4 ms·
I listened. Kinetic energy is the mass times the square of the velocity. F4's go way faster than 737's. Thus kinetic energy is comprable between the two. On
by poutine 14y ago
I listened. Kinetic energy is the mass times the square of the velocity. F4's go way faster than 737's. Thus kinetic energy is comprable between the two.
On the second point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building
"The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.[3][not in citation given]"
It's also not my nuclear reactor. My power comes from hydroelectric thank you very much.
- moe 14y agoF4's go way faster than 737 The Phantom was crashed into the wall at 500 MPH The cruising speed of a Boeing 737 is 485 MPH[1]. Also I'll ask you a very simple question: Why did the US Government not use a passenger plane for that video-demonstration, which would undoubtedly be a much more realistic scenario? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
- poutine 14y ago737's don't go that fast at sea level. Air is too dense. An f4 could probably go 2-3x as fast as a 737 at any altitude. I'm too lazy to look up the specific values. As to why they used an f4? Probably a heck of a lot cheaper than a 737 at the time. Sometimes the government isn't out to screw you you know...
- moe 14y agoAn f4 could probably go But it didn't in the video. As to why they used an f4? Probably a heck of a lot cheaper than a 737 at the time. It would seem like there are plenty of scrapped 737s available[1] to carry out such a test. I'm too lazy to look up prices on these things, but I'd be very surprised if those were significantly more expensive than a scrapped Phantom. [1] http://airchive.com/html/scrapped/ardmore-graveyard http://airchive.com/html/scrapped/ardmore-graveyard
- ori_b 14y ago> * Why did the US Government not use a passenger plane for that video-demonstration, which would undoubtedly be a much more realistic scenario?* Because retired jets that are going to be scrapped are easier to obtain from the military.
- bsergean 14y agoEc = 1/2 m*v^2 (you forgot the 1/2, I'm just pedantic).