Great information and explanations of high altitude and high speed flight characteristics. The in-flight demo capped off an impressive video. Thank you!
Last week I was flying my Cessna 152. As I approached 560 mph, I noticed a little bit of buffet. I eased off on the throttle a bit back down to mach .88 and it was all good.
i'm really dissatisfied with the Cessna 152 my flight school used. When I reached 540mph IAS i noticed that there was buffeting. even when i raised the flaps, it wouldn't exceed 550 without turning off the carb heat. time for a falcon bizjet upgrade i think.
I'm somewhat disappointed with my Nissan Versa. Just yesterday I experienced significant buffeting above 58 mph even with the windows raised, and and the passenger began performing a dutch roll.
I'll never forget seeing one of those falcons fly routine at the Morristown Airport New Jersey the man was amazing he actually did this approach and did a loop as it came out of the loop he threw out his Gary put out the flaps everything and just he's that thing in like it was nothing I had to I had to shake his hand I've never seen anything like it before or since
This is pre- Cessna Citation X, isn't it? The tables don't compare Falcons to Citation X. And before you say it, yeah, Citation X needs yaw dampers and autopilot at the altitude and speed regime they hand-flew the Falcon at during demonstration.
@@RehdClouhd yea higher stall speed. Because the air is lass dens. If you take a knife and try ti ggo through water at some aoa and try the same thing through air So imagine the water more density and air less dansity(high altitude) Thats why lower aoa can be used at high altitude
Fab video!! I didn't know this about a Falcon. Time to get type rated. I calculated £11,000 in fuel from Dalian, China to Memphis - correct me if I'm wrong. (or maybe that was just Fairbanks)...?
The video was almost certainly made before the Citation X was available. The plane being flown in the video was first registered in 1978, the Citation X first flew in 1993. The video was likely made in the 80s.
Oké as nobody seems to have taken the time in 8 years to explain de difference to you I still will so you can finally rest knowing the answer. Ias limit or Vmo is a structural speed due to air resistance especially at lower altitudes where a Mach crit or Mmo is a aerodynamic limit. So both limits have different outcomes where the Vmo can actually damage an air frame where Mmo can cause control issues.
Somebody help. The speed of sound depends on material or fluid density: the denser the material the higher the speed of sound (think putting your ear on a train track...). At sea level the air is denser and therefore the speed of sound is higher than at high altitude (any altitude) because the air pressure is less. Yet at 2:00 - and this is not the only youtube location where I find this stated (!), it is said that the speed of sound depends on temperature, and because the temperature is lower, so is the speed of sound. The opposite is true: the lower the temperature the higher the density, so the higher the speed of sound. At high altitudes the speed of sound is higher because of the lower air density (the temperature may have a negative but not linear.contribution, I am sure there are plentiful studies).
I think the temperature of the air at high altitudes has a less significant effect on the speed of sound when compared to the density of the air. The air up high is so thin that it would have to be much colder than what it is in reality, to make the speed of sound increase. So yes, colder air would normally mean faster sound speeds but the air is so thin that the cold temp is negligible...i think.
The speed of sound in an ideal gas, and air is an ideal gas at the temperatures and pressures you are likely to encounter, is solely a function of temperature. That function is: a = sqrt(gamma x R x T), where a is the speed of sound, gamma is the ratio of specific heats (about 1.4 for air), R is the gas constant for air, and T is the temperature. R and gamma are constants, and T is the only variable. The remark , "the denser the material the higher the speed of sound" is the reverse of the actual state of things. Modeling a sound wave as an oscillation, temperature is the spring, and density is the mass, of the spring-mass system. For a given spring, a higher mass results in a lower frequency. (You'll probably find that your intuition has been shaped by things that are relatively more stiff than they are dense.) It happens that temperature modifies the gas properties in such a way that the net result is that the speed increases with T^1/2. Cheers!
The video is correct(it would be surprising if it was wrong, considering the source and nature of the video), altitude/density in itself is basically irrelevant. It's summarised quite nicely on the wikipedia page under a chart: "Density and pressure decrease smoothly with altitude, but temperature (red) does not. The speed of sound (blue) depends only on the complicated temperature variation at altitude and can be calculated from it since isolated density and pressure effects on the speed of sound cancel each other." - further detailed in the main article "pressure and density (also proportional to pressure) have equal but opposite effects on the speed of sound, and the two contributions cancel out exactly" It also shows and describes how "The speed of sound increases with height in two regions of the stratosphere and thermosphere, due to heating effects in these regions." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg Comparing to railway tracks is different, as it's a different material, not the same material at different density/temperature. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound
It's a 240p upload, it would barely make any difference if the original was even shot on 35mm or 4k. Analog tv broadcasts were much clearer, and even an average VHS was better than this.
No falcon aircraft has ever made a mistake, or distorted information. We are, for all practical definitions of the words, foolproof, and incapable of errer. Error.
