This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"for launch from the Earth's surface, for launch from the Moon it only needs to be more than 0.1654"
Thrust to WEIGHT ratio always need to be larger than unity. Moon's surface gravity 1/6 of Earth, but you still need 1N thrust to counter 1N of gravitation attraction. I think the editor is mixing up mass and weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.87.75 (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiki aircraft performance entries show the following in the thrust/weight: data 'F100 0.898; F110 1.095', but this article in no way explains what this meant!--Mrg3105 10:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
--
I am not shure if I got it right, but this is what I know. The article tells the following:
> For a takeoff using pure thrust and no wings, the thrust-weight ratio for the vehicle has to be more than one [...]
This primarily means rockets/space craft. Other aircraft heavier than air use rotors or wings to gain height (airliners, helicopters etc.), plus some sort of engine and steering, to move horizontally. Airplanes don't need a thrust/weight ratio above 1 (see your F100 ratio). But a good ratio - and a high wing loading - is most important to modern fighter airplanes. VTOL airplanes like the Harrier do definitly need a thrust/weight ratio above 1 to start vertically. A ratio of more than 1 provides possibility to fly vertically for those aircraft, which means without the help of wings and their aerodynamic lift.
Also check out the F/A-18 Hornet - especially the "design" section in this article:
> [...] superbly maneuverable, owing to its good thrust to weight ratio [...], and check out this pic: a Hornet climbing - sthing a F-100 can't do I think. ;-)
Greetings, Andi, 13:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
--
The first and last paragraphs of the first section are contradictory: the first says the ratio is pegged to Earth's surface gravity; the last says it is not. —Fleminra 06:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Some user seems to be trying to add a table of data that they made in a spreadsheet to the article in jpg form. This form of data would be very difficult to change/expand/correct, and is completely out of keeping with the wikipedia's style.
Given that, I'm planning to remove it each time it appears.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone care to clarify the "It is a true ratio" line in the Calculation heading means? I can find no comparable use through searching around. As such, barring a link / further explanation in the article, I recommend its removal. Groxx (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This article refers to weight as a force in the definition but as a mass in the tables. Which is it?--208.54.14.122 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to have examples of very low ratio aircraft such as ultralights and early models such as the Wright Flyer. How low can the ratio be and still have a useful aircraft? Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
if I may ask something being a mathematical dummy: if I do the maths for the following engine
- Pratt & Whitney F119[22] 1,800 3,900 91 20,500 7.95 (data see article) -
using the given formula t/w = (91 kN / (1800 kg * 9,807 kg/m2))*1000 my result is 5.16 and not 7.95 ... where's the error please? thanx! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thrust-to-weight ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thrust to weight for aircraft are shown for the entire vehicle, including fuel. For example take-off at sea level at max weight. This seems a very useful measurement. But for spacecraft, the thrust-to-weight figures are for the bare engine. Since the fuel type provides a specific impulse, what is the point of comparing sea level thrust if you don't include the rest of the launch vehicle and its fuel required to get to a particular trajectory? I can't get my head around how thrust-to-weight provides any insight for a spacecraft, once you know specific impulse. DouglasHeld (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
for example this one 85.193.247.94 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The article of the F-35 states "Thrust/weight: 0.87 at gross weight (1.07 at loaded weight with 50% internal fuel)", that's different than what the table in this article here says. Something is not right in both. Shouldn't the TWR be higher if the plane is empty and go down to more load? Why 0.87 at gross weight of 16t and more at "loaded weight", whatever that is, probably not "max take-off weight". The figures in the table here don't fit to this, TWR seems way too low. Also where is the 177kN figure from? The F-35 articles speaks of a 125kN engine, 191kN with afterburner. --OBrian (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Zaereth recently made two good-faith edits to insert new material about aircraft weights, and calculating thrust-to-weight ratio. I consider this new material, at least in its original form, is unsatisfactory and so not suitable for Wikipedia.
The cited source for all this material is a NASA Technical Memorandum about trends in fighter aircraft. Combat aircraft in general, and fighter aircraft in particular, represent a very minor element of aircraft design and operation. Wikipedia is not a military encyclopaedia so its content and the sources on which it is based, should reflect the broadest sweep of aeronautics as evident in civil aviation. I would have no objection if a small element of military engineering is used as a minor appendix to the body of material on the subject.
The new material includes ... and even changes during flight operations
but, apart from “munition load”, no example is given to explain why thrust-to-weight ratio might change during flight. (The primary reason T/W ratio changes in flight is variation in maximum power/thrust due to changes in pressure altitude and temperature.)
An explanation is given for “Empty weight”. This explanation looks like Operating empty weight.
An explanation is given for “Combat weight”. This is inappropriate. Thrust-to-weight ratio has a much broader application than just combat aircraft.
An explanation is given for “Maximum takeoff weight” but it is incorrect. MTOW is not “The weight of the aircraft when fully loaded ...” It is a weight determined during the certification process and published as a limitation that must be observed by everyone associated with operation of a type and model of aircraft. See Maximum takeoff weight. Dolphin (t) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)