Tests and airplanes are technology

answer is 5
pilot can maintain same altitude until stall then it basically falls out of the sky assuming the pilot doesnt use speed gained after the stall to pull back up

literal retard didn't pass physics 1

retards

>he's never been in a vaccumplane

4 obviously when viewed from the atmosphere's reference frame

it could be any of them depending on lots of different factors
t. took an aviation class

ok then smart guy, explain your answer

How could it ever be 1, 2, or 3?

>plane maintains lift until it's slowed down
>being this stupid like a stupid nigger
Kill yourself

airplane drops the bomb at the moment the picture was taken, dotted line is bomb's path

your low IQ is showing

>airplane drops the bomb

Attached: 1494710474081.jpg (942x943, 70K)

It could be 2 if the plane is suspended by wires in the air and isn't moving

>airplane drops the bomb

not him but 2 could be acceptable if the static reference frame is of the aircraft ("Ground moving, aircraft static"), 4 would be acceptable if the static reference frame is the ground("Aircraft moving, ground static").
Not sure how aviation factors into this question at all, t. aerospace engineering student
1 would only happen if the reference frame is the ground and the plane is moving backwards
3 no idea
5 if it's looney tunes

There are speed lines from the plane, it's obviously moving

do we honestly need an areospace engineering student to come in here and explain how fucking gravity works

No they're the things holding it in place.

>1
Launched backwards at some velocity higher than the plane's
>2
Launched backwards at the same velocity of the plane
>3
Guided with some booster to keep it linear.

well it could be 5 or it could be any path if it was guided with a booster

>Airplanes aint technology

Attached: Gentoo-airbusA350.jpg (1024x652, 394K)

1. projectile is launched from airplane in the opposite direction of movement with a higher absolute speed than that of the airplane
2. projectile is launched from airplane in the opposite direction of movement with THE SAME speed than that of the airplane
3. ??
4. projectile is launched from airplane in the direction of movement of the airplane
5. ??

for 3 and 5, I guess some weird rotation that causes some effect between the projectile and the air could make the projectile behave like that.

Well if its guided with a booster fucking anything could happen

of course this doesn't even factor speed of wind or other factors...

Yeah, but why waste a booster for 1/2/4 if launching it is the easiest option?

wind hardly matters for this case.

One day there's gonna be an electrical failure and people are gonna get killed

I know, but there is no new aircraft with mechanical controls. Only fly-by-wire,
Anyway, it has electrical backups (not electronicals), so technically it should be flyable.
Actually, this is quite scary...

A320 at least had mechanical stab and rudder (hydraulic).

you know he was trying to sound smart with his vacuum comment but just ended up fucking himself

hydraulic is far from foolproof. In fact, it's more susceptible to damage than fly-by-wire. fly-by-wire signal equipment is lower-profile and easier to build in robust redundancy, whereas several redundant hydraulic systems can more easily be destroyed by a single event.

5 looks like the most fun, skill shots are way more entertaining.

Honestly looking at the pic I thought you wanted to know what way the actual plane goes down, are you asking how a bomb drops? Why use a commercial airliner?

And wires can't be damaged as easy as hydraulic lines. FBW planes have minimal length of hydraulics possible. Also this allows to stretch aircraft without dealing with nasty hydraulics physics.

Plus, electrical motors (for redundancy) are much faster, than spinning trim wheels by hand.

5, because most serious accidents happen like this

What is the question?
>where will the ball be relative to the plane once it hits the floor?
>what is the path the ball will follow as soon as the ball is released?
Because 1 if the former and 4 if the latter.

Very high airspeed wouldn't horizontally accelerate the object immediately to top speed, only to slow it down as it falls.

If the answer is 4 then why does it when I drop something from a moving car or something it goes behind me?

youtube.com/watch?v=L8F5-gRs8Bs

Depends on the launch system of the plane and the nature of the projectile.

If I were to take a stab at the expected answer it's clearly 4.

What the fuck is a jannie?

If this is a serious question. It's because in your car you keep track of the car. In this image we haven't traced the path of the plane.

2
the plane isn't moving

because planes are faster and you're looking at it from the perspective of your car

Actually, the first question answer would be 2, according to .
1 would be:
>What path would the ball have traveled once it hits the floor?

None of those are correct. The closest one to being correct is number 1. The bomb would land behind the plane, because drag forces would reduce its horizontal speed before it hits the ground.

I'm going to hope that no one here chose anything other than 4 unironically

>The bomb would land behind the plane, because drag forces would reduce its horizontal speed before it hits the ground.
This is correct, but 1 isn't the answer. See

user, the plane has zero ground speed, so when the projectile gets dropped it the projectile gets accelerated back by the wind until it's moving the same speed as the wind. However, the projectile also starts accelerating downward to at something approximating g, so it can be close to parabolic. We can also suppose any wind gradient we want, because OP didn't say we couldn't, This means all trajectories are achievable with a ridiculous enough wind gradient. To make the case that trajectory five is achievable, consider that we may have an updraft. Updrafts can enable rather large hail stones to stay suspended in the air before falling.

Attached: largest-hailstone.jpg (505x379, 39K)

5 is most likely trajectory of crash.