FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

Jim Logajan · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

"Jamie and Adam take wing to test if a person with no flight training can
safely land an airplane and if a plane can take off from a conveyor belt
speeding in the opposite direction. Tory, Grant, and Kari jump on some
Hollywood-inspired skydiving myths."

Quoted from the Discovery channel schedule:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=1.13056.24704.3913.x

(My local paper's weekly TV schedule has just the brief summary "Landing a
747" so I presume the plane they attempt to land without training is a 747.
Will be interesting to see if they try the real thing and are not limited
to a simulator.)

Archived from group: rec>aviation>homebuilt

Bob Noel · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 2

In article ,
James Sleeman wrote:

> On Dec 9, 6:32 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
> > safely land an airplane and if a plane can take off from a conveyor belt
>
> Oh lordy, here we go again, I sense an enormous thread coming.

maybe we can get a rec.aviation.treadmill out of this...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Vacant lot · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 1

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message @216.168.3.30...
> "Jamie and Adam take wing to test if a person with no flight training can
> safely land an airplane and if a plane can take off from a conveyor belt
> speeding in the opposite direction. Tory, Grant, and Kari jump on some
> Hollywood-inspired skydiving myths."
>

I don't understand the premise of the conveyor belt thing. If you are
talking about thrusting an aircraft forward, like a catapult, you already
know the answer, and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already know
the answer. What are they trying to prove? I've seen the show but I watch
very little tv, have they run out of urban myths?

B A R R Y · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 3

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, "Goshhawk@westlink.tw"
wrote:

>I don't understand the premise of the conveyor belt thing. If you are
>talking about thrusting an aircraft forward, like a catapult, you already
>know the answer, and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
>aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already know
>the answer. What are they trying to prove?

If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
hundred messages here?

Dudley Henriques · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 3

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, "Goshhawk@westlink.tw"
> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand the premise of the conveyor belt thing. If you are
>> talking about thrusting an aircraft forward, like a catapult, you already
>> know the answer, and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
>> aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already know
>> the answer. What are they trying to prove?
>
> If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
> hundred messages here?

It shouldn't Smile

--
Dudley Henriques

Maxwell · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 1

"B A R R Y" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, "Goshhawk@westlink.tw"
> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand the premise of the conveyor belt thing. If you are
>>talking about thrusting an aircraft forward, like a catapult, you already
>>know the answer, and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
>>aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already
>>know
>>the answer. What are they trying to prove?
>
> If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
> hundred messages here?

Only because there are one or two nit pickers on here....

Blueskies · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 1

"Maxwell" wrote in message $yV5.116@newsfe15.phx...
>
> "B A R R Y" wrote in message @4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, "Goshhawk@westlink.tw"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't understand the premise of the conveyor belt thing. If you are
>>>talking about thrusting an aircraft forward, like a catapult, you already
>>>know the answer, and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
>>>aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already know
>>>the answer. What are they trying to prove?
>>
>> If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
>> hundred messages here?
>
> Only because there are one or two nit pickers on here....
>

Maybe we should start the thread drift right here and now....

You know, people would fully understand that a plane on a treadmill will not start flying if we had a good educational
system. Liberal use of aerodynamic principles leads to stall spin accidents, and everyone knows the dreaded downwind
turn was by global warming...

muff528 · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

"Blueskies" wrote in message $lD6.3564@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Maxwell" wrote in message
> $yV5.116@newsfe15.phx...
>>
>> "B A R R Y" wrote in message
>> @4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, "Goshhawk@westlink.tw"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't understand the premise of the conveyor belt thing. If you are
>>>>talking about thrusting an aircraft forward, like a catapult, you
>>>>already
>>>>know the answer, and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
>>>>aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already
>>>>know
>>>>the answer. What are they trying to prove?
>>>
>>> If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
>>> hundred messages here?
>>
>> Only because there are one or two nit pickers on here....
>>
>
> Maybe we should start the thread drift right here and now....
>
> You know, people would fully understand that a plane on a treadmill will
> not start flying if we had a good educational system. Liberal use of
> aerodynamic principles leads to stall spin accidents, and everyone knows
> the dreaded downwind turn was by global warming...
>
>

Hang on!....Here we go again! :0)
TP
>

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"B A R R Y" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, "Goshhawk@westlink.tw"
> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand the premise of the conveyor belt thing. If you are
>>talking about thrusting an aircraft forward, like a catapult, you already
>>know the answer, and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
>>aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already
>>know
>>the answer. What are they trying to prove?
>
> If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
> hundred messages here?

Because the answer depends on a lot of assumptions that are not stated as
part of the original question.

:-p

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Dallas · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 1

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, Goshhawk@westlink.tw wrote:

> and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
> aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already know
> the answer. What are they trying to prove?

I guess there are still a couple of people out there that believe the
aircraft won't take off.

--
Dallas

Dan · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 1

James Sleeman wrote:
> On Dec 9, 6:32 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
>> safely land an airplane and if a plane can take off from a conveyor belt
>
> Oh lordy, here we go again, I sense an enormous thread coming.

It's not how big the thread is, it's how you use it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B A R R Y · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 3

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:02:36 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

>B A R R Y wrote:
>>
>> If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
>> hundred messages here?
>
>
>It shouldn't Smile

I agree.

cavelamb himself · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 82

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:02:36 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:
>
>
>>B A R R Y wrote:
>>
>>>If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
>>>hundred messages here?
>>
>>
>>It shouldn't Smile

>
>
>
> I agree.

Make that unanimous

Can we drop it now?!

B A R R Y · Joined: 09 Dec 2007 Posts: 3

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:33:15 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

>
>Can we drop it now?!

I already did.

Morgans · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

"B A R R Y" wrote

> If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
> hundred messages here?

Just goes to show that there are a LOT of stupid people out there, posting
on usenet.

But we knew that, with Anthony as their posterboy. Sad

--
Jim in NC

113 gallons per hour... Yep. The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT (67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise. Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyo

Kawasaki STX 100 hour meter. Hi all, can some one tell me if the hour meter on the above machine is based on a 60 minute hour, or is it engine hours based on revs. Thanks Tom

Looking for Boat Storage in within hour of NW Minneapolis su Looking ahead to next winter... can anyone recommend a good indoor winter boat storage location? Ideally within hour drive of NW Minneapolis suburbs. Thanks!

Transporting trekking poles on an airplane I need some ideas on how to safely transport a pair of Leli Super Makalu trekking poles on an airplane. They are too long for the bag I'm using. I have to transport them alone.

Morning HUBdate: The Full Hour * If You Watch One Thing Today: Hillary appears on Meet The Press for the full hour this morning. Check your local listings. * Outreach: Traveling across California and Nevada, Hillary has gone door-to-door and held smaller townhall discussions to hear di