h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Attach a super long bunjie cord to commercial airliners. For a fee, passengers can strap into a harness during the flight and jump from the cargo hold. This would be especially fun at night. After a few minutes of free flight, they would then be reeled in and the next in line would have their turn to
jump next. This would give passengers something interesting to do and raise much needed revenue for the airline industry.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I don't know about commercial airliners,
but this would be a wild ride. Plus you
could go over and over instead of
skydiving, where you go once. Very
long cords would be possible. You
might still want a parachute, just in
case. |
|
| |
Commercial airliners don't have the right sort of airframes for this sort of thing, but a C-130 certainly would. |
|
| |
An additional frisson could be added by carefully calculating the lowest point of the jumper's trajectory and flying just a little bit higer, so they almost, but not quite, hit the ground, while travelling horizontally at up to 300 MPH, suspended from a fragile elastic strand. |
|
| |
The idea is ludicrously dangerous, inadvisable, a misuse of expensive technology and precious fossil fuels, and likely to result in the serious injury or death of the participants. It should be done IMMEDIATELY. [+] |
|
| |
Cruising altitude is about -50C. Maybe as an extreme sport from a plane employed for the purpose, but not from a commercial airliner. |
|
| |
So strap me in and anchor me
Tell me that youll wait for me
Tell me that it'll never let me go
'cause I'm bungieing from a jet plane
Dont know when I'll be back again
Oh babe, I hate to go |
|
| |
Boned because of deleted anno |
|
| |
flying is scary enough. sitting in a weak metal tube hurtling through the air at 800klm/h, 10klm from the earth surface, with no real safety alternative. yes, lets jump out of it. |
|
| |
mAIdAI! MaYDaY! wEindshHIeer! Plane pitchin down! Cuttin bunjie rope to regain control! |
|
| |
Vicarious liability. These are not just words, they are a sentence, longer than any (sp: bungee) you could produce. |
|
| |
Almost as good as the helicopter ejector seat |
|
| |
I was ready to bun - but you're deleting annos? Bone. |
|
| |
non-abusive-anno deletion [-] |
|
| |
Bubba's getting cranky. Must be time for his nap. |
|
| |
BTW - original post deleted due to unprovoked offensive content. |
|
| |
Vicarious liability. These are not just words, they are a sentence, longer than any (sp: bungee) you could produce.
4whom, Sep 22 2008 |
|
| |
"Vicarious liability" is not a sentence. |
|
| |
Well, based on some back of an envelope calcs - I get the following. |
|
| |
Terminal velocity of a skydiver = 60m/s. |
|
| |
Wind resistance = friction constant * velocity squared |
|
| |
Therefore,for a 100kg subject, friction constant = 0.28 |
|
| |
767 cruising speed = 240m/s |
|
| |
Doing a quick balance of forces, and ignoring the wind resistance of the rope, we get: |
|
| |
wind force on bungee dude at equilibrium - 16kN (1.6 tons) -so even the best harness in the world is going to cut into you as if you're doing 16g's, essentially. |
|
| |
Angle of rope to horizontal ~ 3.5 degrees |
|
| |
Length of rope, if you're 100m above the ground and plante altitude = 30,000 ft (9000m) ~ 145km |
|
| |
Power used in dragging you along (=force*velocity) = 4 megawatts (5,300 horsepower) |
|
| |
I think it's safe to say my ignoring the rope wind resistance was an invalid assumption - but trust me, it only makes the above numbers more extreme, making the rope even more horizontal. I'm curious about frictional heating of your clothes at those speeds - 4 megawatts is a lot of heat. Perhaps the wind friction is not a constant factor as my assumption ... assumes, but for back of an envelope stuff, normally wind resistance is a roe-v-squared thing. If anyone has any corrections, please chime in - I'm feeling very fallible today, and despite having gone through the above twice, I can't spot the error. |
|
| |
Oh, by the way, [marked-for-deletion] bad science. |
|
| |