Myself002 wrote: The video I saw had an a-10 just firing for a long long time maybe it was the way the camera made it appear but I swear the thing went backward. the recoil on the gun equals the thrust of the jets.
It would have to be a phenomenon of the camera angle. You're a pilot aren't you? If the recoil cancels out the thrust, what happens to the airspeed? Do you think the plane would still be flying as the airspeed approached zero (much less went into negative numbers)?
I've spent a bit of time watching A-10 runs at the live fire range in Southern AZ, and you can see them slow noticably when firing a long burst, but they come nowhere near stopping in midair and going backwards. The laws of physics and aerodynmics would seem to work against that trick.
flynrider wrote:
you can see them slow noticably when firing a long burst, but they come nowhere near stopping in midair and going backwards.
Im sure the source of this, wherever it was, meant that if the plane fires the gun on the ground, it will push the plane backwards.
2002 Buell Blast 500 /¦\
[url=http://www.putfile.com][img]http://x10.putfile.com/3/8221543225.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/BBS/viewtopic.php?t=11790]Confessions of a Commuter[/url]
anyway I found some pretty cool videos, on the west coast demonstration teams' site *click* I don't think that one's on there though.
I would figure you're taught to not hold the trigger because with a 1000 round magazine firing at either just over 2000(single engine) or 4000(dual engine) rounds per minute, the party's going to be over real fast.
...so, I forgot who started this post, but are you feeling any better about flying?
mysta2 wrote:
...so, I forgot who started this post, but are you feeling any better about flying?
Um...did the cute stewardess on the flight back give me a parachute? No!
And the beer was flat.
So no!
2002 Buell Blast 500 /¦\
[url=http://www.putfile.com][img]http://x10.putfile.com/3/8221543225.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/BBS/viewtopic.php?t=11790]Confessions of a Commuter[/url]
flynrider wrote:
It would have to be a phenomenon of the camera angle. You're a pilot aren't you? If the recoil cancels out the thrust, what happens to the airspeed? Do you think the plane would still be flying as the airspeed approached zero (much less went into negative numbers)?
never said the plane didnt stall it looked like it dropped altitude but it also looked like it went backward. Controlled stalls is still flying in my mind.
Honestly I think the pilot did something like slowflight into firing, went backward then added full power and continued flying. Its definatly possible thats why I havent given much thought as to if it was camera tricks or whatnot. I wish I had the link to show you all.
and yes I am
Like Bob the MSF guy said "Smile your on a bike" :)
Myself002 wrote: Its definatly possible thats why I havent given much thought as to if it was camera tricks or whatnot. I wish I had the link to show you all.
What I'm trying to tell you is that it's not possible for a Warthog to fly backward. This is not even remotely like slow flying and 152 into a headwind. Back to aerodynamics class for you.
What I was taught was that the four forces acting on a plane, lift, weight, thrust and drag need to be balanced in order for a plane to have steady flight. What direction those forces are coming from doesnt matter so long as they equal out agaisnt there counterparts. Basically as long as forward thrust is equal to drag and weight is equal to lift you got some flight. I'm sure you've seen the diagram with the plane in the middle and those forces depicted with arrows.
The A-10's canon's recoil equals the force of the thrust from its engines. What would be the case if you were to not use the engines or use them only slightly such as in slow flight? Your thurst would be facing the opposite direction because of the canon's recoil.
Now this is just basic pyshics and I'm totally leaving out how much drag the plane will make going backwards but honestly it doest really matter. Were not looking for steady flight. The fact is the plane can go backwards. How much altitude it will loose doesnt matter either. Still going backwards.
When I saw the video I thought "well pyshics says it can happen, so this must be real".
I'm not trying to say your wrong and I'm not trying to get into some sort of messageboard pissing contest, its just that I saw what I saw. Being that I'm not an A-10 pilot I really don't know how hard it is to make one go backward. But my eyes said its possible.
The reason I bring up the 152 is simply because if you told me a plane could fly backwards a couple of years ago I woudln't of believed you. Now that I've done it I realize its possible.
Like Bob the MSF guy said "Smile your on a bike" :)
I'm not trying to say your wrong and I'm not trying to get into some sort of messageboard pissing contest, its just that I saw what I saw. Being that I'm not an A-10 pilot I really don't know how hard it is to make one go backward. But my eyes said its possible.
I don't want to get into a pissing contest either, but merely explain that an airplane in flight cannot stop and go backwards. Assuming that the gun produced a recoil equal to the thrust of the engines (which it doesn't, it's only about 1/2), as the airspeed approached zero, the plane would simply fall out of the sky. You can't fly without lift and you need forward airspeed to create lift.
