Airplanes' Speed Could Be "Fake" :)

Aircrafts ain't land vehicles.
Unlike land vehicle, with constant gas/avtur store, an airplane's speed will ACCELERATE.
What we see is, AIRPLANE GOES LIKE LAND VEHICLE.

There is something WRONG in this reality.

There is either deliberately corrupted design or ''drama".
What ever, one thing for sure: Air is Different from Land. So do mechanism of transportation vehicles in both fields.

By logics, by acceleration mechanism, super fast flight is a piece of cake actually.

BUT....

no

Why no?

Yes.

You are confusing aircraft and space craft.
Like land vehicles, aircraft still move through the air.
As such, they will encounter drag from air resistance. This requires burning fuel to produce thrust.
As such, they can't just keep on accelerating.

Additionally, there is an optimal region where the speed provides the best rate of fuel burn per km, which makes the plane cheaper to fly at this fairly constant speed.

In space, where you need rockets or the like and no longer have air (at least no significant amount), this no longer applies and you can go very fast.

There is something WRONG in this reality.

There is either deliberately corrupted design or ''drama".
What ever, one thing for sure: Air is Different from Land. So do mechanism of transportation vehicles in both fields.

By logics, by acceleration mechanism, super fast flight is a piece of cake actually.

BUT....

But, could we add aerodynamics to the growing list of things that you have no understanding of?

You might find reading about coffin corner, that may have been the cause of a number of crashes and near catastrophes.
Coffin Corner: Where Stall And Overspeed Meet.

Quote from: Danang on December 16, 2017, 06:49:14 AM

There is something WRONG in this reality.

There is either deliberately corrupted design or ''drama".
What ever, one thing for sure: Air is Different from Land. So do mechanism of transportation vehicles in both fields.

By logics, by acceleration mechanism, super fast flight is a piece of cake actually.

BUT....

But, could we add aerodynamics to the growing list of things that you have no understanding of?

You might find reading about coffin corner, that may have been the cause of a number of crashes and near catastrophes.
Coffin Corner: Where Stall And Overspeed Meet.

Haaaa.... What causes an airplane takes off?

Bernoulli's principle is over.

You are confusing aircraft and space craft.
Like land vehicles, aircraft still move through the air.
As such, they will encounter drag from air resistance. This requires burning fuel to produce thrust.
As such, they can't just keep on accelerating.

Additionally, there is an optimal region where the speed provides the best rate of fuel burn per km, which makes the plane cheaper to fly at this fairly constant speed.

In space, where you need rockets or the like and no longer have air (at least no significant amount), this no longer applies and you can go very fast.

The speed might be limited, but not that slow for an aircraft. Even F1 reaches 400 kms/h.
There should be huge gap between both vehicles.

Again, air resistance surely exists. But its density is much much lower than solid objects flying in the air.

.

You are wrong. Please note this.

Wrong? Which one? I can't hear you ~

Haaaa.... What causes an airplane takes off?

Bernoulli's principle is over.

Why would that kill Bernoulli's principle?

How about you try dealing with one bit of ignorance at a time.

The speed might be limited, but not that slow for an aircraft. Even F1 reaches 400 kms/h.
There should be huge gap between both vehicles.

And they use a lot of fuel and have a very aerodynamic design.
Meanwhile a plane typically cruises at or above 800 km/hr
Is that the huge gap you are looking for?

Again, air resistance surely exists. But its density is much much lower than solid objects flying in the air.

What do you mean by its density?
Are you trying to say the effect of air resistance would be less on a plane?
If so, the speed of the plane counters that.
The faster you go, the greater the air resistance.

Why should a plane magically be able to accelerate even with that resistance?

What about drone, Rab?

Velocity is when you throw an object horizontally.
The object has no machine at all.

Velocity is when you throw an object horizontally.
The object has no machine at all.

No, throwing is when you throw an object horizontally.

Velocity is distance/time.

What does a machine have to do with anything?

The consequence of the throwing is, the object will go with relatively flat velocity.

If the object has a machine with spinning blades horizontally, the velocity will always increase till a certain speed. That means an acceleration happens due to the machine.

This will apply for an aircraft as well.

It should be.

Air resistance means an airplane would decelerate if it wasn't using a propeller or jet engine or something else to compensate. The fact that the engine is on is, for the most part, to maintain velocity by overcoming friction from the air. I'm not sure what part of this you aren't understanding, but an engine in an airplane can be running even if the plane is not accelerating because the plane has to overcome the friction from air resistance.

Velocity is when you throw an object horizontally.

No. Velocity is a vector, it is a measurement of the change in position w.r.t. time.
It applies vertically as well as horizontally.

The consequence of the throwing is, the object will go with relatively flat velocity.

No it won't.
It will follow a parabolic path.
You need some form of lift to keep it flat, unless you manage to throw it fast enough that it goes into an elliptical or circular or hyperbolic path.

If it is in air, the horizontal component will be reduced due to air resistance. The vertical component will increase (or become more negative) due to gravity, until it reaches terminal velocity.
Get a playing card and throw it, see what happens.
Unless you get it just right it slows down, a lot.

If the object has a machine with spinning blades horizontally, the velocity will always increase till a certain speed. That means an acceleration happens due to the machine.

Yes, where that speed is where the force due to air resistance is balanced by the thrust of the "machine"

This will apply for an aircraft as well.

It does.
That is why they don't keep accelerating like you claim.

No, acceleration can last continually as we can till the technical limit, i.e. firmament n air friction which can burn the airplane.

Again, super fast flight through out the earth is a piece of cake.


Actually.

At least at a rate that resembles the speed of the rotating earth in RET as sattelite guys claim. 

Sattelites aint exist.
Only Transponders at firmament

Air resistance means an airplane would decelerate if it wasn't using a propeller or jet engine or something else to compensate. The fact that the engine is on is, for the most part, to maintain velocity by overcoming friction from the air. I'm not sure what part of this you aren't understanding, but an engine in an airplane can be running even if the plane is not accelerating because the plane has to overcome the friction from air resistance.

The increasing n increasing n increasing speed will exel beyond mere air resistance.

No, acceleration can last continually as we can till the technical limit, i.e. firmament n air friction which can burn the airplane.

Again, super fast flight through out the earth is a piece of cake.


Actually.

I am trying to understand this point. Air resistance is not exactly "hidden information"....and the faster you go and more resistance you face, the needed power is multiplied. Kind of like the decibel system...going from 120db to 130db is exponentially louder than going from 10db to 20db.

Example, I do contract work for a company that participates in land speed comps. One of the projects this year, its previous estimated horsepower was about 2800, this year was a little over 4000. However, they only got an extra 18 mph from that. Wind resistance at high speeds is incredible and takes tons of power.

The needed power is not static but dynamic

No, acceleration can last continually as we can till the technical limit, i.e. firmament n air friction which can burn the airplane.

No, it can only last until the thrust of the engine is balancing the air resistance.

Again, super fast flight through out the earth is a piece of cake.

No it isn't as it requires too much thrust to be practical or economical.

At least at a rate that resembles the speed of the rotating earth in RET as sattelite guys claim. 

Again, they are in space and thus do not suffer from air resistance (or suffer much much much much much much much less).

IF an airplane with active rotating blades described as going velocity  like a thrown stone, there is something wrong with this description.

For airplane, the higher velocity, the more distance accomplished over time will be.

This airplane's velocity will exceed the increase of air resistance.

IF an airplane with active rotating blades described as going velocity  like a thrown stone, there is something wrong with this description.

For airplane, the higher velocity, the more distance accomplished over time will be.

This air velocity will exceed the increase of air resistance.

No, it will not.  The increase of air resistance is not linear.  You've been told this multiple times now and apparently haven't bothered to read.

As to satellites, in RET, they have to follow not only earth spinning speed, but also sun's speed while circling the galaxy.

It can't be that way. Impossible.

Quote from: Danang on December 18, 2017, 04:08:44 PM

IF an airplane with active rotating blades described as going velocity  like a thrown stone, there is something wrong with this description.

For airplane, the higher velocity, the more distance accomplished over time will be.

This air velocity will exceed the increase of air resistance.

No, it will not.  The increase of air resistance is not linear.  You've been told this multiple times now and apparently haven't bothered to read.

Both airplane's slope n air resistance will go square, and both are not equal in size. Airplane will rule all the time against air resistance.
Airplane acceleration will always occur.

As to satellites, in RET, they have to follow not only earth spinning speed, but also sun's speed while circling the galaxy.

It can't be that way. Impossible.

Why?  when they are launched they already have those speeds as they had them when on Earth.  When are you proposing they lose them?

Quote from: frenat on December 18, 2017, 04:10:39 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 18, 2017, 04:08:44 PM

IF an airplane with active rotating blades described as going velocity  like a thrown stone, there is something wrong with this description.

For airplane, the higher velocity, the more distance accomplished over time will be.

This air velocity will exceed the increase of air resistance.

No, it will not.  The increase of air resistance is not linear.  You've been told this multiple times now and apparently haven't bothered to read.

Both airplane's slope n air resistance will go square, and both are not equal in size. Airplane will rule all the time against air resistance.
Airplane acceleration will always occur.

Still wrong.  Quite simply you have no idea what you're talking about.  Air resistance is well understood.  Engineers are constantly trying to find ways to reduce air resistance and redesigning vehicles and aircraft to be more aerodynamic.  They test their designs in wind tunnels.  If what you claim is true then all of that would be unnecessary.  You're still wrong.
You could start to read up on the subject here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29
but I doubt you will.

This airplane's velocity will exceed the increase of air resistance.

It's not magic.
It can't magically overcome air resistance.

There is a nice simple test:
Hop on a plane and see if they still have their engines running. If they do, they can't magically overcome air resistance like you claim.

As to satellites, in RET, they have to follow not only earth spinning speed, but also sun's speed while circling the galaxy.

It can't be that way. Impossible.

And that is fine because they are in space where there is insignificant air resistance.