Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Kinetic energy calculation

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Kinetic energy calculation

Old 30th May 2013, 11:10
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Next door
Age: 75
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kinetic energy calculation

Bookworm (who I can't get hold of) advised that the energy of a 50 tonne aircraft travelling at 140 knots (70 metres/second) equated to 125 M J

I am interested to know what the percenatge kinetic energy difference is between a
51 Tonne aircraft landing at 119 knots (fullish A319)..... and a 60 Tonne aircraft landing at 142 knots (fullish B737-800).

I know energy relates to the square of the speed but don't know how to factor in weight.

Thanks in advance

Last edited by Zoyberg; 30th May 2013 at 11:11.
Zoyberg is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 11:16
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,321
Received 98 Likes on 49 Posts
Originally Posted by Zoyberg
I know energy relates to the square of the speed but don't know how to factor in weight.

Thanks in advance
Linear.
Kinetic energy = 1/2 m * v^2
henra is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 11:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France
Age: 69
Posts: 1,142
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
As KE = 1/2m x vsquared, take half of the weight (mass) for each aircraft and multiply by the square of the speed.

Make sure to use SI units: kgs for mass and metres per second for speed.

Good luck!
eckhard is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 11:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This info should be in the Maint Manual - used for calculating energy of aborted t/o to determine what action to take regarding brakes.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 11:24
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France
Age: 69
Posts: 1,142
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Quick calc on back of fag packet (not mine) reveals that the 737 lands with approx 67% more kinetic energy than the 319.

Last edited by eckhard; 30th May 2013 at 11:29.
eckhard is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 11:33
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamburg
Age: 46
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not the technical type myself, but I seem to remember kinetic energy is half the mass times the square of the speed.

In your example, the airbus would have a kinetic energy of

E_kin_Airbus = 0.5 * 51 t * 119 kn ≈ 0.5 * 51000 kg * (61 m/s)^2 ≈ 96 MJ

The Boeing's kinetic energy is

E_kin_Boeing = 0.5 * 60 t * 142 kn ≈ 0.5 * 60000 kg * (73 m/s)^2 ≈ 160 MJ

By my reckoning, the Boeing's kinetic energy is 67 percent higher than the Airbus':

E_kin_Boeing / E_kin_Airbus = 160 MJ / 96 MJ ≈ 1.666

(Glad you just corrected your post, eckhard)
hvogt is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 11:35
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Next door
Age: 75
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That was quick......thanks guys.... so have I got this right

My 51 T @119 knots has only 59.7% of the energy of the 737-800 weighing 60 T @142 knots?

(95571 MJ vs 160094MJ)
Zoyberg is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 11:43
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France
Age: 69
Posts: 1,142
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
(Glad you just corrected your post, eckhard)
The government health warning made my scribbles illegible!

And yes, Zoyberg; your figures seem about right.

Last edited by eckhard; 30th May 2013 at 11:45.
eckhard is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 12:34
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 262
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Zoyberg

... Bookworm (who I can't get hold of) advised that the energy of a 50 tonne aircraft travelling at 140 knots (70 metres/second) equated to 125 M ...

  • A 50 tonne aircraft travelling at 140 kts has a kinetic energy of: 129.68 MJ
  • A 50 tonne aircraft travelling at 70m/s has a kinetic energy of: 122.50 MJ
  • A 51 tonne aircraft travelling at 119 kts has a kinetic energy of: 95.57 MJ
  • A 60 tonne aircraft travelling at 142 kts has a kinetic energy of: 160.09 MJ

The answer to your question is that the B737 has almost 68% more kinetic energy at touchdown than the A319, or, alternatively, that the A319 has roughly 40% less kinetic energy at touchdown than the B737.


Kinetic Energy = Half the mass multiplied by the speed squared.

The formula: KE = ½ x M x V2

Use kilograms (as units of mass) and metres per second (as units of speed) and your answer will then be in Joules, divide by one million to get Mega Joules.


Best Regards

Bellerophon

Last edited by Bellerophon; 30th May 2013 at 12:39.
Bellerophon is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 15:54
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kinetic energy calculation

Nerds.......
VH-UFO is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 16:12
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nerds and Proud of It!!!

No Nerds, No Birds
FCeng84 is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 17:04
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If its a US registered aircraft use American units like pounds, and feet not this pussy stuff like meters and knots

If its German convert it to ergs
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 18:55
  #13 (permalink)  
5LY
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
lomapaseoDo you realize that you're the only ones left? You promised to change 40 some years ago and pussied out. Those of us from the cold bit north of you of a certain age speak both. Does that make us by-metric?
5LY is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 19:33
  #14 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ft-pounds is all I understand.
fantom is offline  
Old 30th May 2013, 20:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: huntsvegas
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yep, y'all are

definitely bi-metric and stuff, momma and them even said so...

Oh yeah what is the formula for that kinetical energy, could somebody post that again?

Last edited by kenneth house; 30th May 2013 at 21:00.
kenneth house is offline  
Old 31st May 2013, 07:26
  #16 (permalink)  
Bye
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derby UK
Age: 59
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i'm goin metric inch by inch
Bye is offline  
Old 31st May 2013, 07:58
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 999
Received 29 Likes on 18 Posts
You should go metric. It's a dozen times easier.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 31st May 2013, 11:19
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France
Age: 45
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And do you all agree we are talking groundspeed here? I stand to be corrected...
OATNetjets is offline  
Old 31st May 2013, 11:30
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Frames of Reference

Absolutely. To calculate velocity or any of its related quantities (e.g. Kinetic Energy) you need to know the frame of reference you are using. For an aircraft the KE should be calculated with respect to the Earth's frame of reference, thus GROUNDSPEED is the correct speed to use.

Think about it: if you land in zero headwind you will need to use a longer runway (or brake harder) than if you landed in a strong headwind. This is also why landing in a tailwind is a bad idea - the KE you have to dissipate on landing increases in line with the SQUARE of the tailwind, meaning you need a much longer runway or else you will trash the brakes (or both)!

Lastly, with regards to the earlier "Nerds" comment: Engineers are good at this stuff, and some far more complex stuff too, which is why we can design, build and test some remarkable aircraft. If we didn't do this, pilots would (a) not have a job and (b) would not be able to fly around looking and feeling cool and (in some cases) superior to the rest of humanity

So, credit where credit is due please!
WeekendFlyer is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2013, 13:17
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: huntsvegas
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ Bye and Hydromet

You guys crack me up--i spit coffee all over the keyboard...

i'm goin metric inch by inch

You should go metric. It's a dozen times easier.
kenneth house is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.