Talk:Ski-jump (aviation): Difference between revisions
→Nonsense??: new section |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
While I have no specific qualifications to argue this other than occasional reading of flight manuals since the 1970s, how about some grammar school physics: When an aircraft reaches the end of the runway, it has a fixed amount of potential energy which is the result of the input of the power of it's engines for the length of the takeoff run. Whatever benefit the upturn of the end of the runway has would simply be negated by the negative effects of gravity and friction on the upslope. The negative acceleration of gravity and friction would be subtracted from the positive effects of the engine thrust. In fact the friction would actually be an additional force causing a worse takeoff. On top of that, any pilot who has survived his first flight knows that if you are lacking airspeed, the absolute WORST thing you can do is have the aircraft nose pointed UP!! If the aircraft comes off that ski slope with the nose pointed up, the pilot must waste MORE energy pointing the nose lower....ANY attitude change causes additional friction between the control surface and the air. |
While I have no specific qualifications to argue this other than occasional reading of flight manuals since the 1970s, how about some grammar school physics: When an aircraft reaches the end of the runway, it has a fixed amount of potential energy which is the result of the input of the power of it's engines for the length of the takeoff run. Whatever benefit the upturn of the end of the runway has would simply be negated by the negative effects of gravity and friction on the upslope. The negative acceleration of gravity and friction would be subtracted from the positive effects of the engine thrust. In fact the friction would actually be an additional force causing a worse takeoff. On top of that, any pilot who has survived his first flight knows that if you are lacking airspeed, the absolute WORST thing you can do is have the aircraft nose pointed UP!! If the aircraft comes off that ski slope with the nose pointed up, the pilot must waste MORE energy pointing the nose lower....ANY attitude change causes additional friction between the control surface and the air. |
||
I could also wonder what sort of turbulence occurs when that negative airfoil shaped deck is pointed into the wind but I won't even go there. |
|||
I've got US$5 that says the only reason these planes are able to take off at all from these carriers is because of the reduced loads they are required to carry. Uninformed politicians may point with pride to their 'amazing new technology', but the people who design sow's ear/silk purse conversions know smoke and mirrors when they see them.[[User:Tgdf|Tgdf]] ([[User talk:Tgdf|talk]]) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
I've got US$5 that says the only reason these planes are able to take off at all from these carriers is because of the reduced loads they are required to carry. Uninformed politicians may point with pride to their 'amazing new technology', but the people who design sow's ear/silk purse conversions know smoke and mirrors when they see them.[[User:Tgdf|Tgdf]] ([[User talk:Tgdf|talk]]) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 19:34, 30 December 2016
 | Aviation Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Nonsense??
This is one of the funniest things I've ever seen since cartoons of Bob Hope's nose. I'd love to see actual design numbers on this. This concept of a ski jump looks like the usual dangerous, deadly military nonsense. Something on the order of how the American military buys fighter planes which look more 'bad ass' even if they have higher cost or lower performance than less agressive looking planes. To whit: Boeing X-32 vs Lockheed F-35, et al. If this isn't another case of somebody shoveling it to justify an unworkable something or other, I'd be VERY surprised.
While I have no specific qualifications to argue this other than occasional reading of flight manuals since the 1970s, how about some grammar school physics: When an aircraft reaches the end of the runway, it has a fixed amount of potential energy which is the result of the input of the power of it's engines for the length of the takeoff run. Whatever benefit the upturn of the end of the runway has would simply be negated by the negative effects of gravity and friction on the upslope. The negative acceleration of gravity and friction would be subtracted from the positive effects of the engine thrust. In fact the friction would actually be an additional force causing a worse takeoff. On top of that, any pilot who has survived his first flight knows that if you are lacking airspeed, the absolute WORST thing you can do is have the aircraft nose pointed UP!! If the aircraft comes off that ski slope with the nose pointed up, the pilot must waste MORE energy pointing the nose lower....ANY attitude change causes additional friction between the control surface and the air.
I could also wonder what sort of turbulence occurs when that negative airfoil shaped deck is pointed into the wind but I won't even go there.
I've got US$5 that says the only reason these planes are able to take off at all from these carriers is because of the reduced loads they are required to carry. Uninformed politicians may point with pride to their 'amazing new technology', but the people who design sow's ear/silk purse conversions know smoke and mirrors when they see them.Tgdf (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)