have seen the look on a SR71 pilots face had he seen such a thing while it was in service whipping along at Mach3 and 90000ft!

You just do not expect gliders nearly on the edge of space.

 

[John R]

I once went to 32000ft in a glider with only an 18swg sheet of aluminum ( it was in the USA) between me and -50 degrees. It was a bit chilly inside.

[Aeronut]

I once 'piloted' an aircraft up to 69 000 ft but I was cheating as I was sat in a nice air conditioned box in the Arizonian desert - it was QinetiQ's Zephyr 6 solar powered UAV. The next day we only got to 49 000 ft but it was far more exciting - but that's another story.