Passengers in a falling plane, author request

AI Thread Summary
In a scenario where a G6 jet goes into a 45-degree nosedive at 450 mph from 35,000 feet, passengers would initially experience zero or negative g-forces, potentially causing them to float or tumble if unbuckled. As the dive continues, they would be pushed back into their seats due to increasing g-forces, with some variation depending on the speed of descent. If the jet pulls out of the dive, passengers would again feel forces pushing them into their seats, possibly hitting their heads against the ceiling if the pull-out is abrupt. Civilian aircraft are not designed for extreme maneuvers, and excessive g-forces could lead to structural failure. Overall, while some turbulence can cause disorientation, the scenario described would not likely result in severe violence within the cabin.
Govicide
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm an author and I want to correctly portray a scene (with a bit of artistic license) in my next book. However, I don't think I understand the physics of the situation.

Scenario: Passengers flying in a G6 going 450mph at 35,000 feet. Jet goes into a nosedive at let's say a 45 degree angle, wings level. The jet accelerates towards the ground in its fall. What would the passengers experience? Would they tumble toward the cockpit if they were unbuckled? Would they be weightless? Would they hit the ceiling? Would they be forced toward the back of the plane due to the acceleration? Would it be a combination of all of these and more? If so, what would the order be?

And, if the jet pulls out of the dive, what would be the forces on the passengers? Once again, into their seats? Heads against the ceiling? Etc. . . .

Thanks in advance . . .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Google the NASA "Vomit comet". Also on youtube.
 
To a rough approximation, tale a ride on a roller coaster, and transfer what you feel to the aircraft cabin situation.

If you are talking about a civilian passenger aircraft, any g forces big enough to "throw people around the passenger cabin" would be likely to make the wings fall off. Civil aircraft aren't designed to do aerobatics.

If any passengers were out of their seats and walking around, they might well fall over if they didn't grab hold of something to steady themselves, but that's probably about as "violent" as it would get.

The "vomit comet" is a very special case, because it is deliberately flown to maintain zero gravity for a short time. That wouldn't happen "by chance".
 
Govicide said:
Scenario: Passengers flying in a G6 going 450mph at 35,000 feet. Jet goes into a nosedive at let's say a 45 degree angle, wings level. The jet accelerates towards the ground in its fall.
The begin of the dive might produce 0 or negative g-forces, so people would float around. This depend how quickly the nose goes down. Once diving in a straight line at 45 you are pushed mainly into the seats again, with some forward-backward-variation depending how fast you gain speed.
 
Alephzero - I dissagree. The Vomit Comet only generates about 1.8g pulling pull out of it's dive. Somthing a commercial jet should easily withstand.

When I was a child I flew in a turboprop aircraft that experienced sufficient -ve g for drinking glasses to hit the ceiling. Clear air turbulence is ocasionally severe enough to cause death and severe injury - one website says that between 1981 and 1997 there were 342 reports of severe turbulence during which 3 passengers died and there were 80 serious injuries (usually taken to mean broken limbs). The aircraft usually survives to make a safe landing even if damaged to the point that they are later written off.

I believe the main problem with doing it deliberately is excess air speed. You can't produce zero g for long without building up excess speed and that might cause structural damage.

I agree with A.T. - If you want to make people weightless a 45 degree dive isn't going to do it because I doubt a jet could continue to accelerate fast enough like that. The vomit comet flies a parabolic path - it can generate weightless conditions even while climbing.
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top