159th_Viper Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 According to Sky News last night.:lol::doh: If it was mph as opposed to nmph then they're only 250mph-odd shy.......seems to be a common newspaper mistake as even the Telegraph reports it at 1800mph :D Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'
Eddie Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) Your point being? It's about right going by the last public data I saw, which is all the media would have access to. Edited June 19, 2013 by Eddie
UCAS Posted June 19, 2013 Author Posted June 19, 2013 Your point being? It's about right going by the last public data I saw, which is all the media would have access to. Is it? Because that's quite extraordinary if it is. That would equate to just over Mach 2.7 at altitude. I assumed they'd just took an altitude Mach figure and then converted using the speed of sound at ground level and hence screwed it up. They also had the F-35B down for 1200mph.
Eddie Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) I didn't say they were right. Only "about right". They are only around 150-200 knots out. ;) It is indeed a bit optimistic. But that's what happens when you give people with no aviation knowledge raw numbers. I suspect it's just an incorrent TAS conversion. But not exactly unexpected or unusual. But such numbers are meaningless anyway, they just look good on the news. I bet their JSF number was off as well. But I didn't pay attention to what it was. Edited June 19, 2013 by Eddie
Eddie Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 But yeah, actually sitting and doing the maths, they did a direct Mach to TAS conversion, not allowing for altitude.
Rotorhead Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Hah, still better than the news article about an aircraft landing with 9000 tons (!) of fuel aboard. Or that poor guy who climbed a transmission tower and was hit by electric current of 25.000 volts! :doh: And don't get me even started about airliner pilots who have to "step on the gas a little bit more" during headwind. :wallbash: When I heard it on TV, I almost pissed my pants laughing.
Invader ZIM Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 lol, Rotorhead just keep in mind the news and media are more geared for entertainment, not for actual news. Remember that, and it will keep your blood pressure down lol.
UCAS Posted June 19, 2013 Author Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) I bet their JSF number was off as well. But I didn't pay attention to what it was. 1200mph (1.6 x 765mph), when really it should have been about 1.6 x 664mph. But yeah, actually sitting and doing the maths, they did a direct Mach to TAS conversion, not allowing for altitude. That's still faster than I thought. 1800/765mph* = Mach 2.35 *Which is wrong because 765mph is sonic at sea level but nevertheless what they did. I guess it's not too surprising because Mach 2 always seemed pessimistic. Edited June 19, 2013 by UCAS
Recommended Posts