Fastest you've driven a car?

[lycorn]

He said groundspeed...


BTW, just noticed the typo on my previous post: 220 Km/h on a car... would have been hard to stand - on the roof top, perhaps?

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by lycorn

He said groundspeed...

unless you count the earth rotation in that the speed of the aircraft would have
to be 800 MPH then.

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

You must have benefited from a seriously freakish tail wind. What was the turbulence like?

Indeed, it was mentioned to be particularaly strong. It was quite a while ago now, but no memories of turbulence bubble to the surface, so it can't have been much of a deal.

But that's the jetstream for ya. Based on which way it flows, it must have been coming back from Florida. I seem to remember going the other way we were around 600 mph, which sounds about right for Mach 0.9 at altitude in non-jet-streamy air.

[lycorn]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

unless you count the earth rotation in that the speed of the aircraft would have
to be 800 MPH then.

This has nothing to do with the earth rotation!
The point is the difference between ground speed (speed relative to the ground) and TAS (True Air Speed). The former may be attained by a subsonic plane, with a "little help" from tailwinds, whereas the latter is just attainable by the supersonic planes, like the "late" Concorde, or some military fighter jets.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by lycorn

This has nothing to do with the earth rotation!

Yep.
But note that space rockets are launched eastwards from
a latitude close to the equator with good reason.

David

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by davieddy

But note that space rockets are launched eastwards from a latitude close to the equator with good reason.

A recent NASA payload was launched to the southwest, as have many others And this place: http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=45...,46.538086&z=5 is not very close to the equator.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

A recent NASA payload was launched to the southwest, as have many others And this place: http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=45...,46.538086&z=5 is not very close to the equator.

So? That is still consistent with davieddy's statement.

He didn't say that all rockets are launched in the manner he stated. Neither did he say that the (implied) good reason is the only one, only that it is a good reason.

Paul

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

He didn't say that all rockets are launched in the manner he stated. Neither did he say that the (implied) good reason is the only one, only that it is a good reason.

His statements were unqualified. I was pointing out that the statement should have been qualified.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

His statements were unqualified. I was pointing out that the statement should have been qualified.

last i checked qualified meant having a high school degree, as you know comments can't get those.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

His statements were unqualified. I was pointing out that the statement should have been qualified.

I feel a touch of "The Life of Brian" coming on.

I'm not the Messiah. Just a naughty little boy.

David

[davieddy]

I got an MG Metro sometime around 1980, which was claimed
to have a top speed of 103 mph.
I put this to the test late one night on a deserted stretch
of nearby motorway. It took an inordinate amount of time to
achieve 100 mph, and gave the predictable feel of reaching the
limits of its design capacity.
The main reason I found this experiment slightly nervewracking
was the bends (as usual mild and effectively unnoticeable while
driving normally). They came up frequently, and felt like corners
(a = v^2/r).

David