Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The weight (N) is calculated by multiplying the mass in kilograms (kg) by the acceleration due to gravity (m/s 2). The thrust can also be measured in pound-force (lbf), provided the weight is measured in pounds (lb). Division using these two values still gives the numerically correct (dimensionless) thrust-to-weight ratio.
In a zero-gravity (weightless) environment, the power-to-weight ratio would not be considered infinite. A typical turbocharged V8 diesel engine might have an engine power of 250 kW (340 hp) and a mass of 380 kg (840 lb), [1] giving it a power-to-weight ratio of 0.65 kW/kg (0.40 hp/lb).
Thrust-to-weight ratio – Dimensionless ratio of thrust to weight of a jet or propeller engine; Thrust vectoring – Facet of ballistics and aeronautics; Thrust reversal – Temporary diversion of an aircraft engine's thrust; Tractive effort – Mechanical engineering term that refers to the amount of traction.
For example, Concorde cruised at 1354 mph, or 7.15 million feet per hour, with its engines giving an SFC of 1.195 lb/(lbf·h) (see below); this means the engines transferred 5.98 million foot pounds per pound of fuel (17.9 MJ/kg), equivalent to an SFC of 0.50 lb/(lbf·h) for a subsonic aircraft flying at 570 mph, which would be better than even ...
Vehicle Liftoff Mass Payload Mass to LEO Mass ratio Payload fraction Falcon 9 Block 5: 549,054 kg + 22,800 kg 22,800 kg 25.1 3.99% Proton-M: 705,000 kg + 23,000 kg
The problem with weight, as a measure of quantity, is that it depends on the acceleration applied to the propellant, which is arbitrary with no relation to the design of the engine. Historically, standard gravity was the reference conversion between weight and mass. But since technology has progressed to the point that we can measure Earth ...
The claim: California counting ballots two weeks after Election Day is evidence it was ‘rigged’ A Nov. 19 Instagram post (direct link, archive link) claims one state’s lengthy vote-counting ...
Notably, the lighter lifter is actually stronger for his body-weight, with a total of 5 times his own weight, while the heavier lifter could only manage 4.375 times his own bodyweight. In this way, the Wilks Coefficient places a greater emphasis on absolute strength, rather than ranking lifters solely based on the relative strength of the ...