LOL! So far I haven’t seen ANY arguements that support the that the US is STEALING Iraqi oil. Just a lot of grasping at straws. A

I’ve already told you.

Trading in EUROS means Iraq was getting more real money into the country. But now they are being forced to trade in US DOLLARS to continue the petrodollar propping up the US economy.

The thrust to weight ratio isn’t irrelevant.

No, but stating it without the other figures (such as Vr or Vs for instance) means its utterly meaningless. As I said, he (Conway) should have covered it properly or not at all.

Its like me saying the F-22 is 5 times better…

… better than what, a stick? a stone?

Its a problem I’ve come across in far too many technical papers, not enough information to fully create the scenario results were obtained from 🙁

Either way the aircraft does not require a T/W in excess of 1 to take-off.

I’ve shown its around 0.8 (but there would be a reasonable error in that).

If that is what the book meant, then the book is wrong – it happens.

You don’t think it would be on the front page of every newspaper in the world if there was actual EVIDENCE that we were carting away Iraqi oil without payment?

Taking it away without full payment (i.e. the equivalent value they were getting in Euros) would be more accurate.

And I think it’s almost criminal that the US isn’t doing some HEAVY investment into nuclear power. Bush goes on about how hydrogen is the fuel of the future but seems to be unaware of the fact that you can’t just get hydrogen out of the ground. You have to make it (seperate it out anyway) and that takes energy. Hydrogen is basically a sh!tty battery.

Yup, agree 110%. Same over here in Europe.

Only the French Japanese and to a lesser extent the Finns seem bright enough to comprend all this and are continuing to build and research nuclear power.

Fusion is too far away, and nuclear fission power plants will be needed big time within 5-10 years, which means start NOW! But pretty much all governments bar the above 3 have their heads in the sand over it 😡

Although, hydrogen is actually alot better than I thought. For aircraft, although the aircraft empty weight increases by about 20% for the heavier pressurised and cooled tanks, the lower density of liquid hydrogen actually reduces the all up take-off weight in comparison.

I think DOCs go up by around 20%, not near as bad as I’d feared before finding out. 🙂

I know *I* certainly haven’t noticed the prices going down at the pumps.

Don’t expect the prices at the pumps to go down again… ever.

They are running out of easy oil and its only going to get worse 🙁

This is no small matter, drag reduction due to ground effect has been calculated to be about half as without ground effects. IOW during a normal takeoff the moment a rotation is performed drag effects double, a ski ramp maintains this low drag effect alongwith the increase in lift.

You would expect nothing less when the aircraft angle of attack goes from 0 up to around 11 degrees don’t you think?

Regardless, WIG effect is not limited to the distance from the wing to ground provided by the undercarriage you know. Its generally reckoned to start having effects at a distance equivalent to the wing-span length from the ground and increase from there. Oh and it provides a lift increase as well as a drag decrease due to breaking up the trailing vortices.

Anyway, we are still beating about the bush here – the aircraft does not attain flight speed until some distance after leaving the ski-ramp. Watch some launches if you don’t believe me. Taking off 10 cm before the end of the ski-ramp won’t do you much good if you land in the sea 5 metres later after you leave the ground effects of the ship behind.

kilcoo316
How about you apply the same mathematics to the Su-25 and see what sort of results you get… the normal combat weight of an Su-33 is 25 tons… so operationally the Su-33 would almost never take off with a TTW ratio of better than 1.

Can you detail what features you are allowing for.

Are you allowing for the automatic chocks allowing the engines to run to full power before the aircraft starts its takeoff roll.
Are you allowing for the fact that the skijump also vectors the jet engines down to 15 degrees on takeoff so the engine is generating lift as well as forward thrust?
What difference does it make if your lift coefficients are changed… the Su-33 has slats and flaps and canard foreplanes all intended to add to lift.

Do it yourself, the eqns are on the thread – its not that hard, chuck it into excel and iterate.

Allowed for:

Yes
Yes
Lift coefficient I assumed to be optimal for take off speed of 140 kts so assumed it carried over.