reply to post by luxordelphi
You mention McCarren.....perhaps that is where you reside? Doesn't matter, really....it was maybe only an example you selected:
That's 9 times at your high end so 9x58 flights an hour at McCarren = 522.
You are counting, what? Total arrivals/departures per hour at McCarren? Not relevant. Because, as you correctly noted, the airplanes aren't going
ot make contrails until up near cruising altitudes.
Therefore, if you wish to speak of the Las Vegas, Nevada, area and contrails overhead, then each and every one of those is made by a jet passing by,
en-route to somewhere other than KLAS.
But, back to the 522 per hour. How many, then, in two hours? Three? Four?
How many jets, in two, three, four hours will transition overhead a particular major city? Las Vegas is actually very busy, every day, at
altitude...a major *thoroughfare* if you will, for high altitude airplane traffic...both easterly/westerly and northerly/southerly directions.
To add -- after re-reading more from this post, I find that there still remain many misconceptions.
....there isn't a comparison here taking into account mass take-offs, bombs and exhaust which I still think had to be more visible (leaving out
water vapor caused by heat) than in today's engines.
Firstly, what on Earth do the ordinance (bombs) have to do with contrails?
Second, no....I showed the actual factual numbers to compare the old piston engines to modern jet engines, in terms of the *exhaust*. To reiterate,
it is the fuel
that provides the water vapor, in the exhaust. Specifically, the amount of fuel burned each hour (or minute, if you
prefer...just keep your units of math correct, in calculating).
Or, if you think the exhaust was "more visible" form piston engines of that era, I presume you may be referring to smoke, from the inefficient
combustion process in that old technology? Well, not really. You might see big wafts of smoke on initial engine start, on the ground. But, the
exhaust gases were not that smoky in flight.
And that doesn't even take into account how high they were when dropping bombs or trying to take out enemy bomb droppers. In other words the
'Flight Archive' is taking liberties as far as conclusions go.
How high they were, when dropping the bombs? They stayed high.....do you know what "flak" is? Staying high was prudent to remain out of range of the
AA guns. You know, there were some inventions that come out back then that greatly improved bombing accuracy, from those heights. It was a closely
guarded secret --- each side vied for better and better aim, of course.
For instance, on the Allies' side, the Norden bombsight
More history of bombing, to whet your appetite, perhaps?: Strategic bombing
You see, back to tactics (and Hollywood depictions thereof), many different techniques were used to actually deliver the bombs. Some, from "on high",
out of range of ground-based guns (but, sitting ducks for enemy fighters in the air), and if anti-aircraft emplacements are taken out, then low-level
bombing runs could be made, for better targeting accuracy.
Hollywood usually showed those, they are far more visually exciting...
If you like history and have the time, a trip to the local library will be fulfilling.....
edit on Mon 17 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)