If a fighter jet ran out of fuel, could it glide to safety?
594231
Anything can glide. Some just do it better than others. It's easy to see in paper airplanes. Or tree seeds. The maple's twirlers manage to say up for quite a distance. Pinccones  and apples, don't. \n\nWhat makes the difference? Well... \n\nLift is needed to overcome (to the extent possible) the downward force of gravity. It's generated at the expense of air speed, and depends in part on the shape of the wing (called airfoil shape). Fighter wing airfoils aren't well chosen for low speed lift generation. Points against fighters and in favor of low speed wing airfoils. \n\nWing size broadly correlates with lift. So most purpose built gliders (eg, sailplanes) have long and narrow wings -- usually pretty flappy. The U-2 plane was the next thing to a glider and it's wings were famously droopy. These are best for slow speed lift generation. Fighters typically have short and very strong wings, able to cope with the high G-loads of abrupt manuvers. Points against fighters again, and in favor of long narrow wings. \n\nGliding performance generally improves with lower weight. So very large and heavy planes are unlikely to glide well, even with long properly airfoiled wings. Fighters are quite heavy (powerful engines, lots of fuel, lots of electronics, lots of weapons, heavy airframes to resist all those G loads, ...) for their size, and so points against fighters and other heavy things, and in favor of lightly built delicate planes. \n\nSo, from multiple perspectives, fighters make lousy gliders. That some of them are inherently unstable and require computer assistance to fly at all is another issue. Even slow speed planes could be so designed, but in those cases the cheapest available flight computer (ie, a pilot) is more than adequate, so no one will bother to design a computer controlled crop duster. Fighters have small, heavily loaded wings, whose airfoils are optimized for high speed manuvers. They generally glide better than rocks, but perhaps not much better. \n\nIf safety is close enough to reach from the burnout altitude (with a typically bad glide ratio -- ie, lots of drop for a given forward motion), they can make it to safety. This is why naval aviation is risky. Safety is a little bitty deck perhaps hundreds of miles away. Landing on a carrier is a sort of controlled crash, and requires an operating engine to bolt if the wire is missed, so gliding landings on carriers are vanishingly rare. Safety in naval avaition is largely getting close enough to ditch and hoep that weather permits recovery before you drown are are eaten by big carnivorous fish.
292124
Yes it does.  The USAF is refining the concept of using an airborn laser in a converted jetliner chasis to destroy missles in their boost phase (before reaching the upper arc of their travel).  This will cause the warhead to drop either into the ocean or back onto the country that launched it.
83798
no, it would hurt, but the air hitting it would not cause it to go that fast.
124099
To answer you question, I will say "Not so much anymore"  When the craft first came out, they couldn't seem to keep it in the air.  I think there are still a few things to work out with this aircraft.  My brother is a helo pilot in the Army.  He talks about this craft and all the things it can do to support ground troops.  This bird will open up new doors in aviation.  I do belive this is something that should have money put into it.
611366
there are a greater number of close packed planes that can operate as glide planes for dislocations
238988
No, standard air planes would not be able to fly on the moon for just the reason you described, there is not enough atmosphere for them to gain any lift.\n\nAlso, most all airplanes I know of use internal combustion or jet engines to provide the means of propulsion through the air and thus generate lift.  These types of engines require Oxygen from the air in order to work.  So without an Oxygen containing atmosphere, airplanes wont work for two very good reasons.
986807
did you forget space?  we landed on the moon some time ago.. no air on the way there.. \n\nbut thats the one that has to be explored more.. planes that exit the atmosphere and return would be able to fly so much faster.. LA- Tokyo 2 hrs
572100
It would depend on two things - the strength of the tornado, and the speed it travels along the ground.\n\nIf the tornado wasn't too powerful (say, F3 or lower) an object as massive as a tank would be safe from the winds.  If it could travel fast enough to keep up with the tornado, you could cruise to the center of the tornado with no problems.
1139459
Yes, the jet fuel by itself would not be enough to weaken the steel.  However the burning jet fuel ingnited all of the combustible material inside of the tower, notably all of the paper.  \n\nAs an iron worker, you know that the strength of steel comes primarily from the carbon inclusions within the iron.  When there is enough heat to dissolve these inclusions, the steel becomes only as strong as iron.  When that happens, the steel/iron doesn't melt--it bends under whatever load it is carrying.  This puts added stress on the surrounding structural members, eventually leading to collapse.   \n\nAlso, as an iron worker, you know that in many modern buildings the steel is covered with some type of thermal blanketing material, to keep the heat from a fire away from the steel.  Why go to so much trouble if, as you claim, a fire cannot bring down a steel building?  \n\nAs to the black smoke:  This signifies that all of the oxygen inside the WTC was being consumed in the usual burning process, and that other combustible materials were also being consumed without oxygen.  This points to a very large fire indeed.  \n\nAs to the firefighter on the 78th floor.  The South Tower was struck askew, and there was one corner that was not on fire.  I believe that one of the stairwells was still accessible, and that people above the impact level were able to escape thru this stairwell.  So this "evidence" has no merit.  \n\nI have a graduate degree in civil engineering, and have studied the failure of many buidlings, including the failure of steel buildings during fires.  Anyone who doubts that the WTC failed due to the aircraft impacts and resulting fire should:\n1) Read up on the collapse of buildings\n2) Provide an alternate explanation how those other buildings fell\n3) Face up to whatever emotional need they have to see a conspiracy.  I say this because I have relations who "go to conspiracy"  on everything.\n\n(And you can see in the questioner's subsequent remarks that he falls into the same category as my relations.  They bring up some conspiracy theory, and then berate those who don't believe it.  It really is a strange psychopathology.  Writing this post is good exercise for me to get ready to listen to and counter the rantings of their shriveled minds.)\n\nAgain, for those of you quoting resource sites, remember that they all contain a central erroneous argument--that steel has to melt before buildings fail.
555677
You are using the term "power" incorrectly. Power is the rate of production of energy. A jet may have enough energy, but it does not have enough power. A fully fueled jet may be able to burn all it's fuel with oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere to generate enough energy to make it to orbit, but it takes many hours to do that, and all the time it is being slowed by friction with the atmosphere. The shuttle burns all it's fuel in 10 minutes, and it carries it's own oxygen in a tank so it can operate outside the atmosphere. So even though they may have similar energy, the shuttle has far more power.
1177603
well, it's the area of the wing of the lifting surface, the weight of the plane, along with the pitch angle witch can be adjusted to generate more down force, but a high pitch angle would cause the plane to stall and maybe crash, also the altitude; planes can fly slower at lower altitude because the air is more dense there which means that less speed can generate enough life for it to fly..
584313
No. And the loss of their satelites would be temporary at best. They could just rocket up new ones.
725163
Ok, first of all the jet would stop working once you left atmosphere - but ignoring that for a moment and assuming you were in a craft capable of going 500mph:-\n\nWell at about 2.7 billion miles away, approximately 616 years.\n\n\n\n**update** Phew, so pleased to see that someone else concurred (+/-) 1 year, I suddenly thought I might have been out by a factor of 10 :)
662183
no.  air friction will limit it's terminal velocity.  It'll still hurt, and possibly kill if it strikes someone
428789
Most modern military fighter aircraft can go almost any climb rate. You would need to specify a specific aircraft for me to better assist you.
154099
Well it depends on what type of plane you are being ejecting from.  Most modern fighters jets require you t owear a helmet and be strapped in good and tight to your seat so in case you get knocked out upon ejection you have a chance for survival.  The most important part though is making sure your parachute opens.
685454
It depends for how long.  I've read the stories where people have survived landings without a parachute.  I would imagine that this would break many bones and would be a hundred Gs (more or less) but for a very short duration.  Fighter pilots can go 9, I believe and still be relatively fine for a while.\n\nThe position also matters.  While standing up, the body isn't very happy even with a few because blood can't get to the brain, which is important.  While lying down (which is what astronauts do), they can take many more.