'Lockheed-Martin'

Tell me - how do the Spitfire and Mustang look like they're doing 500mph when they're standing still, yet the F35 looks like it's standing still when it's doing 500mph?

They don't make 'em like they used to...
 
Here's one they got right - reminds me of the YF-23 actually.
Mean, too...

[YOUTUBE]eCUQxnYbLl0[/YOUTUBE]
 
Skittles said:
Tell me - how do the Spitfire and Mustang look like they're doing 500mph when they're standing still, yet the F35 looks like it's standing still when it's doing 500mph?

They don't make 'em like they used to...
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to recalibrate your eyeballs! LOL!!! :icon_lol:

Ken
 
Skittles said:
Tell me - how do the Spitfire and Mustang look like they're doing 500mph when they're standing still, yet the F35 looks like it's standing still when it's doing 500mph?

They don't make 'em like they used to...
Click to expand...


That's an easy one, pure size has a lot to do with it. F-15s, F-22s and F-35s are all actually very large aircraft. I've seen an F-15 in flight with a B-17, and I was shocked at how comparable (in perception only) they seemed to be. The old piston fighters were tiny! That's why they look like they're going so fast. If you've ever seen a modern fighter do a 700knot pass right in front of you at about 200AGL, you wouldn't say it looked like it was going slow.

Take the C-5 for example. C-5s, I believe, are capable of very standard approach speeds in the 140knot range, similar to most jets. They positively look like they're hovering at Vref, and at 320KIAS they still look slow due to their massive size. C-17s, which occasionally have approach speeds in the 120s, really look like they're standing still.
 
tigisfat said:
That's an easy one, pure size has a lot to do with it. F-15s, F-22s and F-35s are all actually very large aircraft. I've seen an F-15 in flight with a B-17, and I was shocked at how comparable (in perception only) they seemed to be. The old piston fighters were tiny! That's why they look like they're going so fast. If you've ever seen a modern fighter do a 700knot pass right in front of you at about 200AGL, you wouldn't say it looked like it was going slow.

Take the C-5 for example. C-5s, I believe, are capable of very standard approach speeds in the 140knot range, similar to most jets. They positively look like they're hovering at Vref, and at 320KIAS they still look slow due to their massive size. C-17s, which occasionally have approach speeds in the 120s, really look like they're standing still.
Click to expand...

I can testify to that statement. I remember driving on base once where the road went just in front of the runway. A C-5 flew over me on approach and I thought I was seeing a total sun eclipse. LOL The shadow seemed to take 5 mins. to move over me.
 
Lionheart said:
With enough power, you can make a red brick do light speed.

:d
Click to expand...


According to Einstein's theories, you would need unlimited power. As the speed increases closer to the speed of light so does the mass of the object. Unlimited mass will take unlimited energy.

Unless things have changed recently, only subatomic particles have been able to be accelerated beyond the speed of light.

So, to go faster than the sped of light you would need to get around current theory or use things like worm holes to shorten the distance.
 
jmig said:
According to Einstein's theories, you would need unlimited power. As the speed increases closer to the speed of light so does the mass of the object. Unlimited mass will take unlimited energy.

Unless things have changed recently, only subatomic particles have been able to be accelerated beyond the speed of light.

So, to go faster than the sped of light you would need to get around current theory or use things like worm holes to shorten the distance.
Click to expand...

The problem is Einstein's theory presumed space and time was fixed. It seems the state of the theory today holds this is not true. It says now that space and times are in fact warpable, meaning that space can be forced to bend over on itself and shorten the distance traveled.

Ken
 
Ken Stallings said:
The problem is Einstein's theory presumed space and time was fixed. It seems the state of the theory today holds this is not true. It says now that space and times are in fact warpable, meaning that space can be forced to bend over on itself and shorten the distance traveled.

Ken
Click to expand...

Good luck with that :icon_lol:

Although I do think that Einstein actually described space-time curvature in his general theory of relativety.

It's a shame that no-one in my generation will get a hold on this, nor will they for the next 100 generations.
 
Ken Stallings said:
The problem is Einstein's theory presumed space and time was fixed. It seems the state of the theory today holds this is not true. It says now that space and times are in fact warpable, meaning that space can be forced to bend over on itself and shorten the distance traveled.
Click to expand...

Didn't that have something to do with mass of objects?

So if you made a ship the would artificially weigh incredibly much, you could cover large distances in a very short time span indeed.
 
Bjoern said:
Didn't that have something to do with mass of objects?

So if you made a ship the would artificially weigh incredibly much, you could cover large distances in a very short time span indeed.
Click to expand...

It did have a fundamental basis on the mass of objects, but not quite in that way lol.

Essentially as an object moves towards the speed of light its mass increases by infinite amounts, meaning that to propel it you need infinite amounts of energy. Obviously we don't have infinite energy, there isn't infinite energy in the entire universe, so it's impossible (for now). Nothing with mass can go faster than light.
 
Skittles said:
Good luck with that :icon_lol:

Although I do think that Einstein actually described space-time curvature in his general theory of relativety.

It's a shame that no-one in my generation will get a hold on this, nor will they for the next 100 generations.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. That part of his theory was proven when astronomers were able to photograph the light from a star which was behind another large object. The high gravatation bent the light around the object making it look to be on one side, rather than behind.

Ken, it is Newtonian Physics which sees the world as a fixed and solid thing. This works well for large objects but not for the atomic objects and smaller.

I feel like Helldiver here, you guys are maing me remember things I studied a Looooonng time ago. I can't promise I am accurate. But, if they ever discover the elusive (so far) gravity particle and understand it, we may get somewhere.

It seems (again if I remember correctly) that gravity is instantaneous. Distance has no bearing. In other words and gravational pull from our sun on us is felt exactally at the same time as a gravitational pull from our sun is felt on Pluto or another star. The magnitude is all that is different. The magnitude of the gravity pull is depended on the distance between the two objects.
 
This is all a long way from the F-35...
But gravity is really interesting.
I suppose when they finally find the Higgs Bosun, they'll indirectly figure out what gravity is.
No one has.
You can't even take a bit of it, put it in a box, and make it do things. ;)
Once you can, there will be some really cool stuff to do.
 
I had a coupla of awesome C-5 approach pictures but I deleted them so as to not upset a couple of Security Forces....:redface:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top