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.

 

Who says Planes can't fly in the UK!

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty


Also... jets can't fly any distance at low altitude because they are designed to cruise at high altitudes in high winds. At lower altitudes, the winds aren't powerful enough and they would burn far too much fuel.


It has nothing at all to do with winds. Jet engines are just much more efficient at high altitudes where the air is much less dense. Aerodynamic drg is a function of, among other things, air density. An indicated airspeed of 250 knots at or close to sea level and 15 C ambient gives a true air speed of pretty close to just that - 250 knots, while the same indicated airspeed at 12,000 meters at -45C gives a true airspeed of about 445 knots or about .90 Mach. So the specific fuel consumption at sea level is almost double that at cruise altitude, even ignoring the effect of the density effects on fuel air mixture..




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
This is how the skies was when i was growing up, even then with jets flying the sky were clear, any person over 40years old will tell you ,Yes we had jets and air traffic Manchester airport,Liverpool heathrow all types of people getting on planes with loads of cargo we still had the same choice at asda ,sainsburys,but difference being the planes contrails evaperated back then within 10 mins normally ,so its either the fuel or the engines are doing it ,but we had jets i went on a 747 pan am to seattle from manchester when i was 12 and i can tell you the plane trails dident linger like today so i am glad this volcanoes ash came over uk,
so its been ace the last few days,Especialy for the kids everyone is out sunbathing chattingand playing games here in manchester,Outside games not ps3 and communicateing ,more dust please for me and our street ,we dont use planes anyway except by buying stupid produce fresh from otherside of earth ,which we wouldnt miss if stopped by the gov under a air polution act ,
propeller planes are safer if dust or sand storm hits anyway

VOLCANO =BIG KARMA FOR EUROPE OVER STIFFING ICELAND IN TIME OF NEED

[edit on 4/17/2010 by dashar]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AlwaysQuestion
 


The volcanic ash is generally concentrated above about 20,000 feet.

Of course, light airplanes such as General Aviation (as we call it her ein the States) operate well below those altitudes.

Many of your commuter-type airplanes (turbo-props) also operate lower, expecially on shorter stage-length flihgts, between close city pairs.

I think it's already been pointed out that the big jets, while they certainly can operate at the lower altitudes, the fuel efficiency is severely affected. Thus, limiting range. And making it impractical to travel any great distances....any extra fuel to compensate for the higher rates of consumption means less payload.

Besides, it is far better to err on the side of caution, since the volcanic ash is virtually invisible, and even in thin concentrations it can cause severe damage.

It is not visible on radar (radar requires water to reflect the transmitted energy, in order to detect weather. That is its sole purpose, and volcanic ash is dry, and has no reflectivity).



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Well last night I noticed that there was a lot of dust on my car's windscreen. So I had to clean it of with the windscreen wipers it seemed to fall during the night. It is a clear day today and there are proper-driven planes flying and at least one glider.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
F-18 Damage (it's in Finnish, but there's pictures)


Just to be pedantic, the picture of the jet in that article is not an F-18, looks very much like a Hawk, used for fast jet training mostly, just like the red arrows use.

Still would be as susceptible to the ash as an F-18, more so prob as it only has the one engine.

edit: my mistake, I just translated the article.


The Air Force has examined Thursday and Friday during the Lapland Air Command F-18 Hornet fighter jets, which flew in Thursday morning training flight in northern Finnish airspace. At that time, Sky was in general use.
Machines after the decline in machinery and engines are inspected inlet was observed from potato flour, volcanic ash and dust. One of the Hornet's engine is tähystetty fiberoskooppikameralla. The images revealed that the already short-term flying tuhkapölyssä could cause significant damage, the airplane engine.


I think they mean they have hawks on standby for the F-18's?


[edit on 17/4/2010 by Now_Then]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Good eye, the plane in that pic actually is a Hawk. I'm guessing the damage in the other photos is from the Hornet? Who knows...

Here's another link, with the same photo's. Good thing they're dated eh?


Link


No ash here in Nevada! A few high clouds and no wind to speak of...might have to go rack up an hour or two in the ol' log.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by lernmore]


CX

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
There have been loads of small planes like these flying around over the past couple of days, one went past here about 20 minutes ago.

No BS as far as that pics concerned, as someone else has said, it's the bigger planes that they aren't going to take a chance with.

Skies are beautifully clear here, not even a dot of cloud around, certainly no visible dust. That said, a friend of mine has just been to Eastbourne and said that the dust was settling on peoples cars.

CX.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
The sky has been the clearest that I have seen it in many years.

We've had low-flying light aircraft passing over but they don't fly as high as passenger planes.

If passenger planes flew at low altitude they would burn up all their fuel before they reached their destination.

I have seen NO clouds or ash plumes ...or anything to suggest that its not safe to fly.

The aeronautical engineer on the news (wish I'd got his name) was extremely vague and in my opinion was FEAR MONGERING.
"There's a lot of BAD STUFF up there and we were running away from it"
Exact quote.

Airease



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Airease
 



I have seen NO clouds or ash plumes ...or anything to suggest that its not safe to fly.


And.....BOOM!

Ignorance makes another giant leap, and science and technology are thwarted....

Truly disturbing, and bodes ill for the future....



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
forecast...




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I should imagine that the invisible volcanic ash would be the most dangerous. It's probably best that these planes don't fly.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Robert Reynolds
 



It's probably best that these planes don't fly.


Yes, and the airlines are losing all those hundreds of millions of Dollars and Euros and Pounds because they want to???

Losing revenue, keeping airplanes on the ground, going to have to deal with all of the displace, disgruntled passengers, eventually, to make up for the backlog?

Yeah, of course --- this is some dastardly plot, all designed to increase business for the passenger trains and Channel ferry companies, right? (but, naturally, the French rail workers choose NOW to go on strike? Great planning, there...)


Iceland doesn't exist, it is a 'conspiracy' of mapmakers, and we all know that volcanoes are figments of some scientist's imagination.

Let's all embrace the ignorance, for it is that sort of feel-good woo-hoo that so many seem drawn to.

The rest of us prefer to stay focused in reality, and logic and science.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
I think your imagination might be running a bit wild there, but while we're on the subject of conspiracies...if it was one I'd have thought it was probably to do with lock down or clearing the skys for an alien invasion and probably not the decision of the airlines. As for your faith in science, well that's admirable, but history would dictate that science is often wrong.

I'd be interested to know what the ban on flying was like when Mt. St. Helens had a coughing fit.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
lol just because the ash is not visible in the sky or on cars does NOT mean it isnt there.... Come on guys, deny ignorance do not embrace it. This is not some giant conspiracy like OMG THERES DUST EVERYWHERE DONT GO OUTSIDE!!!!!

The stuff is really hard to see but can royally mess up things like jet engines. Would you take a chance and fly a jet with all the dust around? Only if you were embracing stupidity/ignorance and you would certainly be alone up there. While you were still airborne that is.


Imagine for a second that you arent on a conspiracy site and you are some important airline owner guy. Would you rather lose money now or lose money PLUS replace all of your planes or at the very least alot of parts? Lawsuits for deaths and injuries, rescue and cleanup effort costs I am sure, etc.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by A-E-I-Owned-You]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join