Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ridiculous But Interesting Hypothetical  
User currently offlineSleekjet From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 2046 posts, RR: 22
Posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Suppose you wanted a 4000-foot sprint for aircraft. No rotating. You're disqualified if your wheels leave the runway. Standing start.

Lane 1 - 757 with RR engines

Lane 2 - 727

Lane 3 - DC-10

Lane 4 - Embraer 175

Lane 5 - Saab 300

Lane 6 - Airbus 310

Lane 7 - Airbus 340

Lane 8 - 747

Who breaks the tape first?


II Cor. 4:17-18
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3737 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1961 times:

Saab 300 = Saab 340??


Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16998 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

SAAB 340 followed by the Embraer. At that distance inertia is a big factor.

But that's just a guess.

BTW a SAAB 900 (car) could well make it there faster. Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

Uhh.. would they have a full payload??? or just enough fuel to make it the 4000'???

Slovacek747


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

I remember they had a race between a sports car and an F-16 on Ripley's once. The car was winning eventually, but once the F-16 picked up some speed, the car was toast.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Essentially all you would need to do is compare the power to weight ratio of each of the aircraft. To be fair, make sure you either use the Max or Min weight of each plane.

I would tend to lean toward the Embraer, but that's just a complete guess.


User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Just my guess:

Lane 1 - 757 with RR engines - Disqualified. It would get airborne.

Lane 2 - 727 - 2nd.

Lane 3 - DC-10 - 4th.

Lane 4 - Embraer 175 - 1st.

Lane 5 - Saab 300 - 6th. (I think you meant Saab 340.)

Lane 6 - Airbus 310 - 3rd.

Lane 7 - Airbus 340 - Last, if it is a 200 or 300 series.

Lane 8 - 747 - 5th.

The 757 would win if it could stay on the ground.  Smile


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16998 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1869 times:

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 5):
Essentially all you would need to do is compare the power to weight ratio of each of the aircraft.

This would give a very rough approximation, since the standstill thrust of various engines differs greatly from what they get with air screaming into the engine. At standstill, props probably have an engine.

Another factor is if the aircraft has engines at idle or full blast when you start measuring. If they are at idle, the faster spoolup of the prop would give it another edge.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAogdesk From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 935 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

I'll put $100 on the Embraer. Anyone want to jump in on that action?

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16998 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Quoting Aogdesk (Reply 8):
I'll put $100 on the Embraer. Anyone want to jump in on that action?

If you can line up the planes, sure Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Hi guys and gals

The 757 easily if it could be kept on the ground!!

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineWing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1559 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

If any of you not picking the A-310 is not knowing enough of the power of that beast.That plane is just ridiculisly overpowered which none of the pilots world wide can complain but unfortunately menagements does.


Widen your world
User currently offlineMastropiero From Spain, joined Dec 2005, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1690 times:

Is interesting you mention the fact that the 757 couldn´t be kept on the ground. I don´t get it, does it mean that it´s wings would generate so much lift at the speed it would reach that it would start to rotate without any input from the pilot? Even on a clean wing configuration? If so, why is it only for the 757 and not the rest of the planes?

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16998 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Quoting Mastropiero (Reply 12):
Is interesting you mention the fact that the 757 couldn´t be kept on the ground. I don´t get it, does it mean that it´s wings would generate so much lift at the speed it would reach that it would start to rotate without any input from the pilot? Even on a clean wing configuration? If so, why is it only for the 757 and not the rest of the planes?

Yes the plane would lift off. But it would not rotate unless it was badly trimmed. And this would be a problem for the SAAB 340 way before the 757.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1563 times:

I would say the 757s with RB211 Engines.The Nose can be held on the ground.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Based on thrust to weight ratio at operating empty weight, the order would be:

1. 757 (T/W = 0.682)
2. A310 (0.659)
3. Embraer 175 (0.63)
4. 747 (0.62)
5. DC10 (0.598)
6. 727 (0.52)
7. A340 (0.468)

The first three would be very close with the 747 and DC-10 not far behind. The 727 is a disappointing 6th, with the A340 not surprisingly last.

I'm going to disqualify the "SAAB 300" on the grounds that (a) it doesn't exist and (b) the maths for turboprops is not so easy. Anyway, although props feel sportier, they lose thrust with forward speed faster than jets so couldn't really compete. Also it would have the hardest time staying on the ground.

I'm surprised by how low the 727 comes, but not by the 757 winning. Not only the highest thrust to weight ratio, but also one of the slipperiest in drag terms too.

Interestingly, if the 777-200LR were to enter it might just beat the 757 (thrust to weight ratio 0.6875, but more drag).



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Ridiculous But Interesting Hypothetical
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Aircrash Investigation: Hypothetical Scenario. posted Wed Sep 27 2006 21:02:43 by DIJKKIJK
ADF Failure Hypothetical Situation posted Sun May 21 2006 15:38:21 by FlyMeARiver
Interesting File. Check It Out. posted Mon May 15 2006 17:28:31 by Wardialer
Radio Failure Hypothetical Situation posted Mon May 8 2006 21:00:48 by FlyMeARiver
Interesting Commentary About NW. posted Fri Feb 10 2006 18:08:30 by MX757
Beech 1900: Nose Gear Collapse But Save Props? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 20:01:14 by Eksath
Cheapest But Best Tool posted Mon Dec 26 2005 02:53:25 by Kaddyuk
Lost TV Show - But What Would Really Happen? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 13:05:50 by Julesmusician
Interesting Compressor Surge Picture posted Wed Oct 12 2005 02:00:27 by Corey07850
B737 Interesting Links posted Sun Jul 31 2005 09:32:38 by HAWK21M

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format