What is the minimum radius of curvature for a pilot flying at 1000 km/h?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Plantatree123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematics
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the minimum radius of curvature for a pilot flying at a speed of 1000 km/h, considering the limits of human acceleration tolerance. The context includes discussions of gravitational acceleration and the implications of radial acceleration on pilot safety.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between speed, radius of curvature, and acceleration, with one participant attempting to calculate the minimum radius using the formula for radial acceleration. Questions arise regarding the validity of the calculated result and the assumptions made about acceleration limits.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the calculations and assumptions, with some participants questioning the accuracy of the initial result and suggesting that unit conversions may have been misunderstood. Clarifications about gravitational effects in different scenarios are also being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of unit consistency, as one suggests that the workbook may have incorrectly assumed a speed of 1000 km/sec instead of 1000 km/h. There is also mention of rounding results based on significant figures and the implications of gravitational forces on the pilot's experience.

Plantatree123
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The human organism can handle acceleration that is 4 times bigger than gravitational acceleration. What is the smallest radius of curvature that can handle pilot of an airplane that files with constant speed of 1000 km/h?

Homework Equations


This task seems easy but I don't have idea what to do. All I know is if the pilot is flying with constant speed then tangential acceleration is zero and if we are talking about the minimal radius then radial acceleration must be maximal which means that ar=4•g.

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried like this ar= v2/r and then rmin=v2/ar=1966,40m
And the result is 0.25•1011m
There is obviously something I couldn't think of. I'd like someone to give me idea what to do. Thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello 123, :welcome:

Who says the result is 0.25•1011m ?
 
BvU said:
Hello 123, :welcome:

Who says the result is 0.25•1011m ?
Hello writer of workbook This result is in solutions of my workbook
 
The 0.25 x 1011 m is obviously wrong: the radius of the Earth is 6 x 106 m and planes do fly around with such speeds without killing the passengers.

I don't see anything wrong with your 1970 m, except one thing: the Earth keeps pulling with 1 times g as well. So if the loop is vertical, the driver experiences 5 g at the bottom and 3 at the top. Not good. If the circle is horizontal, 1 g and 4 g add up vectorially to √17 times g, also > 4 g. So I would feel safer in your plane if ar = √15 g (But it's a small correction and I wonder if that is asked for in your exercise)

By the way, if your given data is only in one digit, it is better to round off your results a little bit: so 4g corresponds to a circle with a radius of 1970 m
(personally I would even prefer 2 km, but teacher may think different).
 
BvU said:
The 0.25 x 1011 m is obviously wrong: the radius of the Earth is 6 x 106 m and planes do fly around with such speeds without killing the passengers.

I don't see anything wrong with your 1970 m, except one thing: the Earth keeps pulling with 1 times g as well. So if the loop is vertical, the driver experiences 5 g at the bottom and 3 at the top. Not good. If the circle is horizontal, 1 g and 4 g add up vectorially to √17 times g, also > 4 g. So I would feel safer in your plane if ar = √15 g (But it's a small correction and I wonder if that is asked for in your exercise)

By the way, if your given data is only in one digit, it is better to round off your results a little bit: so 4g corresponds to a circle with a radius of 1970 m
(personally I would even prefer 2 km, but teacher may think different).
I like your explanation. :) Thank you
 
BvU said:
Who says the result is 0.25•1011m ?
[exponent restored]

Reverse engineering the claimed result suggests that the workbook assumed 1000 km/sec rather than 1000 km/hour. This demonstrates that units matter.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K