MythBusters airplane on a conveyor belt [Archive]

January 31st 08, 03:06 AM

On Jan 30, 2:36*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.

Anybody who believes that a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt
is ignorant, and doesn't understand basic Physics...

The rolling resistance of a wheel rotating at twice the takeoff speed
is nowhere near the thrust produced by a spinning propellor at takeoff
power. The only resistance that a wheel provides is from the friction
of the bearings, and the deformation of the tire. Neither of these
forces come close the the thrust produced by the prop.

I still can't believe how many pilots on this board actually argued
that the plane can't take off. Anyone who made that argument needs to
sign up for a class in Physics. The math for this situation is pretty
simple. Fprop_thrust - Fwheel_rolling_resistance = Ftakeoff_thrust
F=m*A is then used to calculate the acceleration of the airplane on
the conveyor belt.

Robert Barker

January 31st 08, 03:16 AM

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.

Any pilot (including the one that flew the plane on the show) and believed
they'd stand "like a brick" should fear their next BFR.

William Hung[_2_]

January 31st 08, 03:38 AM

On Jan 30, 4:36*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.

Crap, I missed it. I predicted that it would take off just find.

Wil

Jim Logajan

January 31st 08, 03:44 AM

William Hung > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 4:36*pm, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>
> Crap, I missed it. I predicted that it would take off just find.

No you didn't. Discovery repeats its MythBusters episodes several times a
week. Check your TV schedule.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 09:25 AM

WingFlaps > wrote in news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
:

> On Jan 31, 12:34*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 1:36*pm, Peter Clark
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>> > "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>> > Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>
>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I see
>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to when a
>> show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the interesting
>> part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do some believe that
>> an airplane generates lift as a result of the speed of the wheels?
>> -Robert
>
> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual lift
> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>

Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as the
future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm pretty sure I
have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly unsucessful
prototype..
But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 01:25 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
> :
>
>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I see
>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to when a
>>> show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the interesting
>>> part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do some believe that
>>> an airplane generates lift as a result of the speed of the wheels?
>>> -Robert
>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual lift
>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>
>
> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as the
> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm pretty sure I
> have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly unsucessful
> prototype..
> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>
> Bertie
Actually you can still do it. I used a spinning cylinder all the time in
my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when getting
into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream airflow has no lift
as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream flows over the
cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash and
downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local velocity
over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity under it.
That's Bernoulli!
The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get into
wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 01:30 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I see
>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to when
>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do
>>>> some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
>>>> speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual lift
>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>
>>
>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as the
>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm pretty
>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>> unsucessful prototype..
>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>
>> Bertie
> Actually you can still do it.

Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back there
in the late ffties! ;)

>I used a spinning cylinder all the time
> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when
> getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream airflow
> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream flows
> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash and
> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity
> under it. That's Bernoulli!
> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get into
> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))

Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?

Bertie
>

Andy Hawkins

January 31st 08, 01:53 PM

Hi,

In article >,
Dudley > wrote:
> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
> lift!

Would that be punka walla, or cha walla? :D

(ITYM 'Voila' ;) )

Andy (sorry, couldn't resist!)

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 02:01 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I see
>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to when
>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do
>>>>> some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
>>>>> speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual lift
>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>
>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as the
>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm pretty
>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>>> unsucessful prototype..
>>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Actually you can still do it.
>
>
> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back there
> in the late ffties! ;)

We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
without him :-)))
>
>
>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when
>> getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream airflow
>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream flows
>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
>> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash and
>> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity
>> under it. That's Bernoulli!
>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get into
>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>
>
> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>
> Bertie
>
Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a good
gift of gab :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 02:04 PM

Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Dudley > wrote:
>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
>> lift!
>
> Would that be punka walla, or cha walla? :D
>
> (ITYM 'Voila' ;) )
>
> Andy (sorry, couldn't resist!)
>

I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of us :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 02:31 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at
9pm
>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I
see
>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to
when
>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do
>>>>>> some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
>>>>>> speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual
lift
>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>
>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>>>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as
the
>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm pretty
>>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>>>> unsucessful prototype..
>>>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>
>>
>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back
there
>> in the late ffties! ;)
>
> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
> without him :-)))
>>
>>
>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when
>>> getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream airflow
>>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream
flows
>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
>>> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash and
>>> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity
>>> under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get into
>>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>
>>
>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a
good
> gift of gab :-))
>

OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything then?
I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered cylindrical wing
model if anyone want me to post it I will.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 02:56 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at
> 9pm
>>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I
> see
>>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to
> when
>>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do
>>>>>>> some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
>>>>>>> speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual
> lift
>>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>>>>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as
> the
>>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm pretty
>>>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>>>>> unsucessful prototype..
>>>>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>>
>>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back
> there
>>> in the late ffties! ;)
>> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
>> without him :-)))
>>>
>>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when
>>>> getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream airflow
>>>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream
> flows
>>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
>>>> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash and
>>>> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
>>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity
>>>> under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get into
>>>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>>
>>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a
> good
>> gift of gab :-))
>>
>
> OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything then?
> I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered cylindrical wing
> model if anyone want me to post it I will.
>
> Bertie
>
The Naval Test Pilot School used to have a neat demonstration film set
up with a smoke generator and a fan coupled with a cylinder that was
both static and synamically capable that was shot in Schlieren format
that did the trick nicely, but in a pinch, I always found the blackboard
and chalk thing did just as well.
The trick with audio visuals is that the emphasis is really on the
instructor and how he/she uses the training aid rather than the training
aid itself. It's amazing what you can get across to people with the
right gift of gab :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 02:58 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show
titled
>>>>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at
>> 9pm
>>>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I
>> see
>>>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to
>> when
>>>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do
>>>>>>>> some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
>>>>>>>> speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual
>> lift
>>>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>>>>>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as
>> the
>>>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm
pretty
>>>>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>>>>>> unsucessful prototype..
>>>>>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>>>
>>>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back
>> there
>>>> in the late ffties! ;)
>>> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
>>> without him :-)))
>>>>
>>>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when
>>>>> getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream
airflow
>>>>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream
>> flows
>>>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream.
Walla......instant
>>>>> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash
and
>>>>> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
>>>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity
>>>>> under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get
into
>>>>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>>>
>>>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a
>> good
>>> gift of gab :-))
>>>
>>
>> OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything
then?
>> I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered cylindrical wing
>> model if anyone want me to post it I will.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> The Naval Test Pilot School used to have a neat demonstration film set
> up with a smoke generator and a fan coupled with a cylinder that was
> both static and synamically capable that was shot in Schlieren format
> that did the trick nicely, but in a pinch, I always found the
blackboard
> and chalk thing did just as well.
> The trick with audio visuals is that the emphasis is really on the
> instructor and how he/she uses the training aid rather than the
training
> aid itself. It's amazing what you can get across to people with the
> right gift of gab :-))
>

I usually resort to drawing on the back of beer mats, myself.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 03:00 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>>>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at
>> 9pm
>>>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I
>> see
>>>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to
>> when
>>>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do
>>>>>>>> some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
>>>>>>>> speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual
>> lift
>>>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel! There was a time in the
>>>>>> 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as
>> the
>>>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm pretty
>>>>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>>>>>> unsucessful prototype.. But a little spinning wheel isn't going to
>>>>>> give you much..
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>>>
>>>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back
>> there
>>>> in the late ffties! ;)
>>> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
>>> without him :-)))
>>>>
>>>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when
>>>>> getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream airflow
>>>>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream
>> flows
>>>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream.
>>>>> Walla......instant lift! You get it all in one simple
>>>>> demonstration. You get upwash and downwash. That's circulation.
>>>>> (Newton) You get increased local
>>>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity
>>>>> under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get
>>>>> into wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>>>
>>>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a
>> good
>>> gift of gab :-))
>>>
>>
>> OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything
>> then? I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered cylindrical
>> wing model if anyone want me to post it I will.
>> Bertie
>>
> The Naval Test Pilot School used to have a neat demonstration film set
> up with a smoke generator and a fan coupled with a cylinder that was
> both static and synamically capable that was shot in Schlieren format
> that did the trick nicely, but in a pinch, I always found the blackboard
> and chalk thing did just as well.
> The trick with audio visuals is that the emphasis is really on the
> instructor and how he/she uses the training aid rather than the training
> aid itself. It's amazing what you can get across to people with the
> right gift of gab :-))
>
Hey....I think I've discovered a new word here; (synamically). :-))
Should read dynamically.

--
Dudley Henriques

Neil Gould

January 31st 08, 03:01 PM

Recently, Dudley Henriques > posted:

> Andy Hawkins wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article >,
>> Dudley > wrote:
>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
>>> lift!
>>
>> Would that be punka walla, or cha walla? :D
>>
>> (ITYM 'Voila' ;) )
>>
>> Andy (sorry, couldn't resist!)
>>
>
> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of us
> :-))
>
What, "walla-be" (cross between wallaby and wannabe)? ;-)

Neil

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 03:05 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show
> titled
>>>>>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at
>>> 9pm
>>>>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I
>>> see
>>>>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to
>>> when
>>>>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do
>>>>>>>>> some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
>>>>>>>>> speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual
>>> lift
>>>>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>>>>>>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as
>>> the
>>>>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm
> pretty
>>>>>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>>>>>>> unsucessful prototype..
>>>>>>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>>>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back
>>> there
>>>>> in the late ffties! ;)
>>>> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
>>>> without him :-)))
>>>>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>>>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when
>>>>>> getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream
> airflow
>>>>>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream
>>> flows
>>>>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream.
> Walla......instant
>>>>>> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash
> and
>>>>>> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
>>>>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity
>>>>>> under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>>>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get
> into
>>>>>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>>>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a
>>> good
>>>> gift of gab :-))
>>>>
>>> OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything
> then?
>>> I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered cylindrical wing
>>> model if anyone want me to post it I will.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> The Naval Test Pilot School used to have a neat demonstration film set
>> up with a smoke generator and a fan coupled with a cylinder that was
>> both static and synamically capable that was shot in Schlieren format
>> that did the trick nicely, but in a pinch, I always found the
> blackboard
>> and chalk thing did just as well.
>> The trick with audio visuals is that the emphasis is really on the
>> instructor and how he/she uses the training aid rather than the
> training
>> aid itself. It's amazing what you can get across to people with the
>> right gift of gab :-))
>>
>
> I usually resort to drawing on the back of beer mats, myself.
>
>
> Bertie
I've done that myself many times giving ground school at an old bar
across the street from one of the airports I used to operate out of :-)

Actually, a lot of good stuff gets done this way. Ed Heinemann from
Douglas jotted down the initial design for the A4 Skyhawk on a table napkin.
--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 03:07 PM

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Dudley Henriques > posted:
>
>> Andy Hawkins wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Dudley > wrote:
>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
>>>> lift!
>>> Would that be punka walla, or cha walla? :D
>>>
>>> (ITYM 'Voila' ;) )
>>>
>>> Andy (sorry, couldn't resist!)
>>>
>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of us
>> :-))
>>
> What, "walla-be" (cross between wallaby and wannabe)? ;-)
>
> Neil
>
>
>
Could be. You have to admit, the Aussies DO have a way with nifty words.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

gatt[_2_]

January 31st 08, 03:47 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:0c2b0515-acb4-4050-844e-

>Do some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the speed of
>the wheels?

Maybe if they fast-forward the videotape they'll generate even more lift.

-c

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 03:54 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in news:Voloj.1587$xq2.1296
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

> Recently, Dudley Henriques > posted:
>
>> Andy Hawkins wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Dudley > wrote:
>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
>>>> lift!
>>>
>>> Would that be punka walla, or cha walla? :D
>>>
>>> (ITYM 'Voila' ;) )
>>>
>>> Andy (sorry, couldn't resist!)
>>>
>>
>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of us
>> :-))
>>
> What, "walla-be" (cross between wallaby and wannabe)? ;-)

They're breeding!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 03:56 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show
>> titled
>>>>>>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>> 9pm
>>>>>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks.
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise.
>>>>>>>>>> Do some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result
>>>>>>>>>> of the speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the
>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>> lift
>>>>>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>>>>>>>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen
>>>>>>>> as
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm
>> pretty
>>>>>>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>>>>>>>> unsucessful prototype..
>>>>>>>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>>>>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back
>>>> there
>>>>>> in the late ffties! ;)
>>>>> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
>>>>> without him :-)))
>>>>>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>>>>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example
>>>>>>> when getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream
>> airflow
>>>>>>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream
>>>> flows
>>>>>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>>>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream.
>> Walla......instant
>>>>>>> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash
>> and
>>>>>>> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
>>>>>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local
>>>>>>> velocity under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>>>>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get
>> into
>>>>>>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>>>>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a
>>>> good
>>>>> gift of gab :-))
>>>>>
>>>> OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything
>> then?
>>>> I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered cylindrical
>>>> wing model if anyone want me to post it I will.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> The Naval Test Pilot School used to have a neat demonstration film
>>> set up with a smoke generator and a fan coupled with a cylinder that
>>> was both static and synamically capable that was shot in Schlieren
>>> format that did the trick nicely, but in a pinch, I always found the
>> blackboard
>>> and chalk thing did just as well.
>>> The trick with audio visuals is that the emphasis is really on the
>>> instructor and how he/she uses the training aid rather than the
>> training
>>> aid itself. It's amazing what you can get across to people with the
>>> right gift of gab :-))
>>>
>>
>> I usually resort to drawing on the back of beer mats, myself.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> I've done that myself many times giving ground school at an old bar
> across the street from one of the airports I used to operate out of
> :-)
>
> Actually, a lot of good stuff gets done this way. Ed Heinemann from
> Douglas jotted down the initial design for the A4 Skyhawk on a table
> napkin.

He he. Yeah. A lot of our aircraft paperwork ends up with strange
scribbles on the back too.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 03:57 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show
>>>>>>>>>> titled "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air
>>>>>>>>>> tonight at
>>> 9pm
>>>>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I
>>> see
>>>>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to
>>> when
>>>>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise.
>>>>>>>>> Do some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of
>>>>>>>>> the speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual
>>> lift
>>>>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel! There was a time in the
>>>>>>> 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as
>>> the
>>>>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm
>>>>>>> pretty sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a
>>>>>>> fairly unsucessful prototype.. But a little spinning wheel isn't
>>>>>>> going to give you much..
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back
>>> there
>>>>> in the late ffties! ;)
>>>> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
>>>> without him :-)))
>>>>>
>>>>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>>>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example
>>>>>> when getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream
>>>>>> airflow has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The
>>>>>> airstream
>>> flows
>>>>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream.
>>>>>> Walla......instant lift! You get it all in one simple
>>>>>> demonstration. You get upwash and downwash. That's circulation.
>>>>>> (Newton) You get increased local
>>>>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local
>>>>>> velocity under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>>>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get
>>>>>> into wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a
>>> good
>>>> gift of gab :-))
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything
>>> then? I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered
>>> cylindrical wing model if anyone want me to post it I will.
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> The Naval Test Pilot School used to have a neat demonstration film
>> set up with a smoke generator and a fan coupled with a cylinder that
>> was both static and synamically capable that was shot in Schlieren
>> format that did the trick nicely, but in a pinch, I always found the
>> blackboard and chalk thing did just as well.
>> The trick with audio visuals is that the emphasis is really on the
>> instructor and how he/she uses the training aid rather than the
>> training aid itself. It's amazing what you can get across to people
>> with the right gift of gab :-))
>>
> Hey....I think I've discovered a new word here; (synamically). :-))
> Should read dynamically.
>

I'd copyright it and sell it to some asshole so he can "blue sky " it at
his next mondy morning meeting.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 03:59 PM

"gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> news:0c2b0515-acb4-4050-844e-
>
>>Do some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
>>speed of the wheels?
>
> Maybe if they fast-forward the videotape they'll generate even more
> lift.
>
>

That's how Anthony would do it!

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 04:14 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show
>>> titled
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>> 9pm
>>>>>>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks.
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result
>>>>>>>>>>> of the speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the
>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>> lift
>>>>>>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>>>>>>>>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm
>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
>>>>>>>>> unsucessful prototype..
>>>>>>>>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>>>>>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back
>>>>> there
>>>>>>> in the late ffties! ;)
>>>>>> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will work
>>>>>> without him :-)))
>>>>>>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>>>>>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example
>>>>>>>> when getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream
>>> airflow
>>>>>>>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream
>>>>> flows
>>>>>>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>>>>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream.
>>> Walla......instant
>>>>>>>> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash
>>> and
>>>>>>>> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
>>>>>>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local
>>>>>>>> velocity under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>>>>>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get
>>> into
>>>>>>>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>>>>>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and a
>>>>> good
>>>>>> gift of gab :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything
>>> then?
>>>>> I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered cylindrical
>>>>> wing model if anyone want me to post it I will.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> The Naval Test Pilot School used to have a neat demonstration film
>>>> set up with a smoke generator and a fan coupled with a cylinder that
>>>> was both static and synamically capable that was shot in Schlieren
>>>> format that did the trick nicely, but in a pinch, I always found the
>>> blackboard
>>>> and chalk thing did just as well.
>>>> The trick with audio visuals is that the emphasis is really on the
>>>> instructor and how he/she uses the training aid rather than the
>>> training
>>>> aid itself. It's amazing what you can get across to people with the
>>>> right gift of gab :-))
>>>>
>>> I usually resort to drawing on the back of beer mats, myself.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I've done that myself many times giving ground school at an old bar
>> across the street from one of the airports I used to operate out of
>> :-)
>>
>> Actually, a lot of good stuff gets done this way. Ed Heinemann from
>> Douglas jotted down the initial design for the A4 Skyhawk on a table
>> napkin.
>
> He he. Yeah. A lot of our aircraft paperwork ends up with strange
> scribbles on the back too.
>
> Bertie

...and don't forget those peanut butter and jelly sandwiches you can
stuff into a Jepp case :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

January 31st 08, 04:26 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show
>>>> titled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>> 9pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few
weeks.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the
premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the speed of the wheels? -Robert
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>> lift
>>>>>>>>>>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
>>>>>>>>>> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was
seen
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm
>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a
fairly
>>>>>>>>>> unsucessful prototype..
>>>>>>>>>> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>> Actually you can still do it.
>>>>>>>> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed
back
>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> in the late ffties! ;)
>>>>>>> We could check this out with Ken, but I'm pretty sure it will
work
>>>>>>> without him :-)))
>>>>>>>>> I used a spinning cylinder all the time
>>>>>>>>> in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example
>>>>>>>>> when getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free
stream
>>>> airflow
>>>>>>>>> has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The
airstream
>>>>>> flows
>>>>>>>>> over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
>>>>>>>>> Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream.
>>>> Walla......instant
>>>>>>>>> lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get
upwash
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
>>>>>>>>> velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local
>>>>>>>>> velocity under it. That's Bernoulli!
>>>>>>>>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to
get
>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>>>>>>>> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a tin can, a blackboard and chalk, some finger pointing and
a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> gift of gab :-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK> You don't actually spin the can in front of a fan or anything
>>>> then?
>>>>>> I have located a very olp plan for a rubber powered cylindrical
>>>>>> wing model if anyone want me to post it I will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Naval Test Pilot School used to have a neat demonstration film
>>>>> set up with a smoke generator and a fan coupled with a cylinder
that
>>>>> was both static and synamically capable that was shot in Schlieren
>>>>> format that did the trick nicely, but in a pinch, I always found
the
>>>> blackboard
>>>>> and chalk thing did just as well.
>>>>> The trick with audio visuals is that the emphasis is really on the
>>>>> instructor and how he/she uses the training aid rather than the
>>>> training
>>>>> aid itself. It's amazing what you can get across to people with
the
>>>>> right gift of gab :-))
>>>>>
>>>> I usually resort to drawing on the back of beer mats, myself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I've done that myself many times giving ground school at an old bar
>>> across the street from one of the airports I used to operate out of
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Actually, a lot of good stuff gets done this way. Ed Heinemann from
>>> Douglas jotted down the initial design for the A4 Skyhawk on a table
>>> napkin.
>>
>> He he. Yeah. A lot of our aircraft paperwork ends up with strange
>> scribbles on the back too.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> ..and don't forget those peanut butter and jelly sandwiches you can
> stuff into a Jepp case :-))
>

Heh heh. Don't do that, but there's many the coffee stain on our papers.

Bertie

Kloudy via AviationKB.com

January 31st 08, 06:28 PM

WingFlaps wrote:

>
>Cheers

hangonaminnit.
I don't hink I understand the issue.

if the wing moves thru the air fast enough it will fly.

I don't understand what the question is.

do people believe the wheels are driving the airplane forward?

i'm confused. I don't care about the tire's relationship with the surface
they're on.
I just wanna get the wing thru the air.

Imagine, I put the airplane onna treadmill and run the treadmill belt CW so
that the wheels are spinning CCW( as if the plane were rolling backwards).
BUT I move the supporting frame of the treadmill thru the air forward at
sufficient velocity to produce lift on the wing....
it flies.

Maybe I'm missing what people are concerned about.

what's really freaky is the ultralite guy was surprised he was flyin when he
reached takeoff velocity thru the air.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

Jim Logajan

January 31st 08, 07:36 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get into
> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))

There have been planes and ships built that actually used the Magnus effect:

Some early aircraft:
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/ToFly/Rotorplanes.htm

An early ship:
http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/flettner_rotorship_page.htm

Jacques Cousteau's famous "Alcyone":
http://colaco.freeshell.org/downloads/alcyone/zoom_alcyone_canada.jpg

WingFlaps

January 31st 08, 07:42 PM

On Feb 1, 2:30*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote :
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote in
> >> news:ddef2011-7cca-4e5e-b5a8-
> >> :
>
> >>> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, Peter Clark
>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
> >>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
> >>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
> >>>> Yea, I had the TiVo searching for it for the last few weeks. I see
> >>>> that its set to record soon (I never actually pay attention to when
> >>>> a show is on anymore). I'm looking forward to it. To me the
> >>>> interesting part will not be the experiment but the premise. Do
> >>>> some believe that an airplane generates lift as a result of the
> >>>> speed of the wheels? -Robert
> >>> I'd be interested in knowing whether they can detect the actual lift
> >>> derived from the wheels spinning as the plane lifts off...
>
> >> Well, you could do it in a wind tunnel!
> >> There was a time in the 30's when a rotating cylinder was seen as the
> >> future of the wing. I think maybe even a few were built! I'm pretty
> >> sure I have an old Popular aviation with a few pics of a fairly
> >> unsucessful prototype..
> >> But a little spinning wheel isn't going to give you much..
>
> >> Bertie
> > Actually you can still do it.
>
> Really? I thought there might have been a physics watershed back there
> in the late ffties! ;)
>
> >I used a spinning cylinder all the time
> > in my discussions on aerodynamics. It makes a perfect example when
> > getting into lift. A cylinder not rotating in a free stream airflow
> > has no lift as the stagnation points are neutral. The airstream flows
> > over the cylinder equally; no Bernoulli...no Newton.
> > Now spin the cylinder clockwise to the airstream. Walla......instant
> > lift! You get it all in one simple demonstration. You get upwash and
> > downwash. That's circulation. (Newton) You get increased local
> > velocity over the top of the cylinder and decreased local velocity
> > under it. That's Bernoulli!
> > The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get into
> > wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>
> Excellent. What kind of contraption do you use to demonstrate?
>

You can do it nicely with a pencil, a piece of paper and elastic band.
Attach a strip of paper about 4" long and 1.5" wide at the narrow side
to the band with scotch tape. Then wind the paper around the middle of
the pencil and use the elastic band as a catapault. Get a helper to
hold one end of the band on a table, you the other end and pull the
pencil back along the table. Let the pencil go and as it flys across
the table it is also rotated fast. It leaves the table edge and
conducts one or two loops. A hex section pencil makes a nice noise
too. Only trouble is the lead gets trashed as the pencil hits the
floor ;-)

Cheers

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 07:55 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> The whole shegang is Magnus effect. It's a wonderful way to get into
>> wings, golf balls, curve balls...the whole magilla :-))
>
> There have been planes and ships built that actually used the Magnus effect:
>
> Some early aircraft:
> http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/ToFly/Rotorplanes.htm
>
> An early ship:
> http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/flettner_rotorship_page.htm
>
> Jacques Cousteau's famous "Alcyone":
> http://colaco.freeshell.org/downloads/alcyone/zoom_alcyone_canada.jpg

I believe the Alcyone is still being used by the Cousteau Society today.
If I recall, I think the Turbo sails are augmented by twin diesels but
do cut down the fuel costs by about 33%.

--
Dudley Henriques

gatt[_2_]

January 31st 08, 09:50 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message news:f92dnR-

> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of us :-))

Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.

-c
aiee, I need a vacation.

gatt[_2_]

January 31st 08, 09:56 PM

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.

Check out the T-shirt at Cafe Press:

http://www.kottke.org/08/01/mythbusters-airplane-on-a-conveyor-belt
http://www.cafepress.com/planetakesoff

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

January 31st 08, 10:15 PM

gatt wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message news:f92dnR-
>
>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of us :-))
>
> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>
> -c
> aiee, I need a vacation.
>
>
...and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Kloudy via AviationKB.com

January 31st 08, 11:13 PM

Kloudy wrote:
>>Cheers
>
>hangonaminnit.
>
>Maybe I'm missing what people are concerned about.

Oh never mind I've seen the entries and discussion.

Yeah, unless you can provide a counter to the propellor thrust...you's goin'
flyin'

how silly

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Jim Logajan

February 1st 08, 12:07 AM

"Robert Barker" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ..
> . On Jan 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>
> Any pilot (including the one that flew the plane on the show) and
> believed they'd stand "like a brick" should fear their next BFR.

Why?

His conceptual confusion is obviously not uncommon or entirely without
cause - after all, consider the case of landing on that same treadmill and
applying the brakes. What do you think happens? Is it immediately obvious,
or do you have to spend some time thinking about it to get the resulting
motion correct?

ManhattanMan

February 1st 08, 12:35 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message news:f92dnR-
>>
>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of
>>> us :-))
>>
>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>
>> -c
>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>
>>
> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))

They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 1st 08, 12:44 AM

ManhattanMan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> gatt wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message news:f92dnR-
>>>
>>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of
>>>> us :-))
>>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>>
>>> -c
>>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>>
>>>
>> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))
>
> They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)
>
>

It IS amazing when one stops to actually visualize it; the round globe;
the other side of it; and flying in the same sky upside down relative to
each other but right side up relative to the individual localities.
It's of course obvious to us in the macro sense, but when you REALLY get
down to the micro visualization of it all................ :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

Robert Barker

February 1st 08, 03:17 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ..
>> . On Jan 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Clark
>> > wrote:
>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>
>> Any pilot (including the one that flew the plane on the show) and
>> believed they'd stand "like a brick" should fear their next BFR.
>
> Why?
>
> His conceptual confusion is obviously not uncommon or entirely without
> cause - after all, consider the case of landing on that same treadmill and
> applying the brakes. What do you think happens? Is it immediately obvious,
> or do you have to spend some time thinking about it to get the resulting
> motion correct?

No, I can perhaps understand the misconception in non-pilots. But for a
pilot not to understand tells me he slept through a lot of his ground
school...

Thomas Borchert

February 1st 08, 08:27 AM

ManhattanMan,

> Myth busted,
>

What myth? <gd&r>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

William Hung[_2_]

February 1st 08, 09:17 AM

On Jan 30, 10:44*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 4:36*pm, Peter Clark
> > > wrote:
> >> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
> >> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
> >> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>
> > Crap, I missed it. *I predicted that it would take off just find.
>
> No you didn't. Discovery repeats its MythBusters episodes several times a
> week. Check your TV schedule.

Yeah you're right Jim. I caught a re-run yesterday.

Wil

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 1st 08, 09:56 AM

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> .
>> . . On Jan 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Clark
>> > wrote:
>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>
>> Any pilot (including the one that flew the plane on the show) and
>> believed they'd stand "like a brick" should fear their next BFR.
>
> Why?
>
> His conceptual confusion is obviously not uncommon or entirely without
> cause - after all, consider the case of landing on that same treadmill
> and applying the brakes. What do you think happens?

You're going to end up on your back!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 1st 08, 09:57 AM

"Robert Barker" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> news:c617bbc3-25ae-4fea-bc11-

>>> .. . On Jan 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>> > wrote:
>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>
>>> Any pilot (including the one that flew the plane on the show) and
>>> believed they'd stand "like a brick" should fear their next BFR.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> His conceptual confusion is obviously not uncommon or entirely
>> without cause - after all, consider the case of landing on that same
>> treadmill and applying the brakes. What do you think happens? Is it
>> immediately obvious, or do you have to spend some time thinking about
>> it to get the resulting motion correct?
>
> No, I can perhaps understand the misconception in non-pilots. But for
> a pilot not to understand tells me he slept through a lot of his
> ground school...
>
I know an ex RAF airline pilot who thinks that a crosswind in the cruise
causes yaw problems.

No ****..

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 1st 08, 09:59 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> ManhattanMan wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> gatt wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message news:f92dnR-
>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of
>>>>> us :-))
>>>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>>>
>>>> -c
>>>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))
>>
>> They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)
>>
>>
>
> It IS amazing when one stops to actually visualize it; the round globe;
> the other side of it; and flying in the same sky upside down relative to
> each other but right side up relative to the individual localities.
> It's of course obvious to us in the macro sense, but when you REALLY get
> down to the micro visualization of it all................ :-))))
>

Bucky Fuller amy have said it best when he said that up and down are
completely innacurate. The correct terms for a pilot should be in and out..

I think he was talking about flying, anyway..

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 1st 08, 12:05 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> ManhattanMan wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> gatt wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message news:f92dnR-
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either of
>>>>>> us :-))
>>>>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> -c
>>>>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))
>>> They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)
>>>
>>>
>> It IS amazing when one stops to actually visualize it; the round globe;
>> the other side of it; and flying in the same sky upside down relative to
>> each other but right side up relative to the individual localities.
>> It's of course obvious to us in the macro sense, but when you REALLY get
>> down to the micro visualization of it all................ :-))))
>>
>
>
>
> Bucky Fuller amy have said it best when he said that up and down are
> completely innacurate. The correct terms for a pilot should be in and out..
>
> I think he was talking about flying, anyway..
>
>
> Bertie
You run into this when you start explaining left and right vs inside and
top or outside rudder when dealing with slow rolls :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 1st 08, 12:12 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> ManhattanMan wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> gatt wrote:
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:f92dnR-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either
>>>>>>> of us :-))
>>>>>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -c
>>>>>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))
>>>> They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It IS amazing when one stops to actually visualize it; the round
>>> globe; the other side of it; and flying in the same sky upside down
>>> relative to each other but right side up relative to the individual
>>> localities. It's of course obvious to us in the macro sense, but
>>> when you REALLY get down to the micro visualization of it
>>> all................ :-))))
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bucky Fuller amy have said it best when he said that up and down are
>> completely innacurate. The correct terms for a pilot should be in and
>> out..
>>
>> I think he was talking about flying, anyway..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> You run into this when you start explaining left and right vs inside
> and top or outside rudder when dealing with slow rolls :-)
>

Yes, I've been doing that with one of my current students in
anticipation of the arrival of the airplane,
Or rather, he's been reading a lot and asking me questions about how you
know which way to twist the controls inverted. I just told him it's
easier to see when your head is upside down! For inverted flight, you
push the stick as normal for the direction of roll without concerning
yourself with L/R labels. and the rudder just goes in the dirction you
want the nose to go. Simple. For rolls, it's the same with the addition
of top/bottom rudder for the knife edge transition.. Sound reasonable?

Bertie

Jim Logajan

February 1st 08, 06:53 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> consider the case of landing on that same treadmill
>> and applying the brakes. What do you think happens?
>
> You're going to end up on your back!

Yeah - if the pilot doesn't correct for the treadmill motion and uses the
usual brake pressure it could nose over. Relative to the wheels it "looks"
like a fast landing.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 1st 08, 07:52 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> ManhattanMan wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>> gatt wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:f92dnR-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either
>>>>>>>> of us :-))
>>>>>>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -c
>>>>>>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))
>>>>> They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It IS amazing when one stops to actually visualize it; the round
>>>> globe; the other side of it; and flying in the same sky upside down
>>>> relative to each other but right side up relative to the individual
>>>> localities. It's of course obvious to us in the macro sense, but
>>>> when you REALLY get down to the micro visualization of it
>>>> all................ :-))))
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bucky Fuller amy have said it best when he said that up and down are
>>> completely innacurate. The correct terms for a pilot should be in and
>>> out..
>>>
>>> I think he was talking about flying, anyway..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> You run into this when you start explaining left and right vs inside
>> and top or outside rudder when dealing with slow rolls :-)
>>
>
> Yes, I've been doing that with one of my current students in
> anticipation of the arrival of the airplane,
> Or rather, he's been reading a lot and asking me questions about how you
> know which way to twist the controls inverted. I just told him it's
> easier to see when your head is upside down! For inverted flight, you
> push the stick as normal for the direction of roll without concerning
> yourself with L/R labels. and the rudder just goes in the dirction you
> want the nose to go. Simple. For rolls, it's the same with the addition
> of top/bottom rudder for the knife edge transition.. Sound reasonable?
>
> Bertie
Sounds good. Perspective in aerobatics inverted can be REAL confusing to
newbies. The one that I always found fascinating is the different
perspective in inverted spins as seen from the pilot's and ground
witness perspective. To the pilot the inverted spin will be left, but
when seen from the ground, the inverted spin appears to be to the right
:-))
This drove the judges nuts on the international aerobatic competition
circuit until a pilot being judged for an inverted spin one way realized
he has spun the other way and corrected the judge :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 1st 08, 08:38 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> ManhattanMan wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>> gatt wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:f92dnR-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either
>>>>>>>>> of us :-))
>>>>>>>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -c
>>>>>>>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))
>>>>>> They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It IS amazing when one stops to actually visualize it; the round
>>>>> globe; the other side of it; and flying in the same sky upside
>>>>> down relative to each other but right side up relative to the
>>>>> individual localities. It's of course obvious to us in the macro
>>>>> sense, but when you REALLY get down to the micro visualization of
>>>>> it all................ :-))))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bucky Fuller amy have said it best when he said that up and down
>>>> are completely innacurate. The correct terms for a pilot should be
>>>> in and out..
>>>>
>>>> I think he was talking about flying, anyway..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> You run into this when you start explaining left and right vs inside
>>> and top or outside rudder when dealing with slow rolls :-)
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I've been doing that with one of my current students in
>> anticipation of the arrival of the airplane,
>> Or rather, he's been reading a lot and asking me questions about how
>> you know which way to twist the controls inverted. I just told him
>> it's easier to see when your head is upside down! For inverted
>> flight, you push the stick as normal for the direction of roll
>> without concerning yourself with L/R labels. and the rudder just goes
>> in the dirction you want the nose to go. Simple. For rolls, it's the
>> same with the addition of top/bottom rudder for the knife edge
>> transition.. Sound reasonable?
>>
>> Bertie
> Sounds good. Perspective in aerobatics inverted can be REAL confusing
> to newbies. The one that I always found fascinating is the different
> perspective in inverted spins as seen from the pilot's and ground
> witness perspective. To the pilot the inverted spin will be left, but
> when seen from the ground, the inverted spin appears to be to the
> right
>:-))
> This drove the judges nuts on the international aerobatic competition
> circuit until a pilot being judged for an inverted spin one way
> realized he has spun the other way and corrected the judge :-))

I haven't done an awful lot of those, but I always determined them to be
in the direction I'd depressed the pedal. Not that it mattered! It was
only a thrill ride for me anyway. I never used them in competition as I
only competed in sportsman.

Bertie

>

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 1st 08, 09:06 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> ManhattanMan wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>>> gatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:f92dnR-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than either
>>>>>>>>>> of us :-))
>>>>>>>>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -c
>>>>>>>>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))
>>>>>>> They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It IS amazing when one stops to actually visualize it; the round
>>>>>> globe; the other side of it; and flying in the same sky upside
>>>>>> down relative to each other but right side up relative to the
>>>>>> individual localities. It's of course obvious to us in the macro
>>>>>> sense, but when you REALLY get down to the micro visualization of
>>>>>> it all................ :-))))
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bucky Fuller amy have said it best when he said that up and down
>>>>> are completely innacurate. The correct terms for a pilot should be
>>>>> in and out..
>>>>>
>>>>> I think he was talking about flying, anyway..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> You run into this when you start explaining left and right vs inside
>>>> and top or outside rudder when dealing with slow rolls :-)
>>>>
>>> Yes, I've been doing that with one of my current students in
>>> anticipation of the arrival of the airplane,
>>> Or rather, he's been reading a lot and asking me questions about how
>>> you know which way to twist the controls inverted. I just told him
>>> it's easier to see when your head is upside down! For inverted
>>> flight, you push the stick as normal for the direction of roll
>>> without concerning yourself with L/R labels. and the rudder just goes
>>> in the dirction you want the nose to go. Simple. For rolls, it's the
>>> same with the addition of top/bottom rudder for the knife edge
>>> transition.. Sound reasonable?
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Sounds good. Perspective in aerobatics inverted can be REAL confusing
>> to newbies. The one that I always found fascinating is the different
>> perspective in inverted spins as seen from the pilot's and ground
>> witness perspective. To the pilot the inverted spin will be left, but
>> when seen from the ground, the inverted spin appears to be to the
>> right
>> :-))
>> This drove the judges nuts on the international aerobatic competition
>> circuit until a pilot being judged for an inverted spin one way
>> realized he has spun the other way and corrected the judge :-))
>
>
> I haven't done an awful lot of those, but I always determined them to be
> in the direction I'd depressed the pedal. Not that it mattered! It was
> only a thrill ride for me anyway. I never used them in competition as I
> only competed in sportsman.
>
> Bertie
>
>
I've always considered Sportsman a difficult category. In many instances
the energy management problem is a handful for a newbie, and pilots who
do well in Sportsman have to fly extremely well and have a real handle
on the basics. A lot of times you can get away with a minor fluff in an
Extra and the excess power will cover your butt, but it stands out like
a sore thumb in a Citabria :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 1st 08, 09:10 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ManhattanMan wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>>>> gatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:f92dnR-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet the Australians use something even better than
>>>>>>>>>>> either of us :-))
>>>>>>>>>> Their conveyor belts go in the opposite direction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -c
>>>>>>>>>> aiee, I need a vacation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ..and their airplanes fly upside down too :-))
>>>>>>>> They'd say you're entitled to your point of view.... :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It IS amazing when one stops to actually visualize it; the round
>>>>>>> globe; the other side of it; and flying in the same sky upside
>>>>>>> down relative to each other but right side up relative to the
>>>>>>> individual localities. It's of course obvious to us in the macro
>>>>>>> sense, but when you REALLY get down to the micro visualization
>>>>>>> of it all................ :-))))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bucky Fuller amy have said it best when he said that up and down
>>>>>> are completely innacurate. The correct terms for a pilot should
>>>>>> be in and out..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think he was talking about flying, anyway..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> You run into this when you start explaining left and right vs
>>>>> inside and top or outside rudder when dealing with slow rolls :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I've been doing that with one of my current students in
>>>> anticipation of the arrival of the airplane,
>>>> Or rather, he's been reading a lot and asking me questions about
>>>> how you know which way to twist the controls inverted. I just told
>>>> him it's easier to see when your head is upside down! For inverted
>>>> flight, you push the stick as normal for the direction of roll
>>>> without concerning yourself with L/R labels. and the rudder just
>>>> goes in the dirction you want the nose to go. Simple. For rolls,
>>>> it's the same with the addition of top/bottom rudder for the knife
>>>> edge transition.. Sound reasonable?
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Sounds good. Perspective in aerobatics inverted can be REAL
>>> confusing to newbies. The one that I always found fascinating is the
>>> different perspective in inverted spins as seen from the pilot's and
>>> ground witness perspective. To the pilot the inverted spin will be
>>> left, but when seen from the ground, the inverted spin appears to be
>>> to the right
>>> :-))
>>> This drove the judges nuts on the international aerobatic
>>> competition circuit until a pilot being judged for an inverted spin
>>> one way realized he has spun the other way and corrected the judge
>>> :-))
>>
>>
>> I haven't done an awful lot of those, but I always determined them to
>> be in the direction I'd depressed the pedal. Not that it mattered! It
>> was only a thrill ride for me anyway. I never used them in
>> competition as I only competed in sportsman.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
> I've always considered Sportsman a difficult category. In many
> instances the energy management problem is a handful for a newbie, and
> pilots who do well in Sportsman have to fly extremely well and have a
> real handle on the basics. A lot of times you can get away with a
> minor fluff in an Extra and the excess power will cover your butt, but
> it stands out like a sore thumb in a Citabria :-)
>
Actually, energy management was never a problem for me. I did most
competitions in a Decathlon or a Lakes. I ddn't do all that many,
anyway. Five, I think. Other things got in the way..

Bertie

gatt[_2_]

February 2nd 08, 01:06 AM

"Robert Barker" > wrote in message

> No, I can perhaps understand the misconception in non-pilots. But for a
> pilot not to understand tells me he slept through a lot of his ground
> school...

Or just hasn't thought it through fully. If you don't properly visualize
the experiment it's easy to think "Well, that's stupid. The airplane's not
going to take off from a conveyor belt because it's not going anywhere.
Otherwise, it would take off if you were sitting on the ground and applied
full throttle..."

....which, of course, is exactly what it does. ...just not where you've
parked it. The discussion must specifiy the length of the conveyor belt
because when I heard it I visualized a treadmill about the same length as
the airplane and thought the experiment was talking about VTOL.

-c

Robert Barker

February 2nd 08, 01:48 AM

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Barker" > wrote in message
>
>> No, I can perhaps understand the misconception in non-pilots. But for a
>> pilot not to understand tells me he slept through a lot of his ground
>> school...
>
> Or just hasn't thought it through fully. If you don't properly visualize
> the experiment it's easy to think "Well, that's stupid. The airplane's not
> going to take off from a conveyor belt because it's not going anywhere.
> Otherwise, it would take off if you were sitting on the ground and applied
> full throttle..."
>
> ...which, of course, is exactly what it does. ...just not where you've
> parked it. The discussion must specifiy the length of the conveyor belt
> because when I heard it I visualized a treadmill about the same length as
> the airplane and thought the experiment was talking about VTOL.
>
> -c

It wouldn't make any difference on the length of the treadmill. The
PROPELLER moves the airplane forward and has no relationship to the ground.
If we're talking stopping, that's different where the wheels are doing the
work and the wheels DO have a relationship to the ground. The confusion is
where people thing the wheels have something to do with forward motion like
in a car. This is a confusion that no PILOT should have.

Ron Garret

February 3rd 08, 04:08 PM

In article >,
"Robert Barker" > wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Robert Barker" > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ..
> >> . On Jan 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Clark
> >> > wrote:
> >>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
> >>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
> >>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
> >>
> >> Any pilot (including the one that flew the plane on the show) and
> >> believed they'd stand "like a brick" should fear their next BFR.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > His conceptual confusion is obviously not uncommon or entirely without
> > cause - after all, consider the case of landing on that same treadmill and
> > applying the brakes. What do you think happens? Is it immediately obvious,
> > or do you have to spend some time thinking about it to get the resulting
> > motion correct?
>
> No, I can perhaps understand the misconception in non-pilots. But for a
> pilot not to understand tells me he slept through a lot of his ground
> school...

It is possible that the pilot was told by the producers to say this even
though he knew better in order to create drama. I'm not saying this
happened, only that it's a possibility. This sort of thing does happen
in television.

rg

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 3rd 08, 10:05 PM

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ..
>>>> . On Jan 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Clark
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> For those interested in such things, the MythBusters show titled
>>>>> "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" is in TVGuide to air tonight at 9pm
>>>>> Eastern US on Discovery/Discovery HD.
>>>> Any pilot (including the one that flew the plane on the show) and
>>>> believed they'd stand "like a brick" should fear their next BFR.
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> His conceptual confusion is obviously not uncommon or entirely without
>>> cause - after all, consider the case of landing on that same treadmill and
>>> applying the brakes. What do you think happens? Is it immediately obvious,
>>> or do you have to spend some time thinking about it to get the resulting
>>> motion correct?
>> No, I can perhaps understand the misconception in non-pilots. But for a
>> pilot not to understand tells me he slept through a lot of his ground
>> school...
>
> It is possible that the pilot was told by the producers to say this even
> though he knew better in order to create drama. I'm not saying this
> happened, only that it's a possibility. This sort of thing does happen
> in television.
>
> rg

Most likely not. It's not surprising really. Many pilots don't have a
formal handle on physics. Many learn what they have to learn from the
books which mostly cover the specific reasons for a certain aerodynamic
behavior as that behavior relates to what the pilot "has to know".
In other words, many pilots can tell you what makes an airplane turn but
might not be able to list the simple machines or explain the mechanical
advantage of a pulley system.
This isn't meant to put pilots down in any way. In fact, one of the
finest air show demonstration pilots I ever knew was a high school drop
out. He couldn't explain much beyond what he learned to pass his
written, but what a stick he was. That guy could write his name in the
sky with a Pitts Special :-)

It's great to have a handle on physics, and indeed a great many pilots
have an above average amount of knowledge in this area, but finding
pilots who REALLY know the higher math and physics (and I mean knowing
these things at the level where they have a high degree of
comprehension) is a crap shoot.
As I say, they are out there for sure, but a high level of understanding
of physics definitely isn't a pre-requisite for the PPL.

--
Dudley Henriques