JohnRich 4 #26 November 6, 2003 Quotethe fatest recorded is 327.6mph Note that speed skydiving events average the speed over a certain distance. So it is actually possible to reach a maximum speed that is even higher than this average. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #27 November 7, 2003 Mach-1 was only reached by the numbers, not physically. A human body would not be able to survive breaching the sound barrier. Can you say "Red Cloud"? Thanks to the thin air high up! Not to take away any of the importance either!The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Staso 0 #28 November 7, 2003 > Mach-1 was only reached by the numbers, not physically. i disagree. mach 1 is mach 1 anywhere. speed of sound will be different for different altitude, temperature, etc, but when you're at mach 1, you are breaking the sound barrier, you're at that speed physically. and as far as i know sound barrier wasn't broken by human body so far. stan. -- it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ... Speed Skydiving Forum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpinjackflash 0 #29 November 7, 2003 for some funny shit (funny weird, not ha ha) they took away that record, cause Joe, jumped with a Drogue chute... He jumped with a drogue, cuz without it, a flat spin would kill you. Assholes took the records from him. No shit jjf jumpinjackflash loves Doves ass...It's a gas, gas, gas... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #30 November 7, 2003 Hey does anyone ever do speed races....or is that just TOOO scary to try.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #31 November 7, 2003 Quote Hey does anyone ever do speed races....or is that just TOOO scary to try. GEEZE! Pretty insensitive. That's how Turbo died. "He was too slow, so we killed him."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JeffD 0 #32 November 7, 2003 "Make it an even race..." as he chucks off the "top speed recorders" P.S. if anyone doesn't know, Turbo is from a movie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites webracer 0 #33 November 7, 2003 I have been to 258/259 according to two protracks. It was FAST! Going to my belly you could really tell how fast it really was.Troy I am now free to exercise my downward mobility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Staso 0 #34 November 7, 2003 291 on later mounted pro-track and 307 on the pro-track in my helmet. stan. -- it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ... Speed Skydiving Forum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #35 November 7, 2003 "or is that just TOOO scary to try.." I try and avoid fast women.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Staso 0 #36 November 7, 2003 Quote"or is that just TOOO scary to try.." it is. that's why i like it ! :) -- it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ... Speed Skydiving Forum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #37 November 8, 2003 Hey I am trying.... I wanna be the fastest of the fast women But you knew that already.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base283 0 #38 July 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteAs far as the Mach 1 speed, that is also a debate.... Feasibly he could have...the researchers estimated his speed to be between 614mph and 714mph during his decent. Where he exited in the stratosphere the speed of sound is about 676mph, which decreses until he hits the tropopause at about 65 thousand feet, where the speed of sound is about 660mph. The speed of sound is constant through the tropopause at 660mph, then begins to increase once he hits the troposphere at about 35 thousand feet. The speed of sound at his opening alt of 17.5 is about 714mph. So his best chance to hit Mach 1 would have been while he was falling through the tropopause, but the range they estimated his speed at leaves it undetermined as to whether or not he really did break the sound barrier on the jump. Bring up an old post, I want to say that: # the 714mph was a typo from a reporter. It was 614mph. # the speed of sound is relative to temp and velocity. Not altitude. # the altitude of the different defined layers of the atmosphere changes with latitude and inclination (seasons). So I disagree with this post and would like to open a discussion on this to advance my knowledge. Thanks in advance, space Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #39 July 30, 2009 Those numbers regarding the speed of sound at various altitudes seem to be based on the Standard Atmosphere, which is just an aproximation used to standardize aviation engineering. The real speed of sound can be approximated to be proportional to the square root of the (absolute) temperature. So when the temperature goes down, the speed of sound goes down, but not as quickly. Whether or not Kittinger broke the speed of sound appears to be the subject of some debate. His coefficient of drag (and drag force) would have increased almost exponentially as he approached the speed of sound. I'm not sure if gravity power alone would have been sufficient to propel him past the sound barrier, especially with a drouge out. I haven't done much research into the question, but it is certainly interesting. We may never know, or at least until the next super high altitude attempt, if that ever happens. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tolgak 0 #40 July 30, 2009 Airspeed is measured in a couple of ways. I cannot find what type of airspeed 614 mph is, though I'm suspecting it's his True airspeed. While that's pretty fast, it isn't very impressive considering his Equivalent airspeed. To put it simply: Equivalent airspeed (EAS) is what an object "feels." A plane flying at 100 KEAS at sea level will be truly slower than a plane flying 100 KEAS at 100,000 feet. However, the control inputs will feel exactly the same. Only the engine will behave differently, and that doesn't apply to skydiving. So, using the knowledge I have available: At 90,000 feet at 614 mph, Kittinger's Equivalent airspeed would have been somewhere between 100 and 150 KEAS. That is about the range of belly-flying and casual freeflying speeds. Those who did the head-down record of around 300 mph were moving at much more dangerous speeds. To conclude, Kittinger may have been fast, but he was sitflyer fast... not fighter jet fast.Dropzones are terrible places for inspiration. What does one think when one looks up for a sign only to see a bunch of people falling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,590 #41 July 30, 2009 Quote P.S. if anyone doesn't know, Turbo is from a movie. That was just a movie???I thought it was a documentary."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Blink 1 #42 July 30, 2009 QuoteHis coefficient of drag (and drag force) would have increased almost exponentially as he approached the speed of sound. Are you sure that's true? I know the drag force increases exponentially as you approach the speed of light, but is it the same for the speed of sound? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Staso 0 #43 July 30, 2009 QuoteThose who did the head-down record of around 300 mph were moving at much more dangerous speeds. yay! i've been to ~320 mph :) -- it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ... Speed Skydiving Forum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #44 July 30, 2009 I'd venture to say that no one knows what drag will do as you approach the speed of light. That's just a tad faster than we can go right now. Mass does increase exponentially, but I doubt Kittinger experienced significant relativistic effects. He was moving, but he wasn't going THAT fast. If you plot airfoil drag vs. Mach number for low to high subsonic Mach numbers, it appears that the drag is increasing exponentially as M goes to 1. This led pre-sonic engineers to believe that it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound. Here's such a plot: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Transonic_Wings/TH20G2.htm Of course, they were wrong. The drag does reach a peak at M=1, but it is not infinite, and in fact goes down as M increases past 1. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tolgak 0 #45 July 30, 2009 In any case, it's not drag you should worry about approaching the speed of light... it's the massive explosions that would occur as you hit any particle at such a speed.Dropzones are terrible places for inspiration. What does one think when one looks up for a sign only to see a bunch of people falling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #46 July 30, 2009 QuoteIn any case, it's not drag you should worry about approaching the speed of light... it's the massive explosions that would occur as you hit any particle at such a speed. I have about 10^12 neutrinos going through me each second at close to the speed of light, yet I have not noticed any massive explosions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dks13827 3 #47 July 31, 2009 read about this SR 71 breakup at 78,000 and Mach 3. http://www.alexisparkinn.com/sr-71_break-up.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #48 July 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn any case, it's not drag you should worry about approaching the speed of light... it's the massive explosions that would occur as you hit any particle at such a speed. I have about 10^12 neutrinos going through me each second at close to the speed of light, yet I have not noticed any massive explosions. I find that terrifying. Would my foil hat protect me from that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #49 July 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn any case, it's not drag you should worry about approaching the speed of light... it's the massive explosions that would occur as you hit any particle at such a speed. I have about 10^12 neutrinos going through me each second at close to the speed of light, yet I have not noticed any massive explosions. I find that terrifying. Would my foil hat protect me from that? A really really thick one would.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
quade 4 #31 November 7, 2003 Quote Hey does anyone ever do speed races....or is that just TOOO scary to try. GEEZE! Pretty insensitive. That's how Turbo died. "He was too slow, so we killed him."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JeffD 0 #32 November 7, 2003 "Make it an even race..." as he chucks off the "top speed recorders" P.S. if anyone doesn't know, Turbo is from a movie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
webracer 0 #33 November 7, 2003 I have been to 258/259 according to two protracks. It was FAST! Going to my belly you could really tell how fast it really was.Troy I am now free to exercise my downward mobility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Staso 0 #34 November 7, 2003 291 on later mounted pro-track and 307 on the pro-track in my helmet. stan. -- it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ... Speed Skydiving Forum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #35 November 7, 2003 "or is that just TOOO scary to try.." I try and avoid fast women.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Staso 0 #36 November 7, 2003 Quote"or is that just TOOO scary to try.." it is. that's why i like it ! :) -- it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ... Speed Skydiving Forum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 November 8, 2003 Hey I am trying.... I wanna be the fastest of the fast women But you knew that already.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base283 0 #38 July 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteAs far as the Mach 1 speed, that is also a debate.... Feasibly he could have...the researchers estimated his speed to be between 614mph and 714mph during his decent. Where he exited in the stratosphere the speed of sound is about 676mph, which decreses until he hits the tropopause at about 65 thousand feet, where the speed of sound is about 660mph. The speed of sound is constant through the tropopause at 660mph, then begins to increase once he hits the troposphere at about 35 thousand feet. The speed of sound at his opening alt of 17.5 is about 714mph. So his best chance to hit Mach 1 would have been while he was falling through the tropopause, but the range they estimated his speed at leaves it undetermined as to whether or not he really did break the sound barrier on the jump. Bring up an old post, I want to say that: # the 714mph was a typo from a reporter. It was 614mph. # the speed of sound is relative to temp and velocity. Not altitude. # the altitude of the different defined layers of the atmosphere changes with latitude and inclination (seasons). So I disagree with this post and would like to open a discussion on this to advance my knowledge. Thanks in advance, space Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #39 July 30, 2009 Those numbers regarding the speed of sound at various altitudes seem to be based on the Standard Atmosphere, which is just an aproximation used to standardize aviation engineering. The real speed of sound can be approximated to be proportional to the square root of the (absolute) temperature. So when the temperature goes down, the speed of sound goes down, but not as quickly. Whether or not Kittinger broke the speed of sound appears to be the subject of some debate. His coefficient of drag (and drag force) would have increased almost exponentially as he approached the speed of sound. I'm not sure if gravity power alone would have been sufficient to propel him past the sound barrier, especially with a drouge out. I haven't done much research into the question, but it is certainly interesting. We may never know, or at least until the next super high altitude attempt, if that ever happens. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tolgak 0 #40 July 30, 2009 Airspeed is measured in a couple of ways. I cannot find what type of airspeed 614 mph is, though I'm suspecting it's his True airspeed. While that's pretty fast, it isn't very impressive considering his Equivalent airspeed. To put it simply: Equivalent airspeed (EAS) is what an object "feels." A plane flying at 100 KEAS at sea level will be truly slower than a plane flying 100 KEAS at 100,000 feet. However, the control inputs will feel exactly the same. Only the engine will behave differently, and that doesn't apply to skydiving. So, using the knowledge I have available: At 90,000 feet at 614 mph, Kittinger's Equivalent airspeed would have been somewhere between 100 and 150 KEAS. That is about the range of belly-flying and casual freeflying speeds. Those who did the head-down record of around 300 mph were moving at much more dangerous speeds. To conclude, Kittinger may have been fast, but he was sitflyer fast... not fighter jet fast.Dropzones are terrible places for inspiration. What does one think when one looks up for a sign only to see a bunch of people falling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #41 July 30, 2009 Quote P.S. if anyone doesn't know, Turbo is from a movie. That was just a movie???I thought it was a documentary."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blink 1 #42 July 30, 2009 QuoteHis coefficient of drag (and drag force) would have increased almost exponentially as he approached the speed of sound. Are you sure that's true? I know the drag force increases exponentially as you approach the speed of light, but is it the same for the speed of sound? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Staso 0 #43 July 30, 2009 QuoteThose who did the head-down record of around 300 mph were moving at much more dangerous speeds. yay! i've been to ~320 mph :) -- it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ... Speed Skydiving Forum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #44 July 30, 2009 I'd venture to say that no one knows what drag will do as you approach the speed of light. That's just a tad faster than we can go right now. Mass does increase exponentially, but I doubt Kittinger experienced significant relativistic effects. He was moving, but he wasn't going THAT fast. If you plot airfoil drag vs. Mach number for low to high subsonic Mach numbers, it appears that the drag is increasing exponentially as M goes to 1. This led pre-sonic engineers to believe that it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound. Here's such a plot: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Transonic_Wings/TH20G2.htm Of course, they were wrong. The drag does reach a peak at M=1, but it is not infinite, and in fact goes down as M increases past 1. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tolgak 0 #45 July 30, 2009 In any case, it's not drag you should worry about approaching the speed of light... it's the massive explosions that would occur as you hit any particle at such a speed.Dropzones are terrible places for inspiration. What does one think when one looks up for a sign only to see a bunch of people falling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #46 July 30, 2009 QuoteIn any case, it's not drag you should worry about approaching the speed of light... it's the massive explosions that would occur as you hit any particle at such a speed. I have about 10^12 neutrinos going through me each second at close to the speed of light, yet I have not noticed any massive explosions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #47 July 31, 2009 read about this SR 71 breakup at 78,000 and Mach 3. http://www.alexisparkinn.com/sr-71_break-up.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #48 July 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn any case, it's not drag you should worry about approaching the speed of light... it's the massive explosions that would occur as you hit any particle at such a speed. I have about 10^12 neutrinos going through me each second at close to the speed of light, yet I have not noticed any massive explosions. I find that terrifying. Would my foil hat protect me from that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #49 July 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn any case, it's not drag you should worry about approaching the speed of light... it's the massive explosions that would occur as you hit any particle at such a speed. I have about 10^12 neutrinos going through me each second at close to the speed of light, yet I have not noticed any massive explosions. I find that terrifying. Would my foil hat protect me from that? A really really thick one would.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
