nsw@cord.UUCP (N Weinstock) (03/17/88)
In article <391@coplex.UUCP> jim@coplex.UUCP (Jim Sewell) writes: >In article <4578@garfield.UUCP> joseph@garfield.UUCP (Joseph Dawson) writes: >> [ Ideas and observations deleted..] >> >>...That brings up another >>BUG you CAN'T make the F16 go straight up for ever. It should be >>able to do this because it has a lot of thrust. > >The F16 does not have enough thrust to achieve escape velocity. It can >only go Mach 2 in a nose dive and that is about 331 meters / second if I >am reading my Physics book right. Escape velocity is 11 kilometers / second. >It has to do with gravity and all that, but I'm no physicist. Hold on there. Escape velocity is the velocity needed to be launched like a projectile and ultimately escape the gravitational pull of the earth (or any body). Escape velocity *does not* apply to airplanes applying thrust. The problem with going straight up is that the engine must support the entire weight of the plane against gravity, whereas in level flight the wings help out. I believe that either the F-14 or F-15 (can't remember which) could indeed maintain a straight up climb for a pretty long time (until oxygen starts to run out, as somenone mentioned). Harrier Jump Jets can lift off vertically from the ground but consume tremendous amounts of fuel doing it. I don't know if the F16 has the thrust to do it or not. Isn't there somewhere else this discussion should go? (insert favorite joke here :-) /\ /+---|/--------------------------------------+----------------------+ )|---+-- 5 - Neil Weinstock -----------------|- ...!codas!cord!nsw -| < |--/|------ AT&T Bell Labs, Liberty Corner -|--------- or ---------| )|-|-T\- 4 - DISCLAIMER: blah blah, etc. ----|-- nsw@cord.att.com --| \+-`-+'--------------------------------------+----------------------+ /