I'd prefer VALID raw data whatever it is, than text book stuff. But too bad nowadays both are extremely hard to find. (VALID ones)
To create an airplane go much faster, that only requires basic physics, with freedom.
No, not with freedom, with shitloads of fuel making it far too inefficient.
"The earth goes circling the sun."
This makes such journey become impossible.
Why?
Are you capable of making a rational argument, or just dismissing things as impossible?
It's about the power. Increase the power, then super fast flight will manifest.
Yes, superfast, super expensive, and likely super dangerous flight.
Planes could easily be built to go faster, but they would be far less effecieint, i.e. it would require far more fuel to travel the same distance.
Concorde, a supersonic jet which could carry up to 128 passengers, consumes fuel at a rate of roughly 22000 l/h, while travelling at roughly Mach 2 (2179 km/h), or roughly 10 L per km.
Meanwhile, a 737-300, a subsonic turbofan craft which could carry up to 149 passengers, has a fuel capacity of 20100 L and a maximum range of 4176 km, which gives a rate of roughly 5 L per km.
Notice the difference?
So sure, you can go faster, but you need to burn a lot more fuel because you need to provide a lot more thrust to compensate for the increased drag.
Do you know one of the main reason the Concorde stopped being used?
It wasn't profitable.
A ticket on one would cost about the same as a first class ticket on a normal plane.
People preferred the cheaper price or better condition of the more efficient craft.
S=½at² is a magic formula for an aircraft.
No, that is the "magic" formula for an object in free fall, where it has a constant acceleration, i.e. no air resistance.
It does not apply to a plane, at all, as the acceleration of a plane is not constant.
Instead, assuming you use a constant thrust (which the planes don't, they throttle back at cruise for maximum economy), you have a formula akin to:
a=(T-kv
2)/m
This means you no longer have a simple case of v=at, s=0.5*at
2PS. Don't use that formula for explaining gravity. That's horrible.
i.e. don't use it for what it actually works for.
Why not?
What makes it horrible?
Why is so hard to increase the power, installing more propellers, fixing the design, even detaching the wings.
It makes it less efficient.
Removing the wings would mean it can't fly.
Better ignorant about craps, afterwards building own ideas.
It worked all the time.
Sure, if it actually is crap.
It is far worse to be ignorant of reality and waste time and money following something which has already been shown to be crap.