What if cessna

Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Have you ever considered owning your own small aircraft? Sure, we all have at some point. A plane represents a sense of independence, giving you the freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want.

And you're not limited to just the road. But let's face it. Having your own plane, say a Cessna, is also a status symbol. After all, only the most rich and elite own their own, personal airplanes, so if you can count yourself among them, you're one step ahead of the game.

Aside from offering you the convenience and recreational opportunities you seek, owning a small plane does come with a lot of responsibility. Financial responsibility, that is. The costs can mount up, with the expenses ranging from the initial sale price and down payment, to repairs, storage fees, insurance , and fuel costs.

One of the first things you'll have to consider is what kind of plane you're going to buy. The type of plane you wish to purchase radically affects the price point. Here's the breakdown of what you're looking at when it comes to the purchase price of a plane.

If you're really lucky, you'll be able to pay for your plane in cash. But not everyone has that luxury. You may have to get a loan for your purchase. So don't forget, along with the full sale price for your plane, you'll also have to consider the interest you'll pay on top.

But don't relax, because you're not soaring yet. There are other considerations. When not in use, planes must be stored at an airport either in hangars or outdoors. Outside storage is typically cheaper than hangars and other covered spaces, although this depends on the region and location of the airport.

Both are single engine piston aircraft. With some exceptions, the following types of aircraft are defined as non- EASA aircraft and are ruled by national, not European, regulations:. You do not have to have an EASA licence to fly these types of aircraft as you can fly them if you only have a national licence.

What is ATOL? Aviation noise 22 July, Like the before it, the Cessna could take a pilot and three passengers, at a pinch. This looked very similar to what would become the , except it was a "taildragger" design, with a wheel underneath the tail. More s have been built than any other type of plane Credit: iStock. And during its history, that ease of use and reliability has led to some quite remarkable flights. Their mission? To break the world record for the longest flight without landing.

The 's excellent view makes it much easier for pilots to land Credit: iStock. This would be no easy feat. The two pilots would need to keep their aircraft in the air for nearly seven weeks, without landing once. According to Jalopnik , the necessary modifications took more than a year to make — and included a small sink so the two pilots could brush their teeth and even bathe.

In order to do this, the two pilots had to strip out the back seats so they had room for a mattress. While one pilot flew the plane, the other would sleep. And should they feel the need to shower? A small platform could be extended between the open cabin and the wing strut — allowing the relief pilot to shower out in the open air.

But with that little atmosphere you have more problems, like how to get lift. It is explained that on one world, you burn then crash - as opposed to crash and burn - and why it would happen in that order.

And, on another world, you would crash, but not burn, and why. This little "what if" is a reasonable explanation of conditions on other worlds, as we understand them, and how they would affect flight in a particular type and model of aircraft. If the story teller were addressing an international physics conference, he might sound a bit stupid with this presentation.

As he is addressing an audience of nerds, with the intent of amusing and possibly educating them - he's done an excellent job.

If dropped from four or five kilometers, it could gain enough speed to pull up into a glide—at over half the speed of sound.

The landing would not be survivable. If dropped from four or five kilometers, it could gain enough speed to pull up into a glide —at over half the speed of sound. At no point does he claim the plane achieves propulsion, in fact he says exactly the opposite. Remember that the word glide means that the cesna does not achieve powered flight, and "launched from 1 km" means that it is already in the air when it falls and hits the ground, completely realistic given the terms of the scenario and detailed enough for the context.

There're two things to consider: 1 Of course you get prop: it's a rotating wing, isn't it? So as long as there's any atmosphere, you'll get propulsion. Maybe your question was not about "propulsion" but about "enough propulsion", which gets us into point two. In the experiment another quite porwerful prop source is included: gravity. You just take.

First, if you are going to say that multiple times, maybe you should get it right, as it is 0. Second, propellers still work in such an atmosphere, just not well. When NASA was considering propulsion methods for a powered aircraft on Mars, it came down to a choice between propeller based or rocket based.

The former expected to give times the range of using rockets if powered by an internal combustion engine requiring both fuel and oxidizer to be carried. In one partic. The speed of light is constant and cannot be exceeded, therefore By implication, we must have time dialation depending on frame of reference We can work out how much we would expect that time dialation to be We have a testable hypothesis that could potentially be disproven by experiment on board Concorde or another fast aircraft.

You seemed to forget the entire point of XKCD's what-if series is, in fact, taking childish daydreams and running with it. It's a bit odd, anyways, that a person who begin rant thinks a COTS laptop, in a shielded cabin in a magnetosphere-shielded environment using a tiny node size is every bit as radiation-hardened as a RAD with a nm node size to reduce susceptibility to smaller particles, with latchup-proof logic, parity-checked memory, etc etc.

Flight does not require propulsion when gravity is pulling you to the center of a planetary body. It only requires lift. The examples all clearly state that the plane is dropped from a great height. Einstein once asked himself 'What would a light wave look like if you caught up with it? On Mars the Cessna wouldn't have enough lift, so you'd make a plane with a much better power-to-weight ratio by using thin carbon fiber delta wings to increase the effective area of the lift surfaces.

You go to all the trouble of flying a plane on Venus and all you get is petty criticism of minor teething troubles. There's no pleasing some people. Your plane would fly pretty well, except it would be on fire the whole time, and then it would stop flying, and then stop being a plane. If your plane is on fire and not a plane anymore then you are having a bad problem.

You will not fly on Venus today. And that's not what I meant. It was in a flight manual or something. Various conditions that ended with "you will not be X today". This end should point toward ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

I don't think your plane would actually catch fire. Melt, yes. But combust? Not enough oxygen in Venus' atmosphere. Load liquid oxygen into the fuel tanks. Methane comes into the engine from the atmosphere.

An engine with minor modifications might be made to operate. Now for a boat cruising on a methane lake or river would work though getting your engine started at less than K might be hard. One problem is that you have all 1. This physicist has been reading xkcd for quite some time, actually. He has written at least one other article about it, namely the click-and-drag world. If that professor wants to pick nits with xkcd, the path an object follows while falling in a vacuum isn't a parabola.

Its an ellipse. In most cases, the ellipse intersects the surface of the body being orbited in what is typically referred to as a crash. But if one is considering dropping the object with some forward velocity above a small enough body, the distinction becomes important.

If you want to nitpick, the curve of a free falling projectile is a conic section. Depending on initial conditions it may be a circle, an ellipse, a parabola or hyperbola. Yes, that's the general solution.

But the parabolic and hyperbolic trajectories can be eliminated if we assume an initial vertical velocity of zero at release above the planet or moon. Actually I would like to nit picks with the professor in that the starting conditions of the flight are specifically not stated. In the graph where he shows Randall's and his calculated trajectories in one, he's specifically not "provid. However, I propose that the starting altitude should be 0m from the surface too how did the thing take off?

Good luck even defining what the surface is on Jupiter and the other gas giants.