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.
Originally posted by esecallum
RICHARD CLAIMS
*snip*
Richard your calculations are totally wrong and flawed....AND APPLY TO THE SHUTTLE ONLY.!!!!
the 747 as it exists carries enough fuel in its wings to last for at least 10 hours...
modified versions can last for 20 hours....
upto 50000 feet going upwards at a speed of 500 mph takes how long does it take richard??
from above 50000 feet to 400000 feet using onboard oxidizer how long does it take travelling at 500 mph..?
then from 400000 ft to 23000 MILES how lon does it take a 747 ACCELERATING IN FREE SPACe WITHOUT ANY DRAG ON SUSTAINED THRUST?
if you work it out the flight duration is about 2 hours and yet a 747 can sustain thrust for 10 hours minimum......
do you see now?
your calcultions about 8 million litres are connected to that space shuttle...this not the same...
its a winged vehicle based on continous efficient sustained thrust....
Originally posted by RichardPrice
Originally posted by esecallum
RICHARD CLAIMS
*snip*
Richard your calculations are totally wrong and flawed....AND APPLY TO THE SHUTTLE ONLY.!!!!
the 747 as it exists carries enough fuel in its wings to last for at least 10 hours...
modified versions can last for 20 hours....
I dont need to look it up, I work close to the aviation industry and my figures are 100% correct.
The 747 has a maximum capacity of 216,840 litres. Thats all, total.
It has wet wing tanks and a centre belly tank.
And in any case it simply cannot carry the weight of fuel required.
why? the 747 is empty inside where the passengers sit and whre the lggage is carried and all that empty space cannot carry oxidizer to use above 50000 feet...
well??
upto 50000 feet going upwards at a speed of 500 mph takes how long does it take richard??
A 747 takes a good part of an hour to reach its cruising altitude of about 40,000 feet at its maximum takeoff weight of 413,000kg.
A 747 does not have a climb rate of 500mph.
even at 45 degrees....?? come on u r being wrong again..
from above 50000 feet to 400000 feet using onboard oxidizer how long does it take travelling at 500 mph..?
It will never get there.
you never gave a reason...why? maybe you dont have one??
then from 400000 ft to 23000 MILES how long does it take a 747 ACCELERATING IN FREE SPACe WITHOUT ANY DRAG ON SUSTAINED THRUST?
What sustained thrust? The engines are high bypass, it wont be producing anywhere near enough thrust to exceed the pull of gravity. The result will be an airframe stall, and a rapid descent.
but you keep forgetting AT THAT POint onboard oxidiser is being used to burn the fuel to provide thrust...
and the 777 engines or similar can eaily provide 129000 pounds of thrust each....so 4 x 129000 will support the 747 without wings.......enough for vertical flight...
if you work it out the flight duration is about 2 hours and yet a 747 can sustain thrust for 10 hours minimum......
do you see now?
Obviously you dont see.
Originally posted by esecallum
What sustained thrust? The engines are high bypass, it wont be producing anywhere near enough thrust to exceed the pull of gravity. The result will be an airframe stall, and a rapid descent.
but you keep forgetting AT THAT POint onboard oxidiser is being used to burn the fuel to provide thrust...
and the 777 engines or similar can eaily provide 129000 pounds of thrust each....so 4 x 129000 will support the 747 without wings.......enough for vertical flight...
Originally posted by kilcoo316
esecallum, all jet engines work on the basis of accelerating air through them, then newtons laws take over (equal and opposite reaction).
Without any air to accelerate, the engines you propose will only be accelerating the oxygen and fuel you have provided from within the aircraft - which is no different to a liquid fuelled rocket.
Originally posted by esecallum
What is your obsession with air??
jets work by combusting fuel with air or the oxygen in the air...
the explosive hot gases jet from the nozzal to give thrust...
Originally posted by esecallum
above 50000 feet no air so you use onboard oxidiser...to replace air or oxygen...
your turbofan is using energy from fuel/air combustion to turn the fans...so its NOT FREE which you seem to think...
Originally posted by esecallum
jet/rocket/liquid fuel whatever its called all it need to provide net lift at angle of about 45 degrees...
i mentioned te 777 engines which can generate 129000 ibs of thrust
4 engines can lift a 747 vertically
Originally posted by esecallum
i have seen hundreds of times 747 taking of from runways at nearly an angle of 45 degrees...and yet you lie saying it cant do that...
Originally posted by esecallum
in your desparate haste you cant even read what written...
Originally posted by Nipples
TO PRODUCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ENGINE'S THRUST BY ACCELERATING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ATMOSPHERIC AIR..
Originally posted by esecallum
we can EITHER send 1 kilogram out of the nozzle at 1000 m/s ORwe can send 10kg at 100 m/s...the thrust is the same...
Originally posted by esecallum
Originally posted by Nipples
TO PRODUCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ENGINE'S THRUST BY ACCELERATING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ATMOSPHERIC AIR..
so by your own admission its impossible for rocket engines to work as they dont have massive amounts of air to accelerate?
your cleary confused..and violating conservation of momentum.... look
M1XV1=M2XV2
we can EITHER send 1 kilogram out of the nozzle at 1000 m/s ORwe can send 10kg at 100 m/s...the thrust is the same...
so your obsession with large amounts of air is invalid.
as the large mass of air coming in is being exited AT A LOWER speed per above equation...
i have kept this post short so that by the time you have read the end hopefully you can still remember the start...
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
1. relatively small amounts of oxygen (at least less than a jet engine) to act as the oxidizer, for burning.
2. Plenty, plenty of fuel
And if you want this 747 to get to orbital heights and speeds (even if you use jet engines until 50,000 ft), and then slow down from orbital speeds, you will need more fuel than the plane can probably carry.
And BTW, you still haven't addressed re-entry friction.
Originally posted by esecallum
also i am not the only one busy designing 747 spaceplanes..
read this and eat your hat..
uplink.space.com...
Originally posted by Nipples
Yes you get the same MOMENTUM (and thrust, assuming zero initial momentum) for 1kg*1000m/s as 10kg*100m/s, but the energy of that flow (and thus the energy spent on getting that momentum delta) goes as the SQUARE of the velocity. Large massflows accelerated to lower velocities give equal thrust as their low-massflow high-velocity inverses for less energy. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF A HIGH BYPASS RATIO TURBOFAN ENGINE.
.