MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums

MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums (http://forums.mustangworks.com/index.php)
-   Blue Oval Lounge (http://forums.mustangworks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Speed of sound (http://forums.mustangworks.com/showthread.php?t=10427)

joe4speed 01-31-2001 11:30 PM

Speed of sound
 
Check out this video! http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif
Click here!

------------------
Joe!
1988 GT, 167,000 miles!!! 13.71@105mph Check out my listing! Click here! Or my website:
www.joe4speed.com
1999 Ninja ZX-6R 10.32@135mph!



[This message has been edited by JL1314 (edited 01-31-2001).]

Rev 01-31-2001 11:43 PM

That's 1100 f/s or 750 mph. PDQ.

Rev

Gautam 02-01-2001 10:04 AM

Hi,
That does look cool, but it kinda sux without the sound in the video.

Bye!


------------------
Gautam N. Lad
http://www.cubicdesign.com
http://www.cubicdesign.com/mustang/

95mustanggt 02-01-2001 10:19 AM

The speed of sound is 331.46 m/s which is 1193.256 km/h, or 741.4549 mph. To everyone on the planet except engineers 750 mph is close enough http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...board/wink.gif

------------------
White 1995 Mustang GT
Dynomax Cat-Back, Offroad H-pipe, K&N Filters w/o Air Silencer
My 1995 Mustang GT
http://members.mustangworks.com/95mu...must-white.jpg

joe4speed 02-01-2001 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gautam:
Hi,
That does look cool, but it kinda sux without the sound in the video.

Bye!



You're right, I wish I could find a copy of that with sound! http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif They say the shockwaves you see are the sonic booms! http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif cool!
Joe


Unit 5302 02-01-2001 02:30 PM

Yes, yes... That's all fine and good 95mustanggt, but a real engineer would note that aircraft measure their velocity in nautical miles per hour "knots", not kilometers per hour, meters per second, or standard miles per hour.

In this case, the speed of sound would be 644.306692541 knots give or take a few millionths, or 644.31 when significant digits are used for the conversion from m/s.

Smartass. http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...board/cool.gif


Tom351 02-01-2001 02:52 PM

And an even realer engineer would note that the speed of sound changes depending upon what altitude (or air pressure) it is measured at.

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback
http://www.mustangworks.com/mustangs...1245-slot2.jpg


95mustanggt 02-01-2001 03:07 PM

The most real-est (if that is a word http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif) would note that the velocity of speed varies with the density of the medium at which the sound wave propigates.

Although Aircraft do measure speed in knots, I would prefer to use International units and go with m/s, after all the speed of sound is really just a measure of the velocity of an energy wave.

Boy, tough crowd http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...rd/biggrin.gif


Tom351 02-01-2001 03:35 PM

And supersonic or close to it aircraft just use Mach number, so to obtain the highest level of realness possible, I say speed of sound = Mach 1.00 regardless of regardless of where and through what it travels.

Only stangers would have this discussion.
Ricers would be talking about wing aerodynamics.

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback
http://www.mustangworks.com/mustangs...1245-slot2.jpg


95mustanggt 02-01-2001 04:20 PM

Ya, if I add this cool japanese sticker I'll gain like 2000 lbs of thrust! And if I add a couple more wings, I'll be way faster too!

LOL, http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...rd/biggrin.gif

Good one Tom!

------------------
White 1995 Mustang GT
Dynomax Cat-Back, Offroad H-pipe, K&N Filters w/o Air Silencer
My 1995 Mustang GT

Tom351 02-01-2001 04:50 PM

Thanks 95

Everybody knows that the car with the largest wing is the fastest right?


------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback
http://www.mustangworks.com/mustangs...1245-slot2.jpg


Mike Souslin 02-01-2001 05:18 PM

You guy's kill me!
LMAO

Rev 02-01-2001 06:22 PM

Scientists might measure f/s, m/s, km/s, or light-years. LOL.

Rev

Rev 02-01-2001 06:26 PM

Should have said light-years/time unit.

Rev

Unit 5302 02-01-2001 08:23 PM

Isn't the speed of sound measured at mean sea level?

Anyway, if you wanted it in lightyears/time then your answer would be about 3.51315343847 x 10^ -14 lightyears/hour (measured at sea level), hehe. http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...board/cool.gif

Wow that looks a lot slower now doesn't it? http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...rd/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 02-01-2001).]

Unit 5302 02-01-2001 08:51 PM

Both of you (95mustanggt, Tom351) do; however, raise interesting points about the speed of sound increasing and decreasing with altitude or the density of the mass it is travelling through.

I would submit the argument that the speed of sound as far as the sceintific communtity is concerned with rating an aircraft's top speed in the Mach designation is based on the speed of sound at mean sea level. Mostly that is because an aircrafts top speed, especially jet aircraft like, say, an F-15E, is obtained at high altitudes where researcher's are unable to accurately predict the changing pressure.

Besides, an aircraft rated at a certain Mach number, say the F-15E at Mach 2.65, is given it's rating at an altitude of about 56,000ft. Does that mean an aircraft that can do Mach 2.65 at 57,000ft is actually faster as far as the military is concerned? No. The rating has to be a constant rating, otherwise the Mach number given to an aircraft would be inaccurate based on a comparative factor when tracking it.

In conclusion, I'd say based on my theory, the Mach number is like an hp number. It's dependant on a conversion formula from another number like torque, in this case, a different designated velocity factor, such as m/s or knot's. http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...board/cool.gif

Hehehe, I love this **** ! http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...rd/biggrin.gif

Rev 02-01-2001 09:15 PM

Now that does sound exponentially slow doesn't it? LOL.

Rev

AxemanZZ 02-02-2001 02:44 AM

Huh? http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...d/confused.gif
You guys are just showing off http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...d/rolleyes.gif

All I gotta say is it looks pretty d@mn fast to me hehe.

------------------
90 Mustang LX 5.0
My Ride*My Site

joe4speed 02-02-2001 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AxemanZZ:
Huh? http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...d/confused.gif
You guys are just showing off http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...d/rolleyes.gif

All I gotta say is it looks pretty d@mn fast to me hehe.


http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif LOL


Tom351 02-02-2001 09:39 AM

I cant argue with that unit5302.

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback
http://www.mustangworks.com/mustangs...1245-slot2.jpg



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.