![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:54:59 +0000, Mike Rapoport wrote:
Gee what do you think the indicated airspeed is at M.85 at FL350? It looks like the calibrated[0] airspeed is around 325mph: https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/mach-as.htm I seem to remember that Mach 0.85 is transonic, so air is actually flowing at supersonic speeds over some parts of the airplane (nose, wings, tail?) and subsonic over others. All kinds of stuff that I don't know how to predict happens then. Maybe someone here is an aerodynamicist who has a better feel for compressible flow? But, *that* is why I am skeptical of the Mythbuster's conclusion -- it seems to me that supersonic/transonic airflow anywhere would be a significant consideration -- especially if the flow happens to be over the bullet-hole. -Luke [0] IIRC, "indicated" airspeed isn't valid above Mach 0.3 because of compressibility effects -- but it has been quite some time since I took that class (and I wasn't proud of my grade) so I could be very wrong. I have just enough education on the topic to appreciate the expertise of people who actually know what they're talking about! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mythbusters Explosive Decompression Experiment | C J Campbell | Piloting | 49 | January 16th 04 07:12 AM |
More Explosive Decompression | John Galban | Piloting | 5 | January 7th 04 09:34 PM |