For those who like Aircraft pictures

[rocor]

6 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

 

Looks like Eric “Winkle” Brown performing the first ever landing of a jet aircraft on a carrier.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

Yes!, no prizes i'am afraid, but you got it in one.

 

The carrier is the H.M.S. Ocean.

Edited February 12, 2020 by rocor

[rocor]

1 hour ago, Sidecar Racer said:

First jet landing on aircraft carrier.

 

It appears that it was a dead heat,  you and Darius43 posted the correct answer at the same time.

 

A Sea Vampire, became the first jet powered aircraft to land on a carrier (the H.M.S. Ocean) on the 3rd of December 1945. It appears that my dad had to wait a while after the war had ended before he was demobbed.

[steve1]

Does this count? Seen over my house a couple of weeks ago.

 

steve

 

 

[laurenceb]

It is an aircraft

[jonny777]

I know this is perhaps a little tangential to the thread topic, but the principles being discussed here are beyond my understanding and I wondered if aircraft enthusiasts had any options. 

 

 

 

[scottystitch]

The video, and the ideas expressed in it, show a complete lack of understanding of what actually happens inside a gas turbine.  The line "is using very little to no fuel at all" alone is simply laughable. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the construction of an aircraft airframe and how fuel is stored.

 

Best

 

Scott (Aeronautical Engineer)

Edited April 15, 2020 by scottystitch

[SHMD]

What a laugh!

Was the film co-written by David Icke? 

 

I lost count of the number of errors he was making! Not little errors, though plenty there were, no it was the huge great blundering assumptions he makes and then uses as the basis for the next great cockup he makes!

 

Best laugh I've had all day - but please don't post any more of that garbage. 

 

 

Kev.

(The real trouble is, is that some people - even educated ones - will believe it. Shakes head and heads off into my workshop.)

 

[newbryford]

4 minutes ago, SHMD said:

 

(The real trouble is, is that some people - even educated ones - will believe it. Shakes head and heads off into my workshop.)

 

 

You mean it's not true?

That's really ruined my day as I was about to burn down a 5G mast as well........................

[jonny777]

By all means debunk away as much as you like folks, but if you don't give any decent scientific explanations for your side-splitting reactions, then how am Ito know if you are bullshitting just as much as you say the video is? 

[scottystitch]

The gas turbine engine fitted to an A380 is, conceptually, no different to the Merlin engine (and propeller) fitted to a Hurricane.  Both work by taking a mass of air and accelerating it rearwards. 

Simplistically, if we use something to accelerate air rearwards, the thing that you used to do that must be propelled in the opposite direction, Newton teaches us that (as does experimentation to verify he wasn't just making it up).

 

In the case of the Hurricane, we have a propeller that spins. The propeller is shaped to draw air from in front of it and accelerate it rearwards.  Relatively speaking, it's a large mass of air and it is accelerated slowly.  If the air is accelerated rearwards, the propeller must be accelerated forwards (thrust).  The propeller is connected (indirectly) to the aeroplane, so it pulls the aeroplane with it.  Our Hurricane therefore moves forward through the air.  But how do we get the propeller to spin? We use a Merlin engine. How much thrust does the Merlin contribute? None. Zero. zilch.  All the Merlin does is suck squeeze bang and blow to ensure that a shaft rotates which ensures our propeller (attached to the shaft) spins. The propeller contributes 100% of the thrust.

 

So 100% of that thrust comes from air being compressed and ejected rearwards.  That being the case, is It reasonable to state that the aeroplane uses no fuel, on the basis that it’s the air being accelerated that provides the thrust?  Well no, because if the propeller stops spinning at the required rate, the air doesn’t get compressed and accelerated rearwards sufficiently, and we end up with no useable thrust.  So to keep the propeller spinning, the Merlin needs to keep suck squeeze bang blow-ing…which uses fuel.

 

Now if we take the engines fitted to a modern airliner, instead of a crude propeller, we have a Hi Tec, large diameter, multi-multi bladed fan.  The fan is driven on a shaft.  But this time, instead of the shaft being driven by a reciprocating old Merlin/car-type engine, it’s driven by a turbine.  The turbine spins, which means the fan at the front spins.

 

But how do we get the turbine to spin?  Well, we get some fuel, we mix it with some air in a combustion chamber and we light it.  We end up with a very hot flame.  Because we are now heating the fuel to a high temperature (by this point it is vaporised rather than liquid) the gases produced by combustion want to expand (the same way they want to in a reciprocating engine).  We engineer the combustion chamber so that the expanding gases can only travel (expand) in one direction, i.e. towards the turbine.  The expanding gases impinge on or react with the blades of the turbine, forcing them to turn on the shaft. The shaft spins, ergo the big fan at the front spins.  The fan then acts similarly to our Hurricane propeller, accelerating a mass of air rearwards.  Not all of the energy from the combustion chamber is absorbed by the turbine, some of it continues to accelerate rearwards and out of the exhaust, providing some thrust.  But, on modern engines the vast majority of thrust comes from the front fan.

 

But, and here is the crunch, like the Merlin/propeller combination, if at any time we shut off the fuel supply to the combustion chamber, the turbine will not be forced to spin, which means the front fan will not spin (sufficiently – it will windmill to an extent) and therefore our engine will not provide any useful thrust.  It is utterly and completely wrong to say that a gas turbine engine can provide any useful thrust without a fuel supply.

 

As for the fuel capacity, this should illustrate things nicely.  Although, surprisingly, unlike most wide bodies, there is no wing box fuel tank on the A380, but the B747 wing box tank I can stand up in.

 

[jonny777]

Thanks. That is more like the response I was hoping for. My problem is that I was asked to look at the video by someone on another private forum. I can't criticise it off the top of my head because I know nothing about the subject. 

 

Therefore the rush to post arrogant and patronising replies are of no use to me whatsoever. 

 

However, the mystery does not quite stop there... 

 

Would anyone care to explain this? 

 

 

[scottystitch]

1 hour ago, jonny777 said:

By all means debunk away as much as you like folks, but if you don't give any decent scientific explanations for your side-splitting reactions, then how am Ito know if you are bullshitting just as much as you say the video is? 

 

In fairness, the video maker provided no scientific evidence to support his hypothesis/conspiracy theory.  Superimposing out of scale fuel truck photos on the photo of an a380 wing is as far removed from scientific evaluation as one can get.  And his air-is-accelerated-rearwards-providing-thrust-therefore-no-fuel-is-used conclusion defies the simplest law of physic of "you get nothing for nothing".

 

And for the avoidance of doubt, the "debunking" and "side-splitting reactions" were certainly not aimed at you.  You asked for opinions on the video, and some of us have provided them.  The video and the conclusions drawn in them are is nonsense.  It may be well intentioned, but it is nonsense all the same,  I'm afraid.

 

 

EDIT:  @jonny777    Having thought about this further, you are right that we perhaps treated your post unfairly, notwithstanding the above.  You came to us seeking an opinion on the video,  from a position of being unsure.  We should in fact have welcomed the fact that you were looking for answers, rather than blindly believing what was being suggested.  You at least questioned it and I genuinely actually thank you for that.  Apologies.

Edited April 15, 2020 by scottystitch
Further thoughts

[scottystitch]

3 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

Thanks. That is more like the response I was hoping for. My problem is that I was asked to look at the video by someone on another private forum. I can't criticise it off the top of my head because I know nothing about the subject. 

 

Therefore the rush to post arrogant and patronising replies are of no use to me whatsoever. 

 

However, the mystery does not quite stop there... 

 

Would anyone care to explain this? 

 

 

 

I'm not qualified to elaborate further than it looks like the reverse of the archimedes screw principal, and comes back to Newton and his reactions.

 

It's not magic, it's not supernatural (in the sense we consider supernatural things), it's pure physics.

 

Best

Scott

[Pete the Elaner]

Lift is not some magic force. You don't get it for free. Generating it causes drag. Four times as much when the speed doubles because you are pushing against an area.

When an aircraft slows, it uses flaps to create more lift, which creates even more drag (similar to by an F1 car opening its DRS flap to decrease drag on a straight to go faster, when it doesn't need as much downforce).

Something has to push against all this drag.

Even at 35,000 feet, you get a huge amount of drag at 600mph so the force to push against it has to be created from something: fuel.

500t of aircraft requires a lot of lift, which in turn generates lots of drag. I find it quite remarkable that something like an A380 can fly at all (but one got me to Thailand & back quite nicely last year so I know they manage it).

 

Another error in the video was a comment about it landing with wings 'sloshing full of fuel'. An aircraft's maximum landing weight is a lot lower than its takeoff weight, so most of the fuel should be consumed before landing.

Pilots have to do careful calculations to verify that they have fuelled correctly, they do not simply brim the tanks before take-off. This is partly to ensure they don't have to expend extra fuel carrying unwanted fuel about, but also because the maximum landing weight is much lower than the takeoff weight.

If there is an issue which causes the aircraft to land very early, it may well have to follow a procedure to dump a lot of fuel first.

 

[Dave John]

Heh ," there is a deception going on right in front of yours eyes "  ....aircraft run on air ..... 

 

Never mind the silly technical stuff, the obvious error is financial. Airlines pay for fuel, so the supply of fuel is very carefully measured, by both supplier and user. 

 

The bean counters and for that matter the counters of bean counters and the taxers of the bean counter counters at both ends of that equation might notice if somehow the money wasn't flowing. 

 

[SHMD]

No offence meant but some daft theories should not be aired they can be dangerous. (Although not in this case.)

 

Another error was the fuel loading time. 

His calculations always assumed the planes tanks were empty and always required filling to the brim. He then takes some casual observations (of undisclosed fuel capacity planes) as to how long the filling process takes to fill every litre possible.

Totally wrong.

Planes are only loaded with the fuel they need (unless the destination has fuel supply issues) for the journey they plan to make PLUS a healthy reserve. This reserve is usually already in the plane, from the last journey, so doesn't need replenishing.

 

 

Kev.

[Kris]

Now, in terms of a whoops moment, this is up there. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-fighter-plane-accident-france-ejected-investigation-saint-dizier-a9464066.html

 

Accidentally ejecting yourself from as a civilian from a military aircraft is a good one. 

[russ p]

1 minute ago, Kris said:

Now, in terms of a whoops moment, this is up there. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-fighter-plane-accident-france-ejected-investigation-saint-dizier-a9464066.html

 

Accidentally ejecting yourself from as a civilian from a military aircraft is a good one. 

 

I saw that , glad he was ok but you would have thought they would have given him a full briefing and possibly a medical before letting him go up in it.

It's not like having a ride down a siding on an 08!

About twenty years ago I went up in a jet provest and I had a briefing about what to do in an emergency how to use the radio and what not to touch !

[rob D2]

4 hours ago, scottystitch said:

The video, and the ideas expressed in it, show a complete lack of understanding of what actually happens inside a gas turbine.  The line "is using very little to no fuel at all" alone is simply laughable. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the construction of an aircraft airframe and how fuel is stored.

 

Best

 

Scott (Aeronautical Engineer)

I agree with Scott, the first half is deeply flawed as well.

 

Rob ( airline pilot)

[Sidecar Racer]

 

It's worth opening the video in You Tube and then reading some of the comments ,

even the flat earthers are in there .

[Kickstart]

14 hours ago, russ p said:

 

I saw that , glad he was ok but you would have thought they would have given him a full briefing and possibly a medical before letting him go up in it.

It's not like having a ride down a siding on an 08!

About twenty years ago I went up in a jet provest and I had a briefing about what to do in an emergency how to use the radio and what not to touch !

I agree. I had a flight in a Canberra in the 1980s, and was told how to use the ejector seats if necessary, and given an, albeit brief, medical.

 

All the best

 

Katy

 

PS - use of the ejector seat went something like:-

 

If I say ‘eject, eject, eject’, repeat ‘eject, eject, eject’ and pull the black and yellow lever above your head, if it doesn’t work pull it again harder. If it still doesn’t work the try the one between your legs. If that doesn’t work and we are at low level, you are dead so don’t worry about it. If we are at high level I will try and roll the aircraft so you can drop out.

[jonny777]

17 hours ago, rob D2 said:

I agree with Scott, the first half is deeply flawed as well.

 

Rob ( airline pilot)

 

 

Excellent. This is just what I was looking for. 

 

However, my questions remain concerning fuel capacity. Given that Wikipedia gives the fuel capacity of an A380 airbus as 323,546 litres, how much of this would be used/unused on an average flight (say) from Heathrow to Hong Kong? (I realise that wind direction/strength can make a big difference). 

 

The capacity of an aviation fuel tanker is ~35,000 litres 

 

http://tascatankers.ltd.uk/aviation/aviation.html

 

But that is only 1/9th of the capacity of the aircraft. How many tankers are used for re-fuelling each time? 

 

 

 

[rob D2]

10 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

 

Excellent. This is just what I was looking for. 

 

However, my questions remain concerning fuel capacity. Given that Wikipedia gives the fuel capacity of an A380 airbus as 323,546 litres, how much of this would be used/unused on an average flight (say) from Heathrow to Hong Kong? (I realise that wind direction/strength can make a big difference). 

 

The capacity of an aviation fuel tanker is ~35,000 litres 

 

http://tascatankers.ltd.uk/aviation/aviation.html

 

But that is only 1/9th of the capacity of the aircraft. How many tankers are used for re-fuelling each time? 

 

 

 

They don’t use tankers -( large aircraft at large airfields )- the appliance is a pump that pumps it straight out of hydrants in the ground.

 

I’ve no idea what a A380 burns ( although I believe it was so far off the manufacturers quoted numbers, the first customer kicked off ).

 

my experience is Boeing , and for those 787 averages 5000kg/hr, 757 3500 kg.

 

like this - no fuel in that !

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by rob D2
Piccy added

[PMP]

On 15/04/2020 at 21:25, rob D2 said:

I agree with Scott, the first half is deeply flawed as well.

 

Rob ( airline pilot)

It is indeed a ‘brown’ video. Twenty five + years of airline and airfield operations, aircraft product support and aviation environmental issues. As soon as he started talking about fuel and ticket prices he was a goner, let alone the other multiple errors on it.

[jonny777]

Just to show that I am not always forcing threads off topic, here are a couple of old aircraft photos.