mrfox

Almaz. Why? 5 words- Self defense rapid fire cannon

Interesting that the two data points that you happened to have picked is way above best glide speed, not to mention beyond the drag divergent mach of the aircraft, where transonic drag effects dominate. Do you think that is a good example to demonstrate gliding performance? So the graph states the data is from 37000' in its title. How does that mean that it is completely different for sea level conditions? Please Elaborate. So you are saying these "rules of thumb" are not only inaccurate, but completely wrong, and reality is the complete opposite? Please elaborate.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80t-80.pdf Page 371-72 The effect of gross weight on glide performance may be difficult to appreciate. Since L/D(max) of a given airplane configuration will occur at a specific value of C(L), the gross weight of the airplane will not affect the glide ratio if the airplane is operated at the optimum C(L),. Thus, two airplanes of identical aerodynamic configuration but different gross weight could glide the same distance from the same altitude. Of course, this fact would be true only if both airplanes are flown at the specific C(L), to produce L/D(max). The principal difference would be that the heavier airplane must fly at a higher airspeed to support the greater weight at the optimum C(L),. In addition, the heavier airplane flying at the greater speed along the same flight path would develop a greater rate of descent. The effect altitude on glide performance is insignificant if there is no change in L/D(max). Generally, the glide performance of the majority of airplanes is subsonic and there is no noticeable variation of L/D(max), with altitude. Any specific airplane configuration at a particular gross weight will require a specific value of dynamic pressure to sustain flight at the C(L), for L/D(max). Thus, the airplane will have a best glide speed which is a specific value of equivalent airspeed (EAS) independent of altitude. For convenience and simplicity, this best glide speed is specified as a specific value of indicated airspeed (IAS) and compressibility and position errors are neglected. The principal effect of altitude is that at high altitude the true airspeed (TAS) and rate of descent along the optimum glide path are increased above the low altitude conditions. However, if L/D(max) is maintained, the glide angle and glide ratio are identical to the low altitude conditions.

Negative. Reynolds number in the case of airfoils, is a property of the environment - it is useful if you want to compare the behavior of vehicles of vastly different scales, or how a 747 would fly in a vastly different atmospheric environment, such as on mars. It does not vary in a meaningful manner given the flight regime of a subsonic, atmospheric vehicle. A 747 consists of more then just a wing. You are off by a factor of 50 in terms of the reynolds number for the entire aircraft - its closer to 2 billion. And the trend does not hold as you assume. Once the scale of the problem results in very large reynolds numbers, viscous forces become inconsequential and the flow is basically inertial. You have managed to describe the concept of induced drag in a very complicated and round-about way. It may be intuitive, but it is absolutely wrong. A heavily loaded airplane has the same glide ratio as an empty one. Ask any sailplane pilot why they carry ballast. You are still stuck on the fact that a pilot would approach at normal landing speed. With no power available, the pilot will maintain best glide speed (for the 747, Vref+80, appox 5.5 degs AOA - From actual Boeing 747-400 manuals I have access to at work.) until he/she is assured that the landing site is made, and only then will start slowing down moments before touchdown, bleeding off energy to ensure a slower, more survivable landing - just like a space shuttle or a X-15 landing. Why didn't they use the starter?

Which is plenty of energy for a trike, considering it also has potential energy of altitude to trade off. But dont take my word for it. raanz.org.nz/training/manual.pdf‎ Page 45

The space shuttle has a subsonic glide ratio of 4.5. It glides and lands just fine.

A typical airliner, 777 included, has a much better glide ratio then light aircraft - over 15 generally. Glide ratio is constant as long as the aircraft is properly trimmed for gliding - it does not change as a function of altitude, it only varies as a function of angle of attack. And for powered aircraft, best l/d always occurs below Vy, the only time the two values equal to each other is at the absolute ceiling of the aircraft - where climb rate equals zero. Lastly, a 777 has only 2 engines under the best of circumstances! And the ability to glide to a landing has less to do with an aircrafts glide ratio and much more to do with its overall energy state - the space shuttle lands unpowered just fine even with its horrible glide ratio.

There has been multiple instances where commercial airliners had to glide after losing all engines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding

I see a rube goldberg machine. Again, ask yourself this - thermodymically speaking, where is the energy coming from in this system, and to where and how is it flowing?

2.do/use something in anger to do or use something for the first time, or in a real situation: He joined the club last month, but has yet to kick a ball in anger. http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/anger_1

Your premise is wrong. The primary thing that eventually stops the booms from rotating, in or out of atmosphere, is the torque from the the magnetic field.

Then the system will come to rest. The torque is where you are getting the electricity from. Think of it this way - If you are to make a rotating space-station, using a electric motor in the hub, would it require power to spin up? A generator is just a motor in reverse.

The magnetic field will apply a torque to the spacecraft (and vice versa), and eventually both will end up rotating at the pretty much the same speed. The amount of power generated will equal the impulse applied by the thrusters, minus the momentum gained by the spacecraft from the axle, minus losses. The first law of thermo always applies.

Yup. "Moar boosters required!" Obviously the tradeoff was a good one, but this is only obvious in hindsight. Imagine trying to argue the reliability of multiple, mission critical dockings, beyond ground station tracking/control/coverage, with only the experience of a few Mercury/Vostok flights under your belt. If only Korolev had won this particular argument with his original Soyuz design back in 1962 (Earth orbit rendezvous - 5x R7 launches, LEO assembly), the Soviets might've very well beaten the Americans to the moon.

It was one of the many designs that was explored. As mentioned above, the direct ascent would've required a really big rocket, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked. Had that path been selected, the development effort that was expended towards rendezvous and docking would've been instead poured into rocket research. In the "anything goes" era of the space race, the technologies were developed for the mission goals defined - not the other way around. The Soyuz, as mentioned, is a good counter-point of what else could've worked. The Soyuz orbital module, a good sized hunk of hardware, is attached to the top of the crew capsule and launched in this configuration. The Launch Escape System pulls the whole contraption clear of the rocket stack, then separates the crew capsule which lands under parachute. It was successfully used in anger back in 1983. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L

This is even better then the MIT one! Any more?

This is why I love this forum.... How trippy! And open source! And in Unity3D! Relativistic effects mod for KSP anyone?

ummm.... gents, its been done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Space_eXploration_Team http://ddeville.com/derek/CSXT.htm

The UR-700 used such a concept http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm

You are confusing evolution with intelligent design.

Or is it the evolution of the human brain that provided humans the intelligence to hunt, and hence the regular consumption of meat? Chicken or egg?

Heres the delimma, which brings the discussion full circle - why is killing for food ok, emphatically speaking? (this is assuming you have both the means and the choice to go vegeterian of course)

Along the same line of thought, a common domesticated pig - the kind that is slaughtered for food - posesses similar cognitive abilities as a normal human 3 year old. You can all guess where this question leads.

If we differ on the same level as the example given above, we would be lacking the capacity to comprehend the intentions, values, or meaning of what is to happen, just like how your intestinal bacteria has no idea you just took some penicillin for the flu and are about to wipe them out.

^this:cool: Morality at its core is a social construct. As we cannot yet enter a mutually consentual contract with any group of animals (individuals, such as pets or work animals, can be exceptions) outside of our own species, it is illogical to project the concept of rights and liberties to them, as they do not have the capacity to reciprocate.