I'm going for it. RA licence coming right up. :)

[motzartmerv]

Haha..sure is..no, the g forces involved in accelerating from 0 to 11.2 kilometers per second would be...ummmm...bloody lots.. and also the air gets thinner therefore less resistance as altidude is increased so the big push needs to be the entire time untill it gets into thinner air where less energy is required to increase speed. But you were right, the kinetic energy reaches zero and the ship is then in orbit..

 

Just to spin you out, you were saying a rock at rest has no kinetic or potential energy, but, it is sitting on an even bigger rock that is zooming through space at an awesome speed (18.5 miles per second).. so while viewing it from earth or 'observing it' from earth it has no potential or kinetic energy, but if you were stationary in space and watched the rock go whizzing past you you cou;ld say it has mountains of kinetic energy.. see, these problems are open ended, and there's never a simple deffinate answer because all these things are relative to the observer.. relative, hmm, relative, remind you of ....relativity???...einstein?? once you start trying to understand all this stuff you won't stop..its a real pain in the bum..lol...

 

Like mike said, this is all great stuff, but spend the (mental ) energy on the basics of aerodynamics and you'll really help yaself out when it comes fly time..

 

cheers

 

 

[motzartmerv]

we need a smiley for " slaps steve up the side of his head"...hehe:laugh:

 

Before i get banned...... that was a joke........

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

One of my developers, an Indian guy, is a freek! You ask him about stuff, and the guy always has the (correct) answer!

 

I mentioned this Escape Velocity to him, and the bugger explained it all to me. I get it now. (I think). He explained it as a river flowing, and someone swinging against it. If the water was flowing at 11km/sec (We'd have a serious problem), then swimming at 11km/sec against it.. would never get us to the source.

 

So, 11.2km/sec is relative to... the gravitational force. It's not actually the speed relative to the ground... I was saying that if I had a rocket that could hold a constant 20km/hour upward rate, after a loooong time, I would be in space. This is correct - because my 20km/h is reletive to the ground. Like the river, if I swim at 1km/h relative to the river bank, I would get to the source of the river - even if it was flowing back at me at 100km/h.

 

So, that 11.2km/sec is somehow reletive to gravity....

 

Am I right?

 

(Man, this aviation stuff is cool!! And we haven't even got to 'Flaps' yet!!)

 

 

[motzartmerv]

lol...nope, now u are getting way off track...probably my fault...

 

Got any BAK questions??

 

 

[Chrisso]

Hi Cralis, I have been learning with Zane for a few weeks now, however I am in the Sierra as I previously did some flying in a PA38 Tomahawk towards getting my PPL. I did not quite get to the GFPT, and had to give it up for a while. Zane advised me that the Sierra would be better as it is similar in some respects to the Tommy. Its a little bit more expensive than the echo, but I think its great. Have flown solo twice now, the first time it was windy (crosswinds) onto 06, and the second time it was fairly bumpy onto 30. My next flight is 16 October as I am heading down south to Albury/Wodonga for my stepsons graduation parade from his Army medics course. Might catch up with you one day.

 

Chrisso

 

 

[Tomo]

Please don't take it to heart Cralis! :ah_oh: It's my error cause I should have paid more attention. I thought you were Tomo just being cheeky..

Hey, me being cheeky,:ah_oh: I'd never do such a thing.....:hittinghead: