Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't believe this would work from a physics standpoint. It is true but the weight / mass is in both the kinetic energy equation And the potential energy (altitude) calculation and cancel each other out.Effectively Zoom climb is trading kinetic energy for height, those with a lot of kinetic energy to convert tend to do better in this regard, so all else being equal, the heavier aircraft will have a better zoom.
I think you're over-thinking it. streaming, etc all affect the speed, which has the effect on the zoom climb.I don't believe this would work from a physics standpoint. It is true but the weight / mass is in both the kinetic energy equation And the potential energy (altitude) calculation and cancel each other out.
I believe the difference is really how relatively streamlined the aircraft is. This streamlining would be in the AoA that the aircraft would be in for Zero G. I am also thinking that an airframe with a higher Reynolds number would have a better zoom because the air is effectively less "viscous".
I don't believe you are correct.I think you're over-thinking it. streaming, etc all affect the speed, which has the effect on the zoom climb.
During a zoom climb you're trading energy for altitude (potential energy). Energy is 1/2mv2 so the only real items which affect it are weight and speed. Given that there is a minimum speed for the aircraft to fly, the aircraft with the greatest span between cruise speed and stall speed effectively has the most airspeed to trade for altitude.
Airplanes don't "Fly" in a vacuum, but we aren't talking about "Flying". We are discussing a Zoom climb.Airplanes don't fly in a vacuum and they don't fly in the absence air resistance ... unless they fly so fast and high and to get into orbit.
And no, the potential energy is not the same, nor is the momentum, nor kinetic energy. A toy car hitting you at 5 mph won't do much damage if you are against a solid wall, but a real passenger car most certainly will. The real car will also hold it's speed a LOT longer than the toy car will.
Potential energy is: PE = Mass * acceleration due to gravity * Height.
Kinetic Energy is" KE = 1/2 Mass * Velocity^2.
With equal velocity, both potential and kinetic energy are only equal if the two masses are equal. You seem to have completely forgotten about the "Mass" part.
An 8,000-pound F8F Bearcat at 150 mph has a lot more energy than a 3,000-pound Cessna 182 at the same speed. Literally about 2.667 times as much energy for both PE and KE. Gravity and Height might BE the same, but the mass isn't.
If the two masses ARE equal, then yes, the two zoom climbs will be nearly identical with the lower-drag aircraft being a bit better.
Mass is not irrelevant.
The weight of an aircraft like a Bearcat only matters when accelerating in to a dive, very quickly other laws of physics take over. A P-47 accelerated into a dive more quickly than a Spitfire but the Spitfire had a higher maximum dive speed. Due to compressibility issues a plane like the P-38 was uncomfortably close to its maximum dive speed when flat out in level flight. WW2 aircraft could not be just dived without thought, they quickly became uncontrollable and started to fall apart. Horsepower and residual thrust is important in accelerating into a dive but these also become redundant at high speed because a propeller cant provide thrust, the Spitfires which set records in dive speed had fully feathering props to avoid blowing the engine, as it was they wrecked the prop and deformed the wings. P-38s and P-47s were fitted with dive brakes to keep them controllable.Airplanes don't "Fly" in a vacuum, but we aren't talking about "Flying". We are discussing a Zoom climb.
When the F-15 Streak Eagle hits the top of its flight path, it really isn't doing a whole lot of flying. Same applied to a bunch of other aircraft that needed reaction controls to maneuver because there wasn't enough "airflow" over control surfaces by the time they made it to the peak of their zoom climb.
The reason I stated that Mass / Weight was irrelevant was because I thought it was clear what I was responding to.
If the Mass is in both the Kinetic Energy equation and in the Potential Energy equation, then the Mass really doesn't matter if we are talking about the zoom climb for a particular aircraft because we don't expect the Mass to change significantly.
If your Bearcat and Cessna are both at 5000 feet altitude, the Bearcat will have the same 2.667 times the potential energy which is the point I was making. The conversion from kinetic to potential energy for a particular object has the mass in both calculations, so essentially can be ignored for discussing zoom climbs.
Gravitational acceleration affects all objects the same regardless of their weight. Without other factors such as additional thrust or aerodynamic drag, Acceleration is a simple 9.8 M/s^2 or 32.16 Ft/s^2.The weight of an aircraft like a Bearcat only matters when accelerating in to a dive, very quickly other laws of physics take over. A P-47 accelerated into a dive more quickly than a Spitfire but the Spitfire had a higher maximum dive speed. Due to compressibility issues a plane like the P-38 was uncomfortably close to its maximum dive speed when flat out in level flight. WW2 aircraft could not be just dived without thought, they quickly became uncontrollable and started to fall apart. Horsepower and residual thrust is important in accelerating into a dive but these also become redundant at high speed because a propeller cant provide thrust, the Spitfires which set records in dive speed had fully feathering props to avoid blowing the engine, as it was they wrecked the prop and deformed the wings. P-38s and P-47s were fitted with dive brakes to keep them controllable.
No F-15s and no reaction-based control aircraft flew in WWII, and this question was ostensibly about WWII fighter aircraft zoom climb.Airplanes don't "Fly" in a vacuum, but we aren't talking about "Flying". We are discussing a Zoom climb.
When the F-15 Streak Eagle hits the top of its flight path, it really isn't doing a whole lot of flying. Same applied to a bunch of other aircraft that needed reaction controls to maneuver because there wasn't enough "airflow" over control surfaces by the time they made it to the peak of their zoom climb.
The reason I stated that Mass / Weight was irrelevant was because I thought it was clear what I was responding to.
If the Mass is in both the Kinetic Energy equation and in the Potential Energy equation, then the Mass really doesn't matter if we are talking about the zoom climb for a particular aircraft because we don't expect the Mass to change significantly.
If your Bearcat and Cessna are both at 5000 feet altitude, the Bearcat will have the same 2.667 times the potential energy which is the point I was making. The conversion from kinetic to potential energy for a particular object has the mass in both calculations, so essentially can be ignored for discussing zoom climbs.
That is what I posted, you cant quote a principle that applies in a vacuum when discussing aircraft that need air to fly and for their engines to work. Physical size is only part of the discussion, Concorde could cruise at a speed that would tear apart any WW2 aircraft, despite being much bigger. An aeroplane isnt just an "object" it is a device that contains a human who would like to live until tomorrow. With various aerodynamic effects, aeroelasticity and aileron reversal some aircraft quickly became impossible to control in a dive, and killed the pilot, sometimes this happened in level flight.Gravitational acceleration affects all objects the same regardless of their weight. Without other factors such as additional thrust or aerodynamic drag, Acceleration is a simple 9.8 M/s^2 or 32.16 Ft/s^2.
A heavy object doesn't fall any faster but for the aero drag having less of an effect on an equal sized object that is heavier.
Trying to avoid breaking over a group of people watching! Second one I did the break after passing the group, went much better, and they didn't have to see the filthy bottom of the aircraft.Sounds like you need more buzz practice!
You CAN quote the laws of physics pretty much until you get close to relativistic speeds and we are certainly not there in regards to any know aircraft or even spacecraft. They don't really chance much as we might want them to sometimes.That is what I posted, you cant quote a principle that applies in a vacuum when discussing aircraft that need air to fly and for their engines to work. Physical size is only part of the discussion, Concorde could cruise at a speed that would tear apart any WW2 aircraft, despite being much bigger. An aeroplane isnt just an "object" it is a device that contains a human who would like to live until tomorrow. With various aerodynamic effects, aeroelasticity and aileron reversal some aircraft quickly became impossible to control in a dive, and killed the pilot, sometimes this happened in level flight.
Hello GregP,No F-15s and no reaction-based control aircraft flew in WWII, and this question was ostensibly about WWII fighter aircraft zoom climb.
I believe the OP mentioned P-51, Spitfire, Me 109, and Fw 190A, not X-15s or Eagles, Streak Eagles or otherwise.
Again, mass / weight is not able to be neglected when considering zoom climb within the bottom 45,000 feet or so of our atmosphere. And if you want to GET up to where it CAN be neglected, you can't neglect it on the way up as you try to climb your heavy airplane up there with heavy fuel.
Even at 100,000 feet, there is mass in the PE and KE equations.