It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Internatiomnal space station actually within an ordinairy airplane..

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are you going to specify these factors that are relevant here?




posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Thrust to weight, weight, G loads, structural reinforcements.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

It still can only withstand about 2.5-2.8Gs. That's about normal for aircraft that size. It pulls 1.8 pulling out of the dive.

Faster doesn't mean anything. The SR-71 was faster than any manned air breathing aircraft built, but couldn't pull Gs for anything without breaking apart.

The F-94 was slower, but had a better thrust to weight, could pull more Gs, and was designed to withstand forces no transport built can withstand.
edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: choos




it also weighs a hell of alot more..


Again, irrelevant since it obviously has a higher power/weight ratio.




it also isnt purely about speed.. its about maintaining flight at zero g.


What problems does it face that the F-94 doesn't face?




a large heavy aircraft has enough trouble maintaining high altitudes and it needs to climb at speed as well?


Trouble maintaining high altitudes? You are talking about a plane that has a cruising altitude of above 10k.

Granted, climb rate is lower.(so I guess it is relevant)


edit on 20-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The A310-300 has a 0.314 thrust to weight ratio. The F-94 had a thrust to weight ratio of 0.43. Which was higher now?
edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




It still can only withstand about 2.5-2.8Gs. That's about normal for aircraft that size. It pulls 1.8 pulling out of the dive.


Do you have a source for that limit of the reinforced plane?

Btw, Choos came up with 2.5 g's puliing out of of an extended dive. So it is able to withstand that.

Anyways, what about terminal velocity? I am not sure, but at altitudes below let's say 10 k is it going to keep accelerating in non powered flight?
edit on 20-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

Again, irrelevant since it obviously has a higher power/weight ratio.


why is it irrelevant??

how much does an a300 weigh?? how much thrust?
how much does an f-94 weigh? how much thrust?

power to weight ratio or thrust to weight ratio has little to do with maximum speeds.




What problems does it face that the F-94 doesn't face?


mass and a hell of alot of it.

how much does an a300 weigh compared to an f-94??
in a climb do you think that an a300 needs to lift that weight it carries??




Trouble maintaining high altitudes? You are talking about a plane that has a cruising altitude of above 10k.

Granted, climb rate is lower.(so I guess it is relevant)


it uses high velocity to maintain altitude. without high velocity there is no high altitude for an a300
but since a lighter aircraft doesnt need to support as much weight it can maintain the same altitude at a lower velocity.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok, so what makes the A300 faster?



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Ok, but an A300 also has much bigger wings generating way more lift.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

It's going to keep accelerating until the structure can't withstand it anymore. If they aren't careful they'll go supersonic and not be able to recover.

It's not reinforced. The current aircraft was reinforced back to normal commercial standards from a VIP configuration after the Luftwaffe retired it. It doesn't need to be reinforced as it doesn't go beyond the 2.5G limit of commercial aircraft.
edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So what about terminal velocity? Why would it keep accelerating in a non powered dive with air density increasing?


On 8 June 2004, the specially strengthened 'Zero-G' Airbus A300 aircraft will take off for the first of three consecutive flight days.


But it is strengthened.

Are you saying it was "weakened" again?

Regardless, strengthening such a plane is possible and obviously done before, and I assume this would make the plane able to withstand more g's.
edit on 20-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Speed has a lot of factors involved. Thrust to weight deals with how fast you can recover speed after a maneuver, how much weight you can take off with, etc. The A310 is designed to cruise efficiently at fairly high altitude, and has a wing designed for that. Fighters are designed for hard high G maneuvers, and speed.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

It was strengthened back to production standard. When it was a VIP aircraft it had some structural frames weakened from production to alter it for the modifications to a VIP aircraft. A standard commercial aircraft is designed to withstand 2.5Gs, and can withstand a little higher than that. The zero G flights pull 1.8 at the bottom of the arc for 20 seconds. That's well within the limit they're designed for.
edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Now you are just ignoring specific points I made.


On 8 June 2004, the specially strengthened 'Zero-G' Airbus A300 aircraft will take off for the first of three consecutive flight days.


Here it says it is specially strengthened, I assume especially for parabolic flights. Not sure what you are talking about. Source? You were mentioning an A310 earlier, I am talking about an A300.

You say it can withstand 2.5 g's.

So according to Choos' calculation?, it could withstand pulling out of an extended dive.

Again, what about terminal velocity?



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: choos

Ok, but an A300 also has much bigger wings generating way more lift.


it does generate more lift, but it needs to because it is lifting so much more weight.

a lighter aircraft doesnt need to lift so much weight so it doesnt need to fly as fast to maintain the same altitude translating to the lighter aircraft having greater maneuverability at that altitude.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: choos




it does generate more lift, but it needs to because it is lifting so much more weight.


Yes, obviously, my point is that this would cancel out the difference in weight you cited

Any comments on your 2.5 g that it actually can withstand?

Or on how it supposedly keeps accelerating in a non powered dive when there is such a thing as terminal velocity due to increasing air density?
edit on 20-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

You say it can withstand 2.5 g's.

So according to Choos' calculation?, it could withstand pulling out of an extended dive.

Again, what about terminal velocity?


you are mistaken, i didnt include any g force calculations.. i was only working out the speed that the aircraft would be at roughly to maintain 1 minute of zero g experience..



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The A310 is the currently used aircraft, and is a derivative of the 300. The A300 has been retired and the 310 is the current aircraft.


But while the aircraft is operating inside the normal 2.5g design limit of a civil airliner, its radical flight pattern is very hard on the structure. More than 13,000 parabolas in nearly 18 years of service wore out the old Zero-G, an A300 that was the third built by Airbus, so it was retired in October 2014.

www.flightglobal.com...

Any strengthening done would be to allow it to carry extra monitoring equipment, and to the engine mounts, although it wouldn't be required.

The aircraft would eventually reach terminal velocity and stop accelerating, but could and would accelerate past mach one whole doing so. At that point any attempt to pull out would exceed the G limits and risk the structure failing. During the extended dive prior to breaking up, Egypt Air 990 was estimated to have reached mach 0.99 or so.
edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: choos




it does generate more lift, but it needs to because it is lifting so much more weight.


Yes, obviously, my point is that this would cancel out the difference in weight you cited

Any comments on your 2.5 g that it actually can withstand?

Or on how it supposedly keeps accelerating in a non powered dive when there is such a thing as terminal velocity due to increasing air density?


it counteracts the weight.. but the mass is still there.. a lighter aircraft is always more maneuverable because it doesnt need to move that mass around.. its partially why they aim for lightweight with fairly powerful engines for the redbull airrace instead of mig 25's.

the 2.5g was a random guess not a calculation.. and when a manufacturer say an aircraft can withstand so and so g doesnt mean you can fly at those g's everyday.

im not taking terminal velocity into account, because if i did it would make the 1 minute zero g experience even more impossible as the vomit comet most likely wont be able to reach speeds of mach 1.4, and if it could the pilots most definitely are not in control.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The vids we are discussing were made prior to that date if I am not mistaken.

Regarding Egypt 990.


FDR data indicated that the elevator surfaces remained in a split condition (with the left surface commanding nose up and the right surface commanding nose down) until the FDR and CVR stopped recording.


Seems this would cause an out of control dive. Not the same stresses involved.







 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join