Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind

  • 39 Replies
  • 875 Views
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2020, 01:54:55 AM »
FFS.  Please don’t derail this further with more shuttle  conspiracy bollocks.

You made a daft claim based on nothing but incredulity and your feels.  Just admit you hadn’t actually thought about it and leave it at that.

There were supposed to be 8 orb weavers on board that shuttle. Where the F are they?

You answer that, and you answer what happens to anything that dares re enter the earth after leaving

1.  Dead, because the heat shield failed.

2.  Alive, if the re-entry is successful.

And so what?  Pointless deflection. 

Are you sticking with your story that it’s better to re-enter atmosphere engine first or not?

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2020, 02:57:03 AM »
They don't destroy the vehicle when they are used at forward speed. Try it with a car with mechanical gears and you will destroy the gearbox
Again no comment on the aircraft should have forward mounted engines.

That's because you are a victim of your own confirmation bias.
Projection much?

And these 'heat shields' you speak of are nothing more than fanciful science fiction.
So heat shields can't work, but a rocket blasting out super-heated exhaust gas can?
You not understanding something doesn't make it fiction.

Go look at a muffler furnace and take a look at the ceramic bricks used to insulate it, bricks which can allow temperatures of 1500 C inside yet are just warm to the touch outside.

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2020, 04:42:26 AM »
Hey guys,
Let talk about how much wind is dangerous for plane->
With this in mind, horizontal winds (also known as “crosswinds”) in excess of 30-35 kts (about 34-40 mph) are generally prohibitive of take-off and landing. As far as how this happens, it depends on where you are in flight.

Ooh.  A new kid.  Hi Newbie.  Whatcha got in your lunchbox, Newbie?

OK, I’m thinking about it, and thinking wind is most dangerous for planes when you want to be going from on the ground to in the air or vice versa.  ie take off and landing.  Relative speed between the ground and air could make that tricky. 

When you’re just flying in the air, steady wind can either help you get where you are going faster, or you have to put more time and fuel into overcoming it.  Turbulence can give you a rough ride and can sometimes be hazardous, so best avoided.

Would you like to explain what you think is happening and how it’s relevant?


*

sokarul

  • 17472
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2020, 10:55:49 AM »
The OP in that thread is worded poorly. The ball is not dead.

The idea of the 1000 MPH wind is dead though.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2020, 02:53:37 PM »
I found his reddit post which goes with context of OP
And it is pretty much entirely wrong.
If you go to a high enough altitude so the force on the plane cannot move it, then the plane can't fly.

Planes rely upon the air to fly. The use it to generate lift, and their air breathing engines need it to provide thrust.
No air, no plane.

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2020, 02:58:42 PM »
I found his reddit post which goes with context of OP
And it is pretty much entirely wrong.
If you go to a high enough altitude so the force on the plane cannot move it, then the plane can't fly.

Planes rely upon the air to fly. The use it to generate lift, and their air breathing engines need it to provide thrust.
No air, no plane.

That sub is now floded with such debates. Major glober said that planes need to move 5.9° to account for rotation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LevelHeadedFE/comments/hakgmz/the_1000_mph_winds_does_not_stand_scrutiny/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share


That seems massive. If they didn't move plane, then it will be off my miles! Some of millions of pilots must have made such mistake, forgetig to drift and missed target. Like, how that didn't happen?

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2020, 03:08:39 PM »
That seems massive. If they didn't move plane, then it will be off my miles!
My point is that the air does move planes. That is because they fly IN THE AIR!

That also means that the plane doesn't actually need to fly 5.9 degrees from due south to maintain a heading of due south relative to Earth.
Instead you would need to fly a heading which averages 5.9 degrees from due south to go directly south without following the rotation of Earth. But in reality it would vary as you travel along Earth.

The important part you should look at in that thread is the acceleration required.

*

rabinoz

  • 26273
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2020, 06:29:08 PM »
I found his reddit post which goes with context of OP
And it is pretty much entirely wrong.
If you go to a high enough altitude so the force on the plane cannot move it, then the plane can't fly.

Planes rely upon the air to fly. The use it to generate lift, and their air breathing engines need it to provide thrust.
No air, no plane.

That sub is now floded with such debates. Major glober said that planes need to move 5.9° to account for rotation:

Posted by u/riffraffs
The "1,000 Mph winds" does not stand scrutiny

No, no one "said that planes need to move 5.9o to account for rotation"! Read what was actually written this time!
"the aircraft would steer a heading of 5.9o from due south

Quote from: u/riffraffs
There is no "1,000 mph wind" because wind speed is measure as relative to the ground directly below the measurement point.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Some calculations and this shows that the aircraft would steer a heading of 5.9o from due south to maintain an due south track.

The plane's autopilot can handle that.

For shits and giggles, I decided to figure out the acceleration needed to go from 0 to 1,600Kph in the 8.333 hours the trip would take. An online calculator shows to go from 0 Kph to 1600Kph over 8 1/3 hours you need to accelerate at 0.015 m/s2
Big deal!

I cannot see what is so hard to understand in all this - the Earth and the atmosphere (up to over 100 km) rotate together as one system so there never is any question of and 1000 mph wind!

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #39 on: June 18, 2020, 05:24:10 AM »
I decided to do some back of the envelope calculations to see how this might work. I hope I've got this right, so here goes.

Taking figures for the Mercury Atlas system as an example (all figures approximate) and using metric tonnes (1 metric tonne(t) = 1000kg), total weight was around 120t. 1% of this (1.2t) was the payload (i.e the capsule) and 94% (112.8t) was the fuel.

So just to make this clear, if you want to launch a one tonne payload into orbit, you need a heck of a lot of fuel. The larger the payload, the more fuel you need.

If you want to use fuel to get back down again, then let's just for argument's sake say you need half the fuel to get down that you needed to get up. So 50% of 94% of 120t. That's 56.4t of additional fuel. But because you have to take this extra fuel all the way up, it becomes part of the payload. So add 56.4t to your 1.2t capsule and your payload is now 57.6t. But since we know the payload needs to be 1% of the total weight of the system, that means our rocket is now 5760t, of which 96% (5414.4t) will need to be fuel in order to get the capsule plus the extra fuel for descent into orbit. Subtract the original fuel load and you now need an additional 5301.6t of additional fuel you don't need at all if you use the accepted re-entry method.

So you've turned a compact, simple rocket into a giant beast carrying an extra 5 million kilos of extra fuel you didn't need.