FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

[Jim Logajan]

"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.)

[buttman]

On Dec 8, 9:32 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "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....
>
> (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.)

I'm really anxious to see this episode, because apparently they filmed
the treadmill myth at my home airport.

[James Sleeman]

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.

[Bob Noel]

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!!!)

[[email protected]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "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]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
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? <G>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
> 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? <G>


It shouldn't :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
> 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? <G>

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

[Blueskies]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message ...
>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
>> 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? <G>
>
> Only because there are one or two nit pickers on here.... <G>
>

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...

[[email protected]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
> wrote:
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? <G>

The show? I've never seen it mentioned before. Or were you talking about
airspeed? I think almost everyone agrees that airspeed must meet a certain
velocity for flight. I allow for some who may still be alive who feel
differently.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 05:32:29 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>"Jamie and Adam take wing to test if a person with no flight training can
>safely land an airplane...
>...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.)

Air Progress did an article on that around 1976, well, not a non pilot
but a low time private, based on the premise of Arthur Hailey's
"Runway Zero-Eight". Stuck him in a 727 simulator set up in the
middle of a flight and as I recall, he got it down just fine.

Somehow I doubt the Mythbusters budget runs to a real 747 flight...

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bill of Rights goes too far--it should have stopped at "Congress shall make no law".

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:32:23 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote:

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

Because people don't understand basic physics (or aerodynamics).
Neither do the Mythbusters crew, either... or more likely, they just
don't care as long as the show gets ratings.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bill of Rights goes too far--it should have stopped at "Congress shall make no law".

[Harry K]

On Dec 9, 7:14 am, " <Vacant lot> wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in messagenews:ghrnl3h2rm847jvivviio87sa7arlkjvo7@4ax .com...
>
> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
> > wrote:
> 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? <G>
>
> The show? I've never seen it mentioned before. Or were you talking about
> airspeed? I think almost everyone agrees that airspeed must meet a certain
> velocity for flight. I allow for some who may still be alive who feel
> differently.

The problem is that people, when arguing against take-off, forget that
airspeed is generated by the prop or jet and has nothign at all to do
with how fast, what direction, or even _if_ the wheels are spinning
(as long as the engine can generate enough force to drag them).

The long threads are generated by people who refuse to recognize that.

Harry K

[Mxsmanic]

Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:

> Somehow I doubt the Mythbusters budget runs to a real 747 flight...

A full-motion simulator would suffice to prove the point. If you can land the
sim, you can land the real thing. If you can't land the sim, well, at least
nobody gets hurt.

[muff528]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
>>> 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? <G>
>>
>> Only because there are one or two nit pickers on here.... <G>
>>
>
> 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]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
> 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? <G>

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]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, 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[_2_]]

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]

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? <G>
>
>
>It shouldn't :-)


I agree.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

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? <G>
>>
>>
>>It shouldn't :-)
>
>
>
> I agree.


Make that unanimous

Can we drop it now?!

[B A R R Y]

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


>
>Can we drop it now?!

I already did.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote

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

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. :-(
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>Can we drop it now?!
>
> I already did.

Drop what??
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[ManhattanMan]

Dallas wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, 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.


Add a pinch of gadfly and stir until frothy......... d:->)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Somehow I doubt the Mythbusters budget runs to a real 747 flight...
>
> A full-motion simulator would suffice to prove the point. If you can
> land the sim, you can land the real thing.

Wrong again, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, 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.
>
>

I'd be one of them.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, 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.
>
>

Ooops, disregard, misread it!


Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"muff528" > wrote in message
news:5EU6j.3756$rB1.1504@trnddc03...

> Hang on!....Here we go again! :0)
> TP
>
>
I have my seat belt and shoulder harness tightened, and I will try not to
make any sound.

Peter ;-)

[ManhattanMan]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "muff528" > wrote in message
> news:5EU6j.3756$rB1.1504@trnddc03...
>
>> Hang on!....Here we go again! :0)
>> TP
>>
>>
> I have my seat belt and shoulder harness tightened, and I will try
> not to make any sound.
>
> Peter ;-)

Laughing is allowed... :)

[Dale Alexander]

I would be interested in knowing which airport that is. I know that they
have used Alameda and Hamilton in the past. Which airport are you referring
to?

Dale Alexander

"buttman" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 8, 9:32 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> "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....
>>
>> (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.)
>
> I'm really anxious to see this episode, because apparently they filmed
> the treadmill myth at my home airport.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
>>
>>> Somehow I doubt the Mythbusters budget runs to a real 747 flight...
>>
>> A full-motion simulator would suffice to prove the point. If you can
>> land the sim, you can land the real thing.
>
> Wrong again, fjukkwit.
>

Wouldn't you love to see them get the eunuch on their show?

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:33:15 -0600, cavelamb himself
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Can we drop it now?!
>
> I already did.

Better clean it up before Mom sees it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"nobody" > wrote in news:9MY6j.32394$MJ6.22405@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Somehow I doubt the Mythbusters budget runs to a real 747 flight...
>>>
>>> A full-motion simulator would suffice to prove the point. If you can
>>> land the sim, you can land the real thing.
>>
>> Wrong again, fjukkwit.
>>
>
> Wouldn't you love to see them get the eunuch on their show?


Yes, but what myth would they be busting?

the one that says that giving your kid a playstation for christmas will
give him a leg up in the world?



Bertie

[Dallas]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 18:31:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Ooops, disregard, misread it!

Whoa... Bertie...

My mouth dropped open for a second.


--
Dallas

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 18:31:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Ooops, disregard, misread it!
>
> Whoa... Bertie...
>
> My mouth dropped open for a second.
>
>
I'm only Bunyip, you know.

Bertie

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:36:10 -0500, john smith > wrote:

>Actually, MYTHBUSTERS is the best educational show on television for
>teaching people the scientific method for testing theories.

They're OK sometimes, but too often they concoct a showy demonstration
that doesn't prove or disprove their theory except under very limited
conditions... or they poorly engineer a test that fails spectacularly
and so "busts" the myth, when even the greenest engineer could point
out the errors.

Still, it's entertaining, and more intelligent than most TV.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts.

[buttman]

On Dec 9, 12:26 pm, "Dale Alexander" > wrote:
> I would be interested in knowing which airport that is. I know that they
> have used Alameda and Hamilton in the past. Which airport are you referring
> to?
>
> Dale Alexander

KMER, in the central valley. I only heard this through word of mouth,
so it may not even be correct.

And which myth did they test at Hamilton? I flew over that airport
recently and it's almost completely bulldozed away now...

[Dale Alexander]

Well, they did the stud gun that launched a stud from a gun trying to
pretend that they were wall-crawling super-heroes. They also did the flying
with a sheet of plywood...and the poor crash test dummy has seen his share
of crashing. But these were earlier episodes and what infrastructure there
is probably gone as you say. I remember several years ago when an airshow
was put on at Hamilton. Last time I saw the BD5-J Silver Bullet fly was
there.

Dale Alexander

"buttman" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 9, 12:26 pm, "Dale Alexander" > wrote:
>> I would be interested in knowing which airport that is. I know that they
>> have used Alameda and Hamilton in the past. Which airport are you
>> referring
>> to?
>>
>> Dale Alexander
>
> KMER, in the central valley. I only heard this through word of mouth,
> so it may not even be correct.
>
> And which myth did they test at Hamilton? I flew over that airport
> recently and it's almost completely bulldozed away now...
>

[[email protected]]

"nobody" wrote:

> Wouldn't you love to see them get the eunuch on their show?

He'd be outclassed by Buster. :-)


Marcel

[[email protected]]

On Dec 9, 9:03 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Maxwell" > wrote in ...
>
> > "B A R R Y" > wrote in messagenews:ghrnl3h2rm847jvivviio87sa7arlkjvo7@4ax .com...
> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
> >> 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? <G>
>
> > Only because there are one or two nit pickers on here.... <G>
>
> 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...

Hear, hear!

Of course it won't fly...nothing for the bugger to push against.

WWII proved that with the German flying disc experiments.

<snerk>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-09 07:03:09 -0800, "Blueskies" > said:

>>
>>
>
> 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...

I knew it was the liberals!
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Ross]

john smith wrote:
> Dana M. Hague wrote:
>
>>> If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
>>> hundred messages here? <G>
>>
>>
>> Because people don't understand basic physics (or aerodynamics).
>> Neither do the Mythbusters crew, either... or more likely, they just
>> don't care as long as the show gets ratings.
>
>
> Actually, MYTHBUSTERS is the best educational show on television for
> teaching people the scientific method for testing theories.

And, how can two guys, and crew, have soooooo much fun at their work????

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[johnsonbomb]

On Dec 9, 9:03 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Maxwell" > wrote in ...
>
> > "B A R R Y" > wrote in messagenews:ghrnl3h2rm847jvivviio87sa7arlkjvo7@4ax .com...
> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " <Vacant lot>
> >> 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? <G>
>
> > Only because there are one or two nit pickers on here.... <G>
>
> 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...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dude, you can't be serious with that educational system crap. Yes, the
American public education system could use some help, but I'm a
college senior and I can't tell you **** about aerodynamics

[[email protected]]

On Dec 9, 1:54 am, James Sleeman > 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 started in 1931. Look at patent number 1824346.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 8, 10:20 pm, buttman > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 9:32 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > "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....
>
> > (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.)
>
> I'm really anxious to see this episode, because apparently they filmed
> the treadmill myth at my home airport.

What is the tredmill myth based on? Is the assertion that an aircraft
takes flight because of the speed of the tires?

-Robert

[Jim Logajan]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> What is the tredmill myth based on? Is the assertion that an aircraft
> takes flight because of the speed of the tires?

Cecil Adams dealt with the treadmill myth in the following column:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html

And about a month later dealt with it again:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060303.html

I can only hope that the Myth Busters properly interpreted the original
problem statement and did not confuse it with one of the variants floating
around the net.

I also hope that they have a "Science Content" discussion that points out
the importance of clearly understanding the problem statement.

[[email protected]]

John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
they'd get retrained, or fired.

They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
shows made my hair hurt.

But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
that the science part was weak.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
> experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
> they'd get retrained, or fired.
>
> They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
> great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
> shows made my hair hurt.
>
> But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
> that the science part was weak.
>

Despite the stated format of the show, the boys are in the entertainment
business primarily. This means that what they do and how they do it is
severely restricted science wise due to multiple reasons, most of it
directly related to shortcuts required on a strict time line and the all
important "entertainment requirement".
The guys do the best they can within these restrictions and attempt to
produce a show for as wide a demographic audience as possible. They live
or die by the ratings book as do all such programs.
As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with an 85
year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school dropout and
explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so that they
completely understand every aspect of it on the science and engineering
level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

I do believe we've said the same thing using different words. It may
not scientific, but they are having fun. Who knows, maybe some few
kids, watching the show, will be inspired to become experimental
physists.





On Dec 11, 10:27 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
> > experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
> > they'd get retrained, or fired.
>
> > They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
> > great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
> > shows made my hair hurt.
>
> > But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
> > that the science part was weak.
>
> Despite the stated format of the show, the boys are in the entertainment
> business primarily. This means that what they do and how they do it is
> severely restricted science wise due to multiple reasons, most of it
> directly related to shortcuts required on a strict time line and the all
> important "entertainment requirement".
> The guys do the best they can within these restrictions and attempt to
> produce a show for as wide a demographic audience as possible. They live
> or die by the ratings book as do all such programs.
> As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with an 85
> year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school dropout and
> explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so that they
> completely understand every aspect of it on the science and engineering
> level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> I do believe we've said the same thing using different words. It may
> not scientific, but they are having fun. Who knows, maybe some few
> kids, watching the show, will be inspired to become experimental
> physists.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 11, 10:27 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
>>> experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
>>> they'd get retrained, or fired.
>>> They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
>>> great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
>>> shows made my hair hurt.
>>> But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
>>> that the science part was weak.
>> Despite the stated format of the show, the boys are in the entertainment
>> business primarily. This means that what they do and how they do it is
>> severely restricted science wise due to multiple reasons, most of it
>> directly related to shortcuts required on a strict time line and the all
>> important "entertainment requirement".
>> The guys do the best they can within these restrictions and attempt to
>> produce a show for as wide a demographic audience as possible. They live
>> or die by the ratings book as do all such programs.
>> As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with an 85
>> year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school dropout and
>> explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so that they
>> completely understand every aspect of it on the science and engineering
>> level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>

It's funny about the show. I'll catch it sometimes while surfing for old
movies late at night and find myself watching them trying not to blow
themselves up :-) Last night it was building an ancient Chinese throne
and fitting it with 47 rockets to see if the Emperor who actually tried
this way back when managed to get off the ground without killing himself.
I ended up going up to the bathroom and missing the ending. My best
Occam's Razor scientific guess on this one is that the ole' Emperor is
still out there somewhere thinking that one of these days he's "simply
GOT to pull himself together" :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob Crawford]

On Dec 10, 9:27 pm, " > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 1:54 am, James Sleeman > 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 started in 1931. Look at patent number 1824346.

Interesting.
Tho that patent has the conveyor belt going the opposite way to the
internet myth that's being tested (ie. same direction as aircraft
taking off).
http://www.google.com/patents?id=c9xqAAAAEBAJ&dq=patent:1824346

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
> experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
> they'd get retrained, or fired.
>
> They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
> great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
> shows made my hair hurt.

Boy - do I disagree with you! I say they _are_ doing science. "Full
Stop." ;-) Here's one checklist for some of the essentials that define
scientific methods of experiments (all IMHO of course):

0) State the nature of the question to be resolved.
Check.
0.5) Write proposal/grant request and do resource budgeting.
Partial Check. ;-)
1) (Mostly optional) Design and build preliminary small scale
experiments where possible.
Check.
2) Make predictions on expected results of small scale experiments.
Check.
3) Run preliminary experiments, record observations, and compare with
expectations.
Check.
4) Run experimental controls (i.e. factor being tested is absent or
otherwise not applied) if at all possible and/or relevant.
Check.
5) Run steps 1 through 4, but using larger or "full" scale.
Check.
6) Compare observations with the original question and attempt to draw
conclusions.
Check.
7) Publish the way the experiment was preformed and the reasoning used
in drawing the conclusions. This should give others enough
information to either replicate the results, critical review the
experimental methods used and the reasoning applied in the
conclusions.
Check (done via their show and their fan site feedback forums).

Last I looked, real science isn't defined by how "clean" the experiments
are but by the methodology employed. On that basis I'd say they show
_real_ science as it really is because they show how difficult or
ambiguous it can be at times, not how wonderfully elegant it is (because
often it isn't). As far as credentials go - if the methodology is
basically correct then I think the main value added by credentials is
that it reduces the probability any given experiment will be
"sophomoric" or poorly designed. It also reduces the need to do
experiments in the first place, because as the old saying goes:

"A couple of months in the laboratory saves spending a couple hours in
the library."

But of course their show isn't about saving time in the library. ;-)

> But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
> that the science part was weak.

Well, I don't think they have to put together grant proposals, so yeah,
lots of fun if someone else is bankrolling your efforts! On the other
hand they do have restrictions on time and budget. Just like real
scientists do! :-)

[johnsonbomb]

On Dec 10, 9:47 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > What is the tredmill myth based on? Is the assertion that an aircraft
> > takes flight because of the speed of the tires?
>
> Cecil Adams dealt with the treadmill myth in the following column:
>
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html
>
> And about a month later dealt with it again:
>
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060303.html
>
> I can only hope that the Myth Busters properly interpreted the original
> problem statement and did not confuse it with one of the variants floating
> around the net.
>
> I also hope that they have a "Science Content" discussion that points out
> the importance of clearly understanding the problem statement.

Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> Boy - do I disagree with you! I say they _are_ doing science. "Full
> Stop." ;-) Here's one checklist for some of the essentials that define
> scientific methods of experiments (all IMHO of course):
>
> 2) Make predictions on expected results of small scale experiments.
> Check.
> 3) Run preliminary experiments, record observations, and compare with
> expectations.
> Check.
> 5) Run steps 1 through 4, but using larger or "full" scale.
> Check.
> 6) Compare observations with the original question and attempt to draw
> conclusions.
> Check.

If they could not get it to work the way the myth proposed, or they had not
blown anything up, get totally wild, and go the extreme, and blow the hell
out of something!

I especially liked the time they were trying to see about how to clean out
transit concrete mixers (big truck rotating drum type) with a little
dynamite, and it would not work, so they packed the whole drum with ampho
(the kind of stuff used to blow off rock faces in the rock quarry) and lit
it off!

They were able to identify the rear axle and the engine block, after the
dust settled. Not much else, though! <g>

I laughed until my cheeks hurt, after that one!

Yes, they do get things very wrong sometimes, but I concur. It is part
science, part entertainment, and good clean fun. Shake well, and---- who
knows what will come out! :-)
--
Jim in NC
Jim in NC

[Ron Webb]

>
> Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
> will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.

I hope you're kidding!

I like Mythbusters a lot, but they ALWAYS miss something important!

It irritates me most (being an electronics engineer) when they have
something
involving electronics, and they don't involve their EE (Grant Imahara) who
certainly
could have kept them on track.

[Newps]

johnsonbomb wrote:

>
> Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
> will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.


yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.

[Casey Wilson]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> johnsonbomb wrote:
>
>>
>> Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
>> will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.
>
>
> yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
> applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.

But they did do a mostly reasonable job with piercing the skin of a
pressurized fuselage with a 9mm. The shaped charge part was hokey.

[Bob Noel]

In article <mW_7j.24898$0O1.4507@trnddc05>, "Casey Wilson" >
wrote:

> > yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
> > applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.
>
> But they did do a mostly reasonable job with piercing the skin of a
> pressurized fuselage with a 9mm. The shaped charge part was hokey.

Give them credit for noticing that the cherokee windshield wasn't rated
for birdstrikes, albeit after destroying a few windshields.

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

[Anthony W]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article <mW_7j.24898$0O1.4507@trnddc05>, "Casey Wilson" >
> wrote:
>
>>> yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
>>> applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.
>> But they did do a mostly reasonable job with piercing the skin of a
>> pressurized fuselage with a 9mm. The shaped charge part was hokey.
>
> Give them credit for noticing that the cherokee windshield wasn't rated
> for birdstrikes, albeit after destroying a few windshields.

Actually they did revisited this on later show and finally proved that a
frozen chicken had more penetrating power. As if it wasn't obvious...

The ice bullet could have been made to work but they never tried this
one again.

Tony

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 8, 9:32 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "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....
>
> (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.)

I have no doubt that our buddy from France firmly believes he can land
a 747 if necessary. In fact he's done it hundreds of times.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


> As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with an 85
> year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school dropout and
> explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so that they
> completely understand every aspect of it on the science and engineering
> level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))


I'm going to try that with Anthony, right after I learn to walk on water.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with an 85
>> year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school dropout and
>> explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so that they
>> completely understand every aspect of it on the science and engineering
>> level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))
>
>
> I'm going to try that with Anthony, right after I learn to walk on water.
>
> Bertie

You mean you CAN'T walk on water??? Damn!!!

Hey...you're missing all the fun over at RAS. Check out the thread on
Mxsmanic. I swear, I must be picking up some good troll habits from you
Bertie :-)))
Dudley

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I have no doubt that our buddy from France firmly believes he can land
> a 747 if necessary. In fact he's done it hundreds of times.

If the airplane is normally airworthy and with the use of automation, I have
virtually no doubt of it. Flying by hand is much more uncertain, depending on
many things.

[Jim Macklin]

They tried, in one previous show, to duplicate the old cartoon shotgun
barrel blow up with the barrel unwinding. They tried to use modern shotguns
which are made from solid tubular steel. Shotguns made before about 1920
were generally made by wrapping steel wire around a mandrel and using the
old blacksmith welding with a hammer and anvil.
Those barrels would have flaws and weak spots.

What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person with
some level experience with a cockpit display can control an airliner. Most
FAA controllers would not have the experience to describe the cockpit and
give useful instruction in how to manually fly with the autopilot or where
the switches are located, or how to use the radio to even start the
"rescue."

Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how to fly
the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
| On Dec 8, 9:32 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
| > "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....
| >
| > (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.)
|
| I have no doubt that our buddy from France firmly believes he can land
| a 747 if necessary. In fact he's done it hundreds of times.
|
| -Robert

[James Sleeman]

For those outside the US, you can find it with a search for
mythbusters on piratebay.org now, but you didn't hear that from me.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Hey...you're missing all the fun over at RAS. Check out the thread on
> Mxsmanic. I swear, I must be picking up some good troll habits from you
> Bertie :-)))
> Dudley

There are NO good troll habits. (>-{

They only good way to respond to a troll is to ignore it. (>-{

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

[James Sleeman]

On Dec 13, 10:19 pm, James Sleeman > wrote:
> For those outside the US, you can find it with a search for
> mythbusters on piratebay.org now, but you didn't hear that from me.

Argh, before anybody else does, don't bother if you're only wanting
plane ona treadmill, because, they dropped it from the episode.
Quoting from the MythBusters forum...

--- Begin Quote ---

I have just received an email from Dan Tapster, executive producer of
MythBusters.

Thanks to all the activity, he can't log in and asked me to post this
for him.

quote:
"Adam? Jamie? Dan? Someone step up and tell us what happened tonight."

Dear all,

As wbarnhill called out, I thought I should step in to what is rapidly
becoming a hornet's nest. I will try to calm things down but I don't
hold out much hope!

First up, for those concerned that this story has been cancelled,
don't worry, planes on a conveyer belt has been filmed, is
spectacular, and will be part of what us Mythbusters refer to as
'episode 97'. Currently that is due to air on January 30th.

Secondly, for those very aggrieved fans feeling "duped" into watching
tonight's show, I can only apologise. I'm not sure why the listings /
internet advertised that tonight's show contained POCB. I will
endeavour to find out an answer but for those conspiracy theorists
amongst you, I can assure you that it will have just been an honest
mistake. At one point
several months ago, POCB was going to be part of Airplane Hour.
Somewhere, someone has mistakenly posted the wrong listing. It will
have been a genuine mistake but nonetheless it was a mistake which is
unacceptable. As said I will try to find out what went wrong and hope
that you will see fit to forgive the team at Discovery.

Thanks in advance,

Dan


And with that, the entire board is going "READ ONLY" until I can clean
up the mess.

MythMod

--- End Quote ---

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Hey...you're missing all the fun over at RAS. Check out the thread on
>> Mxsmanic. I swear, I must be picking up some good troll habits from you
>> Bertie :-)))
>> Dudley
>
> There are NO good troll habits. (>-{
>
> They only good way to respond to a troll is to ignore it. (>-{
>

Is this a troll?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with
>>> an 85 year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school
>>> dropout and explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so
>>> that they completely understand every aspect of it on the science
>>> and engineering level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))
>>
>>
>> I'm going to try that with Anthony, right after I learn to walk on
>> water.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You mean you CAN'T walk on water??? Damn!!!
>
> Hey...you're missing all the fun over at RAS. Check out the thread on
> Mxsmanic. I swear, I must be picking up some good troll habits from
> you Bertie :-)))

Wow! I'm honoured!

I try to stay out of RAS. You guys are generally sturdy enough to put up
with the kind of nonsense I generate, but I'd only be bullying some of them
over there. I don't like screwing up a really useful group..

Bertie

[Mark Hickey]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote:


>"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> johnsonbomb wrote:
>>
>>> Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
>>> will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.
>>
>> yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
>> applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.
>
>But they did do a mostly reasonable job with piercing the skin of a
>pressurized fuselage with a 9mm. The shaped charge part was hokey.

And frightening. I think the results of the "experiment" caught
everyone off-guard. I know I for one have resolved to NEVER, EVER
place a shaped charge against the wall of an aircraft I'm flying on.

Mark" wouldn't be prudent" Hickey

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 4:11 am, James Sleeman > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:19 pm, James Sleeman > wrote:
>
> > For those outside the US, you can find it with a search for
> > mythbusters on piratebay.org now, but you didn't hear that from me.
>
> Argh, before anybody else does, don't bother if you're only wanting
> plane ona treadmill, because, they dropped it from the episode.
> Quoting from the MythBusters forum...
>
> --- Begin Quote ---
>
> I have just received an email from Dan Tapster, executive producer of
> MythBusters.
>
> Thanks to all the activity, he can't log in and asked me to post this
> for him.
>
> quote:
> "Adam? Jamie? Dan? Someone step up and tell us what happened tonight."
>
> Dear all,
>
> As wbarnhill called out, I thought I should step in to what is rapidly
> becoming a hornet's nest. I will try to calm things down but I don't
> hold out much hope!
>
> First up, for those concerned that this story has been cancelled,
> don't worry, planes on a conveyer belt has been filmed, is
> spectacular, and will be part of what us Mythbusters refer to as
> 'episode 97'. Currently that is due to air on January 30th.
>
> Secondly, for those very aggrieved fans feeling "duped" into watching
> tonight's show, I can only apologise. I'm not sure why the listings /
> internet advertised that tonight's show contained POCB. I will
> endeavour to find out an answer but for those conspiracy theorists
> amongst you, I can assure you that it will have just been an honest
> mistake. At one point
> several months ago, POCB was going to be part of Airplane Hour.
> Somewhere, someone has mistakenly posted the wrong listing. It will
> have been a genuine mistake but nonetheless it was a mistake which is
> unacceptable. As said I will try to find out what went wrong and hope
> that you will see fit to forgive the team at Discovery.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Dan
>
> And with that, the entire board is going "READ ONLY" until I can clean
> up the mess.
>
> MythMod
>
> --- End Quote ---

I want the treadmill..... I want the treadmill.... :<)).

Lil ben

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> They tried, in one previous show, to duplicate the old cartoon shotgun
> barrel blow up with the barrel unwinding. They tried to use modern
> shotguns
> which are made from solid tubular steel. Shotguns made before about 1920
> were generally made by wrapping steel wire around a mandrel and using the
> old blacksmith welding with a hammer and anvil.
> Those barrels would have flaws and weak spots.

More like 1880 than 1920.

"Damascus" barrels were not really produced after the 1880's or so, long
before the introduction of smokeless powder around 1900. Smokeless powder
would easily destroy such a barrel.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> I have no doubt that our buddy from France firmly believes he can
>> land a 747 if necessary. In fact he's done it hundreds of times.
>
> If the airplane is normally airworthy and with the use of automation,
> I have virtually no doubt of it.

I have no doubt either. you'd crash.

Bertie

[Harry K]

On Dec 13, 3:11 am, James Sleeman > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:19 pm, James Sleeman > wrote:
>
> > For those outside the US, you can find it with a search for
> > mythbusters on piratebay.org now, but you didn't hear that from me.
>
> Argh, before anybody else does, don't bother if you're only wanting
> plane ona treadmill, because, they dropped it from the episode.
> Quoting from the MythBusters forum...
>
> --- Begin Quote ---
>
> I have just received an email from Dan Tapster, executive producer of
> MythBusters.
>
> Thanks to all the activity, he can't log in and asked me to post this
> for him.
>
> quote:
> "Adam? Jamie? Dan? Someone step up and tell us what happened tonight."
>
> Dear all,
>
> As wbarnhill called out, I thought I should step in to what is rapidly
> becoming a hornet's nest. I will try to calm things down but I don't
> hold out much hope!
>
> First up, for those concerned that this story has been cancelled,
> don't worry, planes on a conveyer belt has been filmed, is
> spectacular, and will be part of what us Mythbusters refer to as
> 'episode 97'. Currently that is due to air on January 30th.
>
> Secondly, for those very aggrieved fans feeling "duped" into watching
> tonight's show, I can only apologise. I'm not sure why the listings /
> internet advertised that tonight's show contained POCB. I will
> endeavour to find out an answer but for those conspiracy theorists
> amongst you, I can assure you that it will have just been an honest
> mistake. At one point
> several months ago, POCB was going to be part of Airplane Hour.
> Somewhere, someone has mistakenly posted the wrong listing. It will
> have been a genuine mistake but nonetheless it was a mistake which is
> unacceptable. As said I will try to find out what went wrong and hope
> that you will see fit to forgive the team at Discovery.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Dan
>
> And with that, the entire board is going "READ ONLY" until I can clean
> up the mess.
>
> MythMod
>
> --- End Quote ---

Aha! It is a conspiracy. If it weren't they wouldn't be trying to
deny it!
I wasted an evening waiting for 10 p.m., went through a 6 pack...oops
I guess it wasn't 'wasted' after all.:)

Harry K
Looking forward to Jan 30th.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> "Casey Wilson" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>> johnsonbomb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
>>>> will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.
>>>
>>> yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield
>>> and applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.
>>
>>But they did do a mostly reasonable job with piercing the skin of a
>>pressurized fuselage with a 9mm. The shaped charge part was hokey.
>
> And frightening. I think the results of the "experiment" caught
> everyone off-guard. I know I for one have resolved to NEVER, EVER
> place a shaped charge against the wall of an aircraft I'm flying on.

Wouldn't be a surprise to antone familiar with the damage that can be
caused by a tear in the wrong spot on most any pressurised fuselage. the
damage caused by a simple tear can easily break an airplane in two. Just
ask DeHavillands...

there have been a number of airplanes lost over the years due to a simple
crack that grew rapidly...


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Dec 11, 1:07 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
> > experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
> > they'd get retrained, or fired.
>
> > They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
> > great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
> > shows made my hair hurt.
>
> Boy - do I disagree with you! I say they _are_ doing science. "Full
> Stop." ;-) Here's one checklist for some of the essentials that define
> scientific methods of experiments (all IMHO of course):
>
> 0) State the nature of the question to be resolved.
> Check.
> 0.5) Write proposal/grant request and do resource budgeting.
> Partial Check. ;-)
> 1) (Mostly optional) Design and build preliminary small scale
> experiments where possible.
> Check.
> 2) Make predictions on expected results of small scale experiments.
> Check.
> 3) Run preliminary experiments, record observations, and compare with
> expectations.
> Check.
> 4) Run experimental controls (i.e. factor being tested is absent or
> otherwise not applied) if at all possible and/or relevant.
> Check.
> 5) Run steps 1 through 4, but using larger or "full" scale.
> Check.
> 6) Compare observations with the original question and attempt to draw
> conclusions.
> Check.
> 7) Publish the way the experiment was preformed and the reasoning used
> in drawing the conclusions. This should give others enough
> information to either replicate the results, critical review the
> experimental methods used and the reasoning applied in the
> conclusions.
> Check (done via their show and their fan site feedback forums).
>
> Last I looked, real science isn't defined by how "clean" the experiments
> are but by the methodology employed. On that basis I'd say they show
> _real_ science as it really is because they show how difficult or
> ambiguous it can be at times, not how wonderfully elegant it is (because
> often it isn't). As far as credentials go - if the methodology is
> basically correct then I think the main value added by credentials is
> that it reduces the probability any given experiment will be
> "sophomoric" or poorly designed. It also reduces the need to do
> experiments in the first place, because as the old saying goes:
>
> "A couple of months in the laboratory saves spending a couple hours in
> the library."
>
> But of course their show isn't about saving time in the library. ;-)
>
> > But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
> > that the science part was weak.
>
> Well, I don't think they have to put together grant proposals, so yeah,
> lots of fun if someone else is bankrolling your efforts! On the other
> hand they do have restrictions on time and budget. Just like real
> scientists do! :-)

Jim, who cares about scientific process ? That redhead is cute . In
previous episodes I have seen her doing some welding and machining. My
kind of woman.
FB

[F. Baum]

On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
>
> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person with
> some level experience with a cockpit display can control an airliner. Most
> FAA controllers would not have the experience to describe the cockpit and
> give useful instruction in how to manually fly with the autopilot or where
> the switches are located, or how to use the radio to even start the
> "rescue."
>
> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how to fly
> the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>
Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they did
show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some of
it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment" value
but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked down in
an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA after the
pilot became incapacitated.
FB

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person with
>> some level experience with a cockpit display can control an airliner. Most
>> FAA controllers would not have the experience to describe the cockpit and
>> give useful instruction in how to manually fly with the autopilot or where
>> the switches are located, or how to use the radio to even start the
>> "rescue."
>>
>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how to fly
>> the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>
> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they did
> show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some of
> it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment" value
> but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked down in
> an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA after the
> pilot became incapacitated.
> FB
The big rub in the equation are of course the variables. They are HUGE
in this equation and any one of them could take out the airplane.
Just off the top of my head, one has to factor in the EXACT aircraft in
the scenario, as each airline has the option to customize their cockpits
to whatever the chief pilot wanted installed at the time of the contract
signing with the manufacturer. This aspect alone might well require a
company pilot completely familiar with the cockpit of THAT specific
airplane, as even in type, changes are made to the cockpit
configurations during a manufacturing run as requested by the front
office, so that you might have one airplane with a switch or lever
"here" and another with it "there".
Then you have the issue of getting this company guy familiar with THIS
cockpit on the radio and in touch with the guy trying to land the airplane.
THEN you need a guy in the cockpit who can not only follow directions
NOW, but follow them CORRECTLY and in real time.
Notice we're talking here about a manually controlled landing. If the
aircraft AND the landing facility are BOTH equipped accordingly,
autoland might be a possibility and negate the manual landing.

All things considered, my vote goes to doing it in the simulator with
the help of the sim instructor but a high risk factor for losing a real
aircraft in the manual mode.
Could be done of course, but I wouldn't want to be a passenger on that
one for sure :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Anthony W]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> They tried, in one previous show, to duplicate the old cartoon shotgun
>> barrel blow up with the barrel unwinding. They tried to use modern
>> shotguns
>> which are made from solid tubular steel. Shotguns made before about 1920
>> were generally made by wrapping steel wire around a mandrel and using the
>> old blacksmith welding with a hammer and anvil.
>> Those barrels would have flaws and weak spots.
>
> More like 1880 than 1920.
>
> "Damascus" barrels were not really produced after the 1880's or so, long
> before the introduction of smokeless powder around 1900. Smokeless powder
> would easily destroy such a barrel.

Actually it's not the barrels but the chamber that couldn't take the
higher pressure. I know one gunsmith that has somewhat permanently (red
loctite) installed 20 and 28 gage adapters in 12 gage Damascus steel
barrels. The adapter takes the load from firing the cartridge and the
rest of the barrels are strong enough for the rest. This makes for a
heavy low powered shotgun but it also makes a wall-hanger into a useful
piece.

Tony

[Ross]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>
>>What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person with
>>some level experience with a cockpit display can control an airliner. Most
>>FAA controllers would not have the experience to describe the cockpit and
>>give useful instruction in how to manually fly with the autopilot or where
>>the switches are located, or how to use the radio to even start the
>>"rescue."
>>
>>Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how to fly
>>the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>
>
> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they did
> show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some of
> it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment" value
> but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked down in
> an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA after the
> pilot became incapacitated.
> FB

I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross]

Ross wrote:

> F. Baum wrote:
>
>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person with
>>> some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>> airliner. Most
>>> FAA controllers would not have the experience to describe the cockpit
>>> and
>>> give useful instruction in how to manually fly with the autopilot or
>>> where
>>> the switches are located, or how to use the radio to even start the
>>> "rescue."
>>>
>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how
>>> to fly
>>> the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>
>>
>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they did
>> show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some of
>> it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment" value
>> but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked down in
>> an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA after the
>> pilot became incapacitated.
>> FB
>
>
> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>

Oh, BTW, at the time I probably had about 800 hours and I have a
CPSEL/IA. However I fly for self entertainment

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Ross > wrote in
:

> F. Baum wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>
>>>Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how
>>>to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>
>>
>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some
>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>> FB
>
> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>

And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Anthony W" > wrote in message
news:AGd8j.22555$Bg7.20727@trndny07...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> They tried, in one previous show, to duplicate the old cartoon shotgun
>>> barrel blow up with the barrel unwinding. They tried to use modern
>>> shotguns
>>> which are made from solid tubular steel. Shotguns made before about
>>> 1920
>>> were generally made by wrapping steel wire around a mandrel and using
>>> the
>>> old blacksmith welding with a hammer and anvil.
>>> Those barrels would have flaws and weak spots.
>>
>> More like 1880 than 1920.
>>
>> "Damascus" barrels were not really produced after the 1880's or so, long
>> before the introduction of smokeless powder around 1900. Smokeless powder
>> would easily destroy such a barrel.
>
> Actually it's not the barrels but the chamber that couldn't take the
> higher pressure. I know one gunsmith that has somewhat permanently (red
> loctite) installed 20 and 28 gage adapters in 12 gage Damascus steel
> barrels. The adapter takes the load from firing the cartridge and the
> rest of the barrels are strong enough for the rest. This makes for a
> heavy low powered shotgun but it also makes a wall-hanger into a useful
> piece.

After the load leaves the chamber, the barrel does...what (with the internal
pressure)?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Matt W. Barrow > wrote:

> "Anthony W" > wrote in message
> news:AGd8j.22555$Bg7.20727@trndny07...
> > Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> >> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> They tried, in one previous show, to duplicate the old cartoon shotgun
> >>> barrel blow up with the barrel unwinding. They tried to use modern
> >>> shotguns
> >>> which are made from solid tubular steel. Shotguns made before about
> >>> 1920
> >>> were generally made by wrapping steel wire around a mandrel and using
> >>> the
> >>> old blacksmith welding with a hammer and anvil.
> >>> Those barrels would have flaws and weak spots.
> >>
> >> More like 1880 than 1920.
> >>
> >> "Damascus" barrels were not really produced after the 1880's or so, long
> >> before the introduction of smokeless powder around 1900. Smokeless powder
> >> would easily destroy such a barrel.
> >
> > Actually it's not the barrels but the chamber that couldn't take the
> > higher pressure. I know one gunsmith that has somewhat permanently (red
> > loctite) installed 20 and 28 gage adapters in 12 gage Damascus steel
> > barrels. The adapter takes the load from firing the cartridge and the
> > rest of the barrels are strong enough for the rest. This makes for a
> > heavy low powered shotgun but it also makes a wall-hanger into a useful
> > piece.

> After the load leaves the chamber, the barrel does...what (with the internal
> pressure)?

While one could put in a chamber only sub-caliber adapter in a shotgun,
the pattern would be crap.

What is usually put in is called a "tube" and is a full length barrel.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ross]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Ross > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>F. Baum wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>
>>>>Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how
>>>>to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some
>>>of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>FB
>>
>>I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
>>motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>>landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>
>
>
> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>
>
> Bertie
>

Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Ross > wrote in news:X5g8j.3$E14.1@dfw-
service2.ext.ray.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Ross > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>F. Baum wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>>with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>>airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>>describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>>fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>>use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on
how
>>>>>to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>>the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>>how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>>amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>>did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with
some
>>>>of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>>value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>>down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>>after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>FB
>>>
>>>I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
full
>>>motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>>>landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>>without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>>lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!

Oh yeah. I didn't mean that. but here's an experienced pilot in a
relatively simple jet having a bit of a time doing it and yet anthony
thinks he can do it because he made his own sim out of cornflakes boxes
and a playstation..

Bertie
>

[nobody[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in

>> I have virtually no doubt of it.
>
> I have no doubt either. you'd crash.
>

What goes up........

[pittss1c]

wrote:
> On Dec 13, 4:11 am, James Sleeman > wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 10:19 pm, James Sleeman > wrote:
>>
>>> For those outside the US, you can find it with a search for
>>> mythbusters on piratebay.org now, but you didn't hear that from me.
>> Argh, before anybody else does, don't bother if you're only wanting
>> plane ona treadmill, because, they dropped it from the episode.
>> Quoting from the MythBusters forum...
>>
>> --- Begin Quote ---
>>
>> I have just received an email from Dan Tapster, executive producer of
>> MythBusters.
>>
>> Thanks to all the activity, he can't log in and asked me to post this
>> for him.
>>
>> quote:
>> "Adam? Jamie? Dan? Someone step up and tell us what happened tonight."
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As wbarnhill called out, I thought I should step in to what is rapidly
>> becoming a hornet's nest. I will try to calm things down but I don't
>> hold out much hope!
>>
>> First up, for those concerned that this story has been cancelled,
>> don't worry, planes on a conveyer belt has been filmed, is
>> spectacular, and will be part of what us Mythbusters refer to as
>> 'episode 97'. Currently that is due to air on January 30th.
>>
>> Secondly, for those very aggrieved fans feeling "duped" into watching
>> tonight's show, I can only apologise. I'm not sure why the listings /
>> internet advertised that tonight's show contained POCB. I will
>> endeavour to find out an answer but for those conspiracy theorists
>> amongst you, I can assure you that it will have just been an honest
>> mistake. At one point
>> several months ago, POCB was going to be part of Airplane Hour.
>> Somewhere, someone has mistakenly posted the wrong listing. It will
>> have been a genuine mistake but nonetheless it was a mistake which is
>> unacceptable. As said I will try to find out what went wrong and hope
>> that you will see fit to forgive the team at Discovery.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> And with that, the entire board is going "READ ONLY" until I can clean
>> up the mess.
>>
>> MythMod
>>
>> --- End Quote ---
>
> I want the treadmill..... I want the treadmill.... :<)).
>
> Lil ben


Really?
Who cares?
The interesting discussion is the theoretical one with a layman.
Actual real world behavior taking into account all variables is boring
because the answer is clearly... it depends! (on wheel drag, excess
thrust, and many other things)
In my bede, the rate of acceleration over a certain ground speed drops
off dramatically... If my wheels have to go much over 70 on the ground
to take off, I am not sure I would ever get airborne (I have never had
a long enough runway to test.

I also had a Corben that wouldn't go over 60 on the ground.


Mike

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"nobody" > wrote in news:t6h8j.254061$kj1.47694
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>
>>> I have virtually no doubt of it.
>>
>> I have no doubt either. you'd crash.
>>
>
> What goes up........
>
>
>

Oh i can't wait to see his argument attempting to disprove this one.


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>
>>> I have virtually no doubt of it.
>>
>> I have no doubt either. you'd crash.
>>
>
> What goes up........
Goes up.

[James Sleeman]

On Dec 14, 10:14 am, pittss1c > wrote:
> Really?
> Who cares?

I don't think anybody here really cares, but it would be undeniably
cool to see an aeroplane hurtling down a massive treadmill.

[RdKetchup]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Ross > wrote in news:X5g8j.3$E14.1@dfw-
> service2.ext.ray.com:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Ross > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on
> how
>>>>>> to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with
> some
>>>>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>> FB
>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
> full
>>>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>>>> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>>> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>>> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>
> Oh yeah. I didn't mean that. but here's an experienced pilot in a
> relatively simple jet having a bit of a time doing it and yet anthony
> thinks he can do it because he made his own sim out of cornflakes boxes
> and a playstation..
>
> Bertie
>

Reminds me of my first time in a full flight simulator, 12 years ago.

During the course of my pilot training, the school organized an visit to
a flight simulator manufacturer.

Each student got a chance to shoot an approach in a CRJ FFS. At that
point of our training, we all had over 100 hours, all had our private
pilot license and where on our way to our commercial.

The guy trying it out just before me was doing the bush-pilot
specialization, and had time in light singles, and in a Cessna 185, on
wheel and on float. He overcontroled the aircraft so much on short
final, he basically rolled it and crashed on the runway.

Me (with multi-engine experience), I managed to put the aircraft down
correctly, only to roll pass the end of the runway thanks to not
applying enough brake pressure and/or engaging the thrust reverser too late.

Goes to show that it's not as easy as it might seem.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ross wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Ross > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how
>>>>> to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some
>>>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>> FB
>>>
>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
>>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>>> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>

My first time was in the back of a Nash.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ross]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Ross wrote:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Ross > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how
>>>>>> to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some
>>>>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>> FB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
>>>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through
>>>> a landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>>> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>>> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>
>
> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>

My parents had a Nash. And it took a little longer for this tread to
derail. ;)

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:20:15 -0800 (PST), buttman >
wrote:

>On Dec 8, 9:32 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> "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....
>>
>> (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.)
>
>I'm really anxious to see this episode, because apparently they filmed
>the treadmill myth at my home airport.

That one wasn't even mentioned.

Roger (K8RI)

[muff528]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Ross wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Ross > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how
>>>>>> to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some
>>>>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>> FB
>>>>
>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
>>>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>>>> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>>> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>>> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>
>
> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)

,The younger generation

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

muff528 wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ross wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Ross > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on how
>>>>>>> to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>>>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>>>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>>>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>>>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some
>>>>>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>>>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>>>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>>>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>>> FB
>>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
>>>>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>>>>> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>>>> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>>>> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>>
>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>
> ,The younger generation
>
>

Hell, I could have said "La Salle". Man, I AM getting older!!!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Ross wrote:

>>>
>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they did
>>> show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some of
>>> it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment" value
>>> but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked down in
>>> an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA after the
>>> pilot became incapacitated.
>>> FB
>>
>>
>>
>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their full
>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>
>
> Oh, BTW, at the time I probably had about 800 hours and I have a
> CPSEL/IA. However I fly for self entertainment
>

I have several thousand hours in simulators.
I taught on Navy sims in my second military career.

Golly, TA-4, T2C, F4, F14, F18.

T37, T38, F16, F18 Airforce sims.

National Guard F100 and F101

American Airlined (Global Graphics actually) 727 and 747.

They are the absolute best toys on hte planet!

[muff528]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ross wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Ross > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>>>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>>>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>>>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>>>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>>>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>>>>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>>>>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>>>>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>>>>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>>>>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>>>>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>>>>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>>>> FB
>>>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
>>>>>> full
>>>>>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>>>>>> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>>>>> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>>>>> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>>>
>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>
>> ,The younger generation
>
> Hell, I could have said "La Salle". Man, I AM getting older!!!!! :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Sorry, but at 57 I'm rapidly approaching middle age, so I thought I'd take
whatever shots I could before it's too late. .........(OMG, It's not too
late is it ?!? I can't really be sure because this is as old as I've ever
been!)

BTW- Was it a Nash or a LaSalle? You probably need to get this one right!

BS, TP

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

muff528 wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> muff528 wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ross wrote:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Ross > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>>>>>>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>>>>>>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>>>>>>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>>>>>>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>>>>>>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on
>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>> to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>>>>>>>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>>>>>>>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>>>>>>>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>>>>>>>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>>>>>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>>>>>>>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>>>>>>>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>>>>> FB
>>>>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me through a
>>>>>>> landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane. However,
>>>>>>> without someone familiar with the aircraft the intimidation of the
>>>>>>> lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>>>>
>>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>>
>>> ,The younger generation
>> Hell, I could have said "La Salle". Man, I AM getting older!!!!! :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Sorry, but at 57 I'm rapidly approaching middle age, so I thought I'd take
> whatever shots I could before it's too late. .........(OMG, It's not too
> late is it ?!? I can't really be sure because this is as old as I've ever
> been!)
>
> BTW- Was it a Nash or a LaSalle? You probably need to get this one right!
>
> BS, TP
>
>
Actually the very first time WAS the LaSalle. The BEST first time was
the Nash. (I'm used to relative thinking:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person with
> some level experience with a cockpit display can control an airliner. Most
> FAA controllers would not have the experience to describe the cockpit and
> give useful instruction in how to manually fly with the autopilot or where
> the switches are located, or how to use the radio to even start the
> "rescue."

FAA controllers can find pilots and put them on the radio, if required.

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they did
> show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some of
> it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment" value
> but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked down in
> an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA after the
> pilot became incapacitated.

A small GA airplane is completely different from an airliner, but in any case,
it has been done successfully in small planes. No circumstances have ever
required it in airliners, but it's certainly doable.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

RdKetchup > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Ross > wrote in news:X5g8j.3$E14.1@dfw-
>> service2.ext.ray.com:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Ross > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any
>>>>>>> person with some level experience with a cockpit display can
>>>>>>> control an airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the
>>>>>>> experience to describe the cockpit and give useful instruction
>>>>>>> in how to manually fly with the autopilot or where the switches
>>>>>>> are located, or how to use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off
>>>>>>> on
>> how
>>>>>>> to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to
>>>>>> land the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly
>>>>>> to see how the instructor would do this). These portions of the
>>>>>> show were amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The
>>>>>> stuff they did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten
>>>>>> awhay with
>> some
>>>>>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>>>>>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be
>>>>>> talked down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or
>>>>>> two in GA after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>>> FB
>>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
>> full
>>>>> motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me
>>>>> through a landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane.
>>>>> However, without someone familiar with the aircraft the
>>>>> intimidation of the lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc
>>>>> would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>
>> Oh yeah. I didn't mean that. but here's an experienced pilot in a
>> relatively simple jet having a bit of a time doing it and yet anthony
>> thinks he can do it because he made his own sim out of cornflakes
>> boxes and a playstation..
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Reminds me of my first time in a full flight simulator, 12 years ago.
>
> During the course of my pilot training, the school organized an visit
> to a flight simulator manufacturer.
>
> Each student got a chance to shoot an approach in a CRJ FFS. At that
> point of our training, we all had over 100 hours, all had our private
> pilot license and where on our way to our commercial.
>
> The guy trying it out just before me was doing the bush-pilot
> specialization, and had time in light singles, and in a Cessna 185, on
> wheel and on float. He overcontroled the aircraft so much on short
> final, he basically rolled it and crashed on the runway.
>
> Me (with multi-engine experience), I managed to put the aircraft down
> correctly, only to roll pass the end of the runway thanks to not
> applying enough brake pressure and/or engaging the thrust reverser too
> late.
>
> Goes to show that it's not as easy as it might seem.
>

Yeah, you don't have to be superman, but Anthony's suggestions are just
ludicrous.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Ross wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Ross > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any
>>>>>> person with some level experience with a cockpit display can
>>>>>> control an airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the
>>>>>> experience to describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in
>>>>>> how to manually fly with the autopilot or where the switches are
>>>>>> located, or how to use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on
>>>>>> how to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to
>>>>> land the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly
>>>>> to see how the instructor would do this). These portions of the
>>>>> show were amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The
>>>>> stuff they did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten
>>>>> awhay with some of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its
>>>>> "Infotaiment" value but I remain unconvinced that someone could
>>>>> actually be talked down in an airliner. I think it has been tried
>>>>> a time or two in GA after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>> FB
>>>>
>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
>>>> full motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me
>>>> through a landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane.
>>>> However, without someone familiar with the aircraft the
>>>> intimidation of the lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc
>>>> would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>
>
> My first time was in the back of a Nash.


Now you are dating yourself.

Well, could be worse, coulda been a hupmobile or a stanley steamer.

Bertie
>

[Jose]

>> I don't think anybody here really cares, but it would be undeniably
>> cool to see an aeroplane hurtling down a massive treadmill.
>
> My guess is that they would use a model airplane. It would just be
> too unsafe to do anything else.

Why? It will never take off.

<g,d,rlh> Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ross wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Ross > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any
>>>>>>> person with some level experience with a cockpit display can
>>>>>>> control an airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the
>>>>>>> experience to describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in
>>>>>>> how to manually fly with the autopilot or where the switches are
>>>>>>> located, or how to use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on
>>>>>>> how to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to
>>>>>> land the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly
>>>>>> to see how the instructor would do this). These portions of the
>>>>>> show were amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The
>>>>>> stuff they did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten
>>>>>> awhay with some of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its
>>>>>> "Infotaiment" value but I remain unconvinced that someone could
>>>>>> actually be talked down in an airliner. I think it has been tried
>>>>>> a time or two in GA after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>>> FB
>>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
>>>>> full motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me
>>>>> through a landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane.
>>>>> However, without someone familiar with the aircraft the
>>>>> intimidation of the lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc
>>>>> would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>>
>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>
>
> Now you are dating yourself.
>
> Well, could be worse, coulda been a hupmobile or a stanley steamer.
>
> Bertie
>
The Steamer would have been nice. If you could make the boiler big
enough and light enough, I wonder how fast the damn thing could have
REALLY gone :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>>> I don't think anybody here really cares, but it would be undeniably
>>> cool to see an aeroplane hurtling down a massive treadmill.
>>
>> My guess is that they would use a model airplane. It would just be
>> too unsafe to do anything else.
>
> Why? It will never take off.
>
> <g,d,rlh> Jose

Oh, you're so subtle you little devil you :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Ross wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Ross > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> F. Baum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any
>>>>>>>> person with some level experience with a cockpit display can
>>>>>>>> control an airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the
>>>>>>>> experience to describe the cockpit and give useful instruction
in
>>>>>>>> how to manually fly with the autopilot or where the switches
are
>>>>>>>> located, or how to use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off
on
>>>>>>>> how to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to
>>>>>>> land the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor
(Mainly
>>>>>>> to see how the instructor would do this). These portions of the
>>>>>>> show were amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) .
The
>>>>>>> stuff they did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten
>>>>>>> awhay with some of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for
its
>>>>>>> "Infotaiment" value but I remain unconvinced that someone could
>>>>>>> actually be talked down in an airliner. I think it has been
tried
>>>>>>> a time or two in GA after the pilot became incapacitated.
>>>>>>> FB
>>>>>> I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
>>>>>> full motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me
>>>>>> through a landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the
airplane.
>>>>>> However, without someone familiar with the aircraft the
>>>>>> intimidation of the lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc
>>>>>> would overwhelm anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!
>>>>
>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>
>>
>> Now you are dating yourself.
>>
>> Well, could be worse, coulda been a hupmobile or a stanley steamer.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> The Steamer would have been nice. If you could make the boiler big
> enough and light enough, I wonder how fast the damn thing could have
> REALLY gone :-))
>


They went pretty fast! Steamers held the land speed records in the early
days. I think Serpollets were doing well into triple digits in 1907 or
so. I think Some stanleys were raced as well . I nearly bought a White
Steamer years ago. Sorry I ddn;t now! what a nifty car that was!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly,
in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars,
the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899..



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly,
> in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars,
> the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899..
>
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at 127
indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
>> Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
>> dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
>> 1899..
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
> Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at
> 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!
>

They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car
at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not
what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a
mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to
change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission
brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire
and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars
handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on
them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that
damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was
fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were
usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on
corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though...

the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they
could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very
first auto fatality.

Bertie

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>
>>What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person with
>>some level experience with a cockpit display can control an airliner. Most
>>FAA controllers would not have the experience to describe the cockpit and
>>give useful instruction in how to manually fly with the autopilot or where
>>the switches are located, or how to use the radio to even start the
>>"rescue."
>
>
> FAA controllers can find pilots and put them on the radio, if required.


Who is this fool????

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>
> FAA controllers can find pilots and put them on the radio, if
> required.


Yeah, john wayne, robert stack and randolph scott on speed dial just in
case they all have the fish.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
>>> Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
>>> dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
>>> 1899..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at
>> 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!
>>
>
> They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car
> at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not
> what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a
> mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to
> change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission
> brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire
> and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars
> handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on
> them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that
> damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was
> fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were
> usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on
> corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though...
>
> the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they
> could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very
> first auto fatality.
>
> Bertie
>
Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500
Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear
suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a "vibration"
in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as scary as I've
ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride those things at
Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it happen and watch
them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense I guess.
I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100 feet
didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>>
>>
>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>
>>
>> FAA controllers can find pilots and put them on the radio, if required.
>
>
> Who is this fool????



:-)) Welcome to the club!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
>>>> Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
>>>> dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
>>>> 1899..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at
>>> 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!
>>>
>>
>> They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911
>> car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was
>> not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the
>> side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't
>> dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a
>> transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they
>> were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached
>> the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though.
>> There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and
>> very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might
>> imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires
>> were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger
>> cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the
>> brakes, though...
>>
>> the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood)
>> they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the
>> very first auto fatality.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500
> Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear
> suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a
> "vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as
> scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride
> those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it
> happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense
> I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100
> feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY
> :-)))
>
Yeah, it's all what you're comfortble with. I've been over 100 on a bike
and it felt fine, but the terrifying aspect is other road users. All it
takes is some asshole in an SUV to be at the wrong place at the wrong
time!
I can;t even imagine doing aerobatics below 500 feet nowadays.. In fact,
i doubt I'd do them below 1500 when I get going again. (the airplane is
moving along anyway.. )


Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>>
>>> What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any person
>>> with some level experience with a cockpit display can control an
>>> airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the experience to
>>> describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in how to manually
>>> fly with the autopilot or where the switches are located, or how to
>>> use the radio to even start the "rescue."
>>
>> FAA controllers can find pilots and put them on the radio, if
>> required.
>
>
> Yeah, john wayne, robert stack and randolph scott on speed dial just
> in case they all have the fish.
>
>
> Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Yeah, john wayne, robert stack and randolph scott on speed dial just
> in case they all have the fish.
>


You forgot Moses, errrr, Charlton Heston.............. ****, anyone that
can be air dropped into a 747 can't be all bad!

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:09:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

snip

>> Reminds me of my first time in a full flight simulator, 12 years ago.
>>
>> During the course of my pilot training, the school organized an visit
>> to a flight simulator manufacturer.
>>
>> Each student got a chance to shoot an approach in a CRJ FFS. At that
>> point of our training, we all had over 100 hours, all had our private
>> pilot license and where on our way to our commercial.
>>
>> The guy trying it out just before me was doing the bush-pilot
>> specialization, and had time in light singles, and in a Cessna 185, on
>> wheel and on float. He overcontroled the aircraft so much on short
>> final, he basically rolled it and crashed on the runway.
>>
>> Me (with multi-engine experience), I managed to put the aircraft down
>> correctly, only to roll pass the end of the runway thanks to not
>> applying enough brake pressure and/or engaging the thrust reverser too
>> late.
>>
>> Goes to show that it's not as easy as it might seem.
>>
>
>Yeah, you don't have to be superman, but Anthony's suggestions are just
>ludicrous.
>
>Bertie

Don't know what he suggested, because I don't read any of his stuff.

My first experience in a sim was allegedly in '87. Lear 24 series. Am
not a pro pilot, can't tell you what "generation" it was. I do
remember that in the same FSafety (across the street from Lear in
Wichita) they had just installed their first sim that needed literally
a hole in the ceiling to clear the movement of the "cabin".

This one was not that complex.

I took off in VFR/night conditions went "around the patch" at about
3.000 feet, and landed after about a 5 mile final.

At that time, my flying experience was what I had learned flying along
right seat in whatever piston-pounder was hauling auto parts wherever
in the wee hours.

Allegedly did the same thing in a BAe 800A sim ("later" generation,
lots more movement, still night only) about 7 years ago in Wilmington.

On that take-off, however, was in the sh** at around 800 feet AGL
'cause the instructor hadn't cleaned things up before I took off. I
levelled off at 3000 feet 90 degrees left of the runway heading until
he magically turned the weather back into VFR.

Circled back and landed. Scariest part of that "flight" was when the
instructor turned the motion off on the sim while I was turning
base-to-final, instant nausea. At that time I allegedly had a PPSEL
and about 125 hours in my logbook, and a lot more time goofing around
in the right (and left) seat of whatever piston-pounder was hauling
auto parts wherever in the wee hours.

Can't claim to have much knowledge of the systems/cockpit layout/etc.,
'cause in both cases had just finished up a maintenance initial on a
new-to-me type, and "flew" after spending time doing sim ground runs,
etc. etc.

Fukk Anthony, but don't assume because someone doesn't earn his living
as a pilot, he can't "fly" or that playing even in a jen-yoo-wine sim
necessarily means jakk****e...

Regards;

TC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
>>>>> Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
>>>>> dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
>>>>> 1899..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at
>>>> 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!
>>>>
>>> They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911
>>> car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was
>>> not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the
>>> side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't
>>> dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a
>>> transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they
>>> were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached
>>> the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though.
>>> There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and
>>> very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might
>>> imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires
>>> were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger
>>> cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the
>>> brakes, though...
>>>
>>> the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood)
>>> they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the
>>> very first auto fatality.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500
>> Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear
>> suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a
>> "vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as
>> scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride
>> those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it
>> happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense
>> I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100
>> feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY
>> :-)))
>>
> Yeah, it's all what you're comfortble with. I've been over 100 on a bike
> and it felt fine, but the terrifying aspect is other road users. All it
> takes is some asshole in an SUV to be at the wrong place at the wrong
> time!
> I can;t even imagine doing aerobatics below 500 feet nowadays.. In fact,
> i doubt I'd do them below 1500 when I get going again. (the airplane is
> moving along anyway.. )
>
>
> Bertie
That's good. Stay up there out of the marbles. It's a lot better on your
health for sure. If I had it to do over again I'd take it up higher
myself as the average air show fan wouldn't know the difference anyway.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

"muff528" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>
> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>
> ,The younger generation

A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg

:-)

[ManhattanMan]

wrote:
> Fukk Anthony, but don't assume because someone doesn't earn his living
> as a pilot, he can't "fly" or that playing even in a jen-yoo-wine sim
> necessarily means jakk****e...
>

Like this pica****pstnosenspost?

[John Godwin]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>

Too small. Probably the old Nash "Bathtub"


--

[muff528]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "muff528" > wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>
>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>
>> ,The younger generation
>
> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg
>
> :-)
>

Yeah, but I think Dudley was referring to one way before the Rambler, maybe
even before the Kelvinators but he MAY not be THAT old! :-)

[muff528]

"muff528" > wrote in message
news:oAn8j.19724$k22.10574@trnddc02...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "muff528" > wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>>
>>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>>
>>> ,The younger generation
>>
>> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg
>>
>> :-)
>>
>
> Yeah, but I think Dudley was referring to one way before the Rambler,
> maybe even before the Kelvinators but he MAY not be THAT old! :-)
> OOPS! Correction.......I guess "Rambler" was used throughout Nash's
> history. I just think of Rambler as the more recent ones during the
> American Motors period.

Tony P.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "muff528" > wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>
>> ,The younger generation
>
> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg
>
> :-)
>
It was a little convertible with solid rails forming the top sides of
the car where the top slid up over them instead of the way a usual
convertible functioned. It was a strange little car to say the least.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "muff528" > wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>
>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>
>> ,The younger generation
>
> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg
>
> :-)

Yet, it's not nearly as butt ugly as the Nash Metropolitan.

[Mark Hickey]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>F. Baum writes:
>
>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they did
>> show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some of
>> it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment" value
>> but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked down in
>> an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA after the
>> pilot became incapacitated.
>
>A small GA airplane is completely different from an airliner, but in any case,
>it has been done successfully in small planes. No circumstances have ever
>required it in airliners, but it's certainly doable.

It's important to remember that the would-be pilot/savior would have
tremendous motivation to get it right the first time. When thinking
through that scenario, I always pictured having three or four people
in the cockpit - each with a limited job that they'd be walked through
by an expert on the radio... maybe each with a cell phone connecting
them to individual team members on the ground. Then it's just up to
those experts on the ground to talk each of them through about 1/4 of
the process of getting the plane on the ground in one piece (as
opposed to making a flawless landing on the numbers).

Of course, then they'd all be arrested upong landing for using their
cellphones in flight.

Mark "it's the price you pay for survival I guess" Hickey

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hickey writes:

> It's important to remember that the would-be pilot/savior would have
> tremendous motivation to get it right the first time.

Yes. That could help or hurt, depending on the personality of the individual.

> When thinking
> through that scenario, I always pictured having three or four people
> in the cockpit - each with a limited job that they'd be walked through
> by an expert on the radio... maybe each with a cell phone connecting
> them to individual team members on the ground. Then it's just up to
> those experts on the ground to talk each of them through about 1/4 of
> the process of getting the plane on the ground in one piece (as
> opposed to making a flawless landing on the numbers).

That seems unnecessarily complicated. Especially with automation, as long as
the person in the left seat can push a button, turn a dial, and move a lever,
he can land the plane--provided also that he can follow simple instructions on
the radio.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> No circumstances have ever required it in airliners, but it's
> certainly doable.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0080339
http://imdb.com/title/tt0083530
http://imdb.com/title/tt0065377
http://imdb.com/title/tt0071110
http://imdb.com/title/tt0367085


















I kneaux, I really shouldn't have...

[James Sleeman]

On Dec 14, 2:27 pm, Jose > wrote:

> Why? It will never take off.

Must resist biting troll hook....

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark Hickey writes:
>
>> It's important to remember that the would-be pilot/savior would have
>> tremendous motivation to get it right the first time.
>
> Yes. That could help or hurt, depending on the personality of the
> individual.
>
>> When thinking
>> through that scenario, I always pictured having three or four people
>> in the cockpit - each with a limited job that they'd be walked
>> through by an expert on the radio... maybe each with a cell phone
>> connecting them to individual team members on the ground. Then it's
>> just up to those experts on the ground to talk each of them through
>> about 1/4 of the process of getting the plane on the ground in one
>> piece (as opposed to making a flawless landing on the numbers).
>
> That seems unnecessarily complicated. Especially with automation, as
> long as the person in the left seat can push a button, turn a dial,
> and move a lever, he can land the plane--provided also that he can
> follow simple instructions on the radio.

hehehe, he said "get it right the first time":
http://www.micom.net/oops/Airbus320_trees.mp4

[Mxsmanic]

Darrel Toepfer writes:

> hehehe, he said "get it right the first time":

It's not hard to get it right the first time. While most people can't fly
airplanes by hand without making mistakes, everyone has pushed buttons, turned
dials, and moved levers countless times in his life, and if he can also
understand and follow instructions, he can land a 747, which requires no more
than the manipulations just mentioned when the automation is used.

The incorrect assumption made by most people is that the non-pilot would be
trying to fly the aircraft by hand. That happens in Hollywood movies, but not
in reality. There would be absolutely no reason to fly the aircraft by hand,
and it would be dangerous without a qualified pilot in charge (and qualified
means on the aircraft in question, not just someone with a PPL).

[Mxsmanic]

Darrel Toepfer writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > No circumstances have ever required it in airliners, but it's
> > certainly doable.
>
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0080339
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0083530
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0065377
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0071110
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0367085

These are works of fiction. Note also that they don't generally involve
non-pilots flying the aircraft.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, john wayne, robert stack and randolph scott on speed dial just
>> in case they all have the fish.
>>
>
>
> You forgot Moses, errrr, Charlton Heston.............. ****, anyone
> that can be air dropped into a 747 can't be all bad!




Great actor.
I never liked the way he did airline pilots. Not enough "oh ****"s.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:09:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> Reminds me of my first time in a full flight simulator, 12 years
ago.
>>>
>>> During the course of my pilot training, the school organized an
visit
>>> to a flight simulator manufacturer.
>>>
>>> Each student got a chance to shoot an approach in a CRJ FFS. At
that
>>> point of our training, we all had over 100 hours, all had our
private
>>> pilot license and where on our way to our commercial.
>>>
>>> The guy trying it out just before me was doing the bush-pilot
>>> specialization, and had time in light singles, and in a Cessna 185,
on
>>> wheel and on float. He overcontroled the aircraft so much on short
>>> final, he basically rolled it and crashed on the runway.
>>>
>>> Me (with multi-engine experience), I managed to put the aircraft
down
>>> correctly, only to roll pass the end of the runway thanks to not
>>> applying enough brake pressure and/or engaging the thrust reverser
too
>>> late.
>>>
>>> Goes to show that it's not as easy as it might seem.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, you don't have to be superman, but Anthony's suggestions are
just
>>ludicrous.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Don't know what he suggested, because I don't read any of his stuff.
>
> My first experience in a sim was allegedly in '87. Lear 24 series. Am
> not a pro pilot, can't tell you what "generation" it was. I do
> remember that in the same FSafety (across the street from Lear in
> Wichita) they had just installed their first sim that needed literally
> a hole in the ceiling to clear the movement of the "cabin".
>
> This one was not that complex.
>
> I took off in VFR/night conditions went "around the patch" at about
> 3.000 feet, and landed after about a 5 mile final.
>
> At that time, my flying experience was what I had learned flying along
> right seat in whatever piston-pounder was hauling auto parts wherever
> in the wee hours.
>
> Allegedly did the same thing in a BAe 800A sim ("later" generation,
> lots more movement, still night only) about 7 years ago in Wilmington.
>
> On that take-off, however, was in the sh** at around 800 feet AGL
> 'cause the instructor hadn't cleaned things up before I took off. I
> levelled off at 3000 feet 90 degrees left of the runway heading until
> he magically turned the weather back into VFR.
>
> Circled back and landed. Scariest part of that "flight" was when the
> instructor turned the motion off on the sim while I was turning
> base-to-final, instant nausea. At that time I allegedly had a PPSEL
> and about 125 hours in my logbook, and a lot more time goofing around
> in the right (and left) seat of whatever piston-pounder was hauling
> auto parts wherever in the wee hours.
>
> Can't claim to have much knowledge of the systems/cockpit layout/etc.,
> 'cause in both cases had just finished up a maintenance initial on a
> new-to-me type, and "flew" after spending time doing sim ground runs,
> etc. etc.
>
> Fukk Anthony, but don't assume because someone doesn't earn his living
> as a pilot, he can't "fly" or that playing even in a jen-yoo-wine sim
> necessarily means jakk****e...

I don;t assume either. It can be done. I know because I have had private
pilots in the sim and got them down. In fact, the best sim student I had
(real airliner sim, not MSFS) was a 16 year old RC pilot who had never
been in an airplane at the time (he;s a world class competition glider
pilot now, though)
What anthony is suggesting is that he could land an airliner using the
automatics because he has been palying with flight sim.
I know he couldn't.

For one thing, he'd try to tell Robert Stack on the other end of the
radio how it should be done.
He'd have to take his finger off the Xmitter long enough to get the
instructions and that is obviously impossible


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> "muff528" > wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>
>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>
>> ,The younger generation
>
> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg
>
>:-)
>

AMC had dropped the Nash brand by the time that one was built. Rambler was
the oldest name in that group and they eventually narrowed it down to that
one badge before dropping it in favor of AMC in the late sixties.

The whole history of Nash is here..
http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/internet/316/histo02.htm

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> "muff528" > wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>>> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>>
>>> ,The younger generation
>>
>> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg
>>
>> :-)
>>
> It was a little convertible with solid rails forming the top sides of
> the car where the top slid up over them instead of the way a usual
> convertible functioned. It was a strange little car to say the least.
>
>

Not a Metropolitan?
Sex in a Metropolitan could not have been a good experience unless you are
a dwarf or a contortionist!
My uncle ha one of those. It was a British car made by austin, though
styled by Nash loosely based on the exotic Healy Nash's from a few years
earlier. They're tiny!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
>>>>>> Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
>>>>>> dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
>>>>>> 1899..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys
>>>>> at 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!
>>>>>
>>>> They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911
>>>> car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking
>>>> was not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon
>>>> the side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and
>>>> didn't dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast.
>>>> It had a transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes,
>>>> but they were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time
>>>> I reached the bottom. The cars handled better than you might
>>>> imagine, though. There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs
>>>> were very long and very supple and that damped out the ride better
>>>> than you might imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of
>>>> them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi
>>>> or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that
>>>> was usually OK. the brakes, though...
>>>>
>>>> the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood)
>>>> they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of
>>>> the very first auto fatality.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500
>>> Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the
>>> rear suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a
>>> "vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as
>>> scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride
>>> those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see
>>> it happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than
>>> sense I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her
>>> back at 100 feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do
>>> it TODAY
>>> :-)))
>>>
>> Yeah, it's all what you're comfortble with. I've been over 100 on a
>> bike and it felt fine, but the terrifying aspect is other road users.
>> All it takes is some asshole in an SUV to be at the wrong place at
>> the wrong time!
>> I can;t even imagine doing aerobatics below 500 feet nowadays.. In
>> fact, i doubt I'd do them below 1500 when I get going again. (the
>> airplane is moving along anyway.. )
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> That's good. Stay up there out of the marbles. It's a lot better on
> your health for sure. If I had it to do over again I'd take it up
> higher myself as the average air show fan wouldn't know the difference
> anyway.
>

Well, I won't be doing any shows anyway!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> F. Baum writes:
>
>> Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to land
>> the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly to see
>> how the instructor would do this). These portions of the show were
>> amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The stuff they
>> did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten awhay with some
>> of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its "Infotaiment"
>> value but I remain unconvinced that someone could actually be talked
>> down in an airliner. I think it has been tried a time or two in GA
>> after the pilot became incapacitated.
>
> A small GA airplane is completely different from an airliner,

Wrong again, asshole.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mark Hickey writes:
>
>> It's important to remember that the would-be pilot/savior would have
>> tremendous motivation to get it right the first time.
>
> Yes. That could help or hurt, depending on the personality of the
> individual.
>

You would have no chance asshole.


>> When thinking
>> through that scenario, I always pictured having three or four people
>> in the cockpit - each with a limited job that they'd be walked
>> through by an expert on the radio... maybe each with a cell phone
>> connecting them to individual team members on the ground. Then it's
>> just up to those experts on the ground to talk each of them through
>> about 1/4 of the process of getting the plane on the ground in one
>> piece (as opposed to making a flawless landing on the numbers).
>
> That seems unnecessarily complicated. Especially with automation, as
> long as the person in the left seat can push a button, turn a dial,
> and move a lever, he can land the plane--provided also that he can
> follow simple instructions on the radio.
>

Well, that would rule you out, fjukktard.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Darrel Toepfer writes:
>
>> hehehe, he said "get it right the first time":
>
> It's not hard to get it right the first time. While most people can't
> fly airplanes by hand without making mistakes, everyone has pushed
> buttons, turned dials, and moved levers countless times in his life,
> and if he can also understand and follow instructions, he can land a
> 747, which requires no more than the manipulations just mentioned when
> the automation is used.
>

Nope.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Darrel Toepfer writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > No circumstances have ever required it in airliners, but it's
>> > certainly doable.
>>
>> http://imdb.com/title/tt0080339
>> http://imdb.com/title/tt0083530
>> http://imdb.com/title/tt0065377
>> http://imdb.com/title/tt0071110
>> http://imdb.com/title/tt0367085
>
> These are works of fiction.


just like you!


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote

> Who is this fool????

You've just been MXed!
--
Jim in NC

[Ross]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "muff528" > wrote:
>
>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>>>My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>
>>What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>
>>,The younger generation
>
>
> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg
>
> :-)
>

I mentioned earlier that my parents had a Nash. I remember that the
front seats would lay back and if you pulled them up just right you
could have a very nice "bed" with the back seat.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Ross > wrote in news:q0z8j.1$W34.0@dfw-
service2.ext.ray.com:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> "muff528" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>My first time was in the back of a Nash.
>>>
>>>What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>>
>>>,The younger generation
>>
>>
>> A Nash, as in Nash Rambler!? This video will enlighten you:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4W7oZBhAJg
>>
>> :-)
>>
>
> I mentioned earlier that my parents had a Nash. I remember that the
> front seats would lay back and if you pulled them up just right you
> could have a very nice "bed" with the back seat.
>

Yep. A friend of mine had a 1960 Rambler that did that. I got one too and
we tried to fold the front seats in the same fashion, but it took a lof of
force. Sitting on the dash and kicking force, to be exact. We got them to
fold but found out afterwards that mine didn't have that feature, so from
that point on I was driving around sitting on the edge of a bed.
Just like Anthony, come to think of it!

Oh yeah, it ony had second gear and had a range of about 15 miles before it
overheated. I loved it. I called it "The Midnight Rambler"

Bertie

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "cavelamb himself" > wrote
>
>
>>Who is this fool????
>
>
> You've just been MXed!

Is that like when somebody runs a pipe cleaner in one ear
and out the other?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"cavelamb himself" <> wrote

> Is that like when somebody runs a pipe cleaner in one ear
> and out the other?

Except in MX's case, the pipe cleaner would come out clean!
--
Jim in NC

[Marty Shapiro]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "cavelamb himself" <> wrote
>
>> Is that like when somebody runs a pipe cleaner in one ear
>> and out the other?
>
> Except in MX's case, the pipe cleaner would come out clean!

No, it would come out covered in fecal matter.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote
>
> No, it would come out covered in fecal matter.


True. I don't know what I was thinking! <g>

I am not sure it would be because he is full of it, or because he lives with
his head up his arse, though. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> My first time was in the back of a Nash.
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Chevy Nova.

[Marty Shapiro]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote
>>
>> No, it would come out covered in fecal matter.
>
>
> True. I don't know what I was thinking! <g>
>
> I am not sure it would be because he is full of it, or because he
> lives with his head up his arse, though. ;-)

Both.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 wrote:

>> What's a "Nash" ? ........ ;^)
>>
>> ,The younger generation
>
> Hell, I could have said "La Salle". Man, I AM getting older!!!!! :-))

I knew that but not because I'm that old - I just remember the line "Gee, our old La Salle
ran great" from the "All in the Family" theme. Originally, they kind of slurred the lyric
and most viewers didn't get it, so they rerecorded it with more careful enunciation.

Of course, those of us who even know that much are dating ourselves. (Which, by the way,
is illegal in most Bible-belt states. Think about it.)

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> I am not sure it would be because he is full of it, or because he
>> lives with his head up his arse, though. ;-)
>
> Both.

Definitely.

Since he lives with his head up his ass, it would only follow that it would
be full!
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Morgans wrote:
>>>I am not sure it would be because he is full of it, or because he
>>>lives with his head up his arse, though. ;-)
>>
>> Both.
>
>
> Definitely.
>
> Since he lives with his head up his ass, it would only follow that it would
> be full!


I think we ought to install a Plexiglass Belly Button in the poor guy.

Give him some way to see out?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

cavelamb himself > wrote in
:

> Morgans wrote:
>>>>I am not sure it would be because he is full of it, or because he
>>>>lives with his head up his arse, though. ;-)
>>>
>>> Both.
>>
>>
>> Definitely.
>>
>> Since he lives with his head up his ass, it would only follow that it
>> would be full!
>
>
> I think we ought to install a Plexiglass Belly Button in the poor guy.
>
> Give him some way to see out?
>

You ought to develop that idea. The world has been waiting for one of those
for a long time.


Bertie

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "nobody" > wrote in news:t6h8j.254061$kj1.47694
> @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>
>>>> I have virtually no doubt of it.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt either. you'd crash.
>>
>> What goes up........
>
> Oh i can't wait to see his argument attempting to disprove this one.

Well, his Kook Rating has been an unbroken upward trend line since he started here and
there is absolutely zero probabilty that it will go down.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Ross > wrote in news:q0z8j.1$W34.0@dfw-
> service2.ext.ray.com:

>> I mentioned earlier that my parents had a Nash. I remember that the
>> front seats would lay back and if you pulled them up just right you
>> could have a very nice "bed" with the back seat.

>
> Yep. A friend of mine had a 1960 Rambler that did that. I got one too and
> we tried to fold the front seats in the same fashion, but it took a lof of
> force. Sitting on the dash and kicking force, to be exact. We got them to
> fold but found out afterwards that mine didn't have that feature, so from
> that point on I was driving around sitting on the edge of a bed.
> Just like Anthony, come to think of it!
>
> Oh yeah, it ony had second gear and had a range of about 15 miles before it
> overheated. I loved it. I called it "The Midnight Rambler"

When I was 16 we had the Rambler station wagon where the front seat folded back and the
back seat folded forward, giving you a flat, spacious deck from dashboard to tailgate.

Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the time to take full
advantage of it. Had to make do later with the back seat of a Nova. :-(

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote
>
> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the time to
> take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the back seat of a
> Nova. :-(

Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.

I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>
>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the time to take full
>> advantage of it. Had to make do later with the back seat of a Nova. :-(
>
> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>
> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)

That sounds like the basis for a marketing slogan for a certain SUV:

"There's nothing like getting a hummer in a Hummer!"

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they've already posted a stealth-marketing video on
YouTube using that. If this SUV is rockin' don't come knockin'...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:z6J8j.118$TZ4.19@trnddc02:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "nobody" > wrote in news:t6h8j.254061$kj1.47694
>> @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>
>>>>> I have virtually no doubt of it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no doubt either. you'd crash.
>>>
>>> What goes up........
>>
>> Oh i can't wait to see his argument attempting to disprove this one.
>
> Well, his Kook Rating has been an unbroken upward trend line since he
> started here and there is absolutely zero probabilty that it will go
> down.
>
>
>

Hmm, wonder if I suck a bookie into this one.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:vpJ8j.120$TZ4.34@trnddc02:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Ross > wrote in news:q0z8j.1$W34.0@dfw-
>> service2.ext.ray.com:
>
>>> I mentioned earlier that my parents had a Nash. I remember that the
>>> front seats would lay back and if you pulled them up just right you
>>> could have a very nice "bed" with the back seat.
>
>>
>> Yep. A friend of mine had a 1960 Rambler that did that. I got one too
>> and we tried to fold the front seats in the same fashion, but it took
>> a lof of force. Sitting on the dash and kicking force, to be exact.
>> We got them to fold but found out afterwards that mine didn't have
>> that feature, so from that point on I was driving around sitting on
>> the edge of a bed. Just like Anthony, come to think of it!
>>
>> Oh yeah, it ony had second gear and had a range of about 15 miles
>> before it overheated. I loved it. I called it "The Midnight Rambler"
>
> When I was 16 we had the Rambler station wagon where the front seat
> folded back and the back seat folded forward, giving you a flat,
> spacious deck from dashboard to tailgate.
>
> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the time
> to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the back seat
> of a Nova. :-(

He heh. Yeah, Girls didn't exactly flock towards mine. Especialy when we
painted "Midnight Rambler" along the side with Pep Boys spray paint.
They were even less interested in my 53 Chevvy panel truck with the
water bed inside.
Women, eh?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>
>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the time
>> to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the back
>> seat of a Nova. :-(
>
> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>
> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)

You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into that
than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you were realy
into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places (and I bet here's a
website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:u1L8j.96$Uq4.48@trnddc06:

>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the
>>> time to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the
>>> back seat of a Nova. :-(
>>
>> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>>
>> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)
>
> That sounds like the basis for a marketing slogan for a certain SUV:
>
> "There's nothing like getting a hummer in a Hummer!"
>
> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they've already posted a
> stealth-marketing video on YouTube using that. If this SUV is rockin'
> don't come knockin'...
>
>
>
>

Sigh, they've taken all the genuine, heartfelt things from the sixites and
marketed them...


Bertie

[muff528]

> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into that
> than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you were realy
> into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places (and I bet here's
> a
> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>
> Bertie
>
>

In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)
(just perpetrating a myth about them although an old girlfriend insisted on
owning Triumphs and they kept me busy.)

TP

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"muff528" > wrote in
news:aLQ8j.160$ZA4.59@trnddc03:

>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into
>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>> (and I bet here's a
>> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)



> (just perpetrating a myth about them although an old girlfriend
> insisted on owning Triumphs and they kept me busy.)

No myth! I was at the damned things all the time. It was a TD, which wasn't
even an anteek then..


Bertie

[muff528]

> No myth! I was at the damned things all the time. It was a TD, which
> wasn't
> even an anteek then..

Bertie, you gotta read this........pretty funny :0)

http://www.cartalk.com/content/testdrives/Reviews/mgtd.html

[Tina]

If you think an MG is difficult, consider, please, the front two seats
of an M20J, in clouds, at altitude, with a three axis A/P working very
nicely. The spirit may be willing, but the flesh is contorted, poked,
vibrated, and then there's the yokes. I don't want to hear about the
yoke being on me, Bernie.

Still, two hours into a long XC, and another two hours to go:
"Cleveland Center, don't be bothering us now."


On Dec 15, 8:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote :
>
>
>
> > "John Mazor" > wrote
>
> >> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the time
> >> to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the back
> >> seat of a Nova. :-(
>
> > Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>
> > I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)
>
> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into that
> than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you were realy
> into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places (and I bet here's a
> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"muff528" > wrote in news:WhR8j.221$ZA4.77@trnddc03:

>> No myth! I was at the damned things all the time. It was a TD, which
>> wasn't
>> even an anteek then..
>
> Bertie, you gotta read this........pretty funny :0)
>
> http://www.cartalk.com/content/testdrives/Reviews/mgtd.html
>
>
>

Yep, that about sums it up. I still have a TC, which I prefer to the TD for
a few reasons, though My TC is currently "kitted" Mine was pretty reliable,
though. It's major achilles heel was the tendency for moisture to get into
the distributor. I got a rubber boot for that and it was fine. It was my
everyday drive at the time and I did a fifty mile each way trip to work
five days a week in it for many months. I had a bad accident in it. Head on
with a car turning left at an intersection. It actually crumpled pretty
well. I think I got a pic of it in it's molested state somewhere. My
passenger was sitting on his hands. It was Christmas eve and very cold and
there was no heater, ya see. He hit the wiper motor with his head and still
has the scar. the other guy was drunk coming home from his xmas party. The
repairs cost more than I paid for it. I had to hold his insurance company
to ransome with a threat of a personal injury claim to keep them from
scrapping it.
I swapped it for a T-craft afterwards!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> If you think an MG is difficult, consider, please, the front two seats
> of an M20J, in clouds, at altitude, with a three axis A/P working very
> nicely. The spirit may be willing, but the flesh is contorted, poked,
> vibrated, and then there's the yokes. I don't want to hear about the
> yoke being on me, Bernie.
>

Yeah, a mooney ould be pretty tight. I tried to coreograph the act in a
150C on the ground and decided it wasn;t worth it..

> Still, two hours into a long XC, and another two hours to go:
> "Cleveland Center, don't be bothering us now.">


Oh dear!

Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "muff528" > wrote in
> news:aLQ8j.160$ZA4.59@trnddc03:
>
>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into
>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>>> (and I bet here's a
>>> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)
>
>
>
>> (just perpetrating a myth about them although an old girlfriend
>> insisted on owning Triumphs and they kept me busy.)
>
> No myth! I was at the damned things all the time. It was a TD, which
> wasn't even an anteek then..
>
>
> Bertie

Should have had a 62 Austin Healy - 3 of those damn things on it!!

BTW - the tonneau cover makes a good substitute for a blanket... :))

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:DRU8j.11657$Fa7.8929
@newsfe17.lga:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "muff528" > wrote in
>> news:aLQ8j.160$ZA4.59@trnddc03:
>>
>>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them
into
>>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>>>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>>>> (and I bet here's a
>>>> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>> (just perpetrating a myth about them although an old girlfriend
>>> insisted on owning Triumphs and they kept me busy.)
>>
>> No myth! I was at the damned things all the time. It was a TD, which
>> wasn't even an anteek then..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Should have had a 62 Austin Healy - 3 of those damn things on it!!


Cool. I knew a guy who had one of those things. Very fast..
>
> BTW - the tonneau cover makes a good substitute for a blanket... :))

He he. Well, noone could see much of what you were up to with those side
curtains...

Bertie
>
>
>

[muff528]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:DRU8j.11657$Fa7.8929
> @newsfe17.lga:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "muff528" > wrote in
>>> news:aLQ8j.160$ZA4.59@trnddc03:
>>>
>>>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them
> into
>>>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>>>>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>>>>> (and I bet here's a
>>>>> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> (just perpetrating a myth about them although an old girlfriend
>>>> insisted on owning Triumphs and they kept me busy.)
>>>
>>> No myth! I was at the damned things all the time. It was a TD, which
>>> wasn't even an anteek then..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Should have had a 62 Austin Healy - 3 of those damn things on it!!
>
>
> Cool. I knew a guy who had one of those things. Very fast..
>>
>> BTW - the tonneau cover makes a good substitute for a blanket... :))
>
> He he. Well, noone could see much of what you were up to with those side
> curtains...
>
> Bertie
>>
>>

Actually, they were quite simple to work on.....individually! The trick was
to get them to play together well. Very touchy adjustments, especially if
the carb (or engine for that matter) had any wear at all. Then there was the
problem of getting the carbs to do the same thing at the same time,
linkage-wise, which was not necessarily just making sure that throttle
positions on each carb matched. Their performance was affected greatly by
even a little wear. Kinda like the Amal's on a couple of BSA's I had.
TP

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

ManhattanMan wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "muff528" > wrote in
>> news:aLQ8j.160$ZA4.59@trnddc03:
>>
>>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into
>>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>>>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>>>> (and I bet here's a
>>>> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)
>>
>>
>>> (just perpetrating a myth about them although an old girlfriend
>>> insisted on owning Triumphs and they kept me busy.)
>> No myth! I was at the damned things all the time. It was a TD, which
>> wasn't even an anteek then..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Should have had a 62 Austin Healy - 3 of those damn things on it!!
>
> BTW - the tonneau cover makes a good substitute for a blanket... :))
>
>
I had a bug eyed Sprite once. Had a Judson Supercharger on it. Used to
blow the head gasket about twice a week if I remember right, but a great
little car and had lots of fun with it.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"muff528" > wrote in
news:DBV8j.149$Uq4.50@trnddc06:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in
>> news:DRU8j.11657$Fa7.8929 @newsfe17.lga:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "muff528" > wrote in
>>>> news:aLQ8j.160$ZA4.59@trnddc03:
>>>>
>>>>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them
>> into
>>>>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless
>>>>>> you were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable
>>>>>> places (and I bet here's a
>>>>>> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (just perpetrating a myth about them although an old girlfriend
>>>>> insisted on owning Triumphs and they kept me busy.)
>>>>
>>>> No myth! I was at the damned things all the time. It was a TD,
>>>> which wasn't even an anteek then..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Should have had a 62 Austin Healy - 3 of those damn things on it!!
>>
>>
>> Cool. I knew a guy who had one of those things. Very fast..
>>>
>>> BTW - the tonneau cover makes a good substitute for a blanket... :))
>>
>> He he. Well, noone could see much of what you were up to with those
>> side curtains...
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>
> Actually, they were quite simple to work on.....individually! The
> trick was to get them to play together well. Very touchy adjustments,
> especially if the carb (or engine for that matter) had any wear at
> all. Then there was the problem of getting the carbs to do the same
> thing at the same time, linkage-wise, which was not necessarily just
> making sure that throttle positions on each carb matched. Their
> performance was affected greatly by even a little wear. Kinda like the
> Amal's on a couple of BSA's I had. TP


Amal's are a piece of cake by comparison. The SU's were OK, as you say,
individually, (I've had a few cars with single SUs, including Minors,
Minis and what not) and even a couple weren't too bad, but they were
alwyas needing a bit of tinkering with to keep them sweet.
OTOH, I have an old BMW R80 which has been driving me nuts. Bings, which
should work just fine, but I think I must have rebuilt them wrong....
BTW, I have a couple of old AMAC carbs as well, the predecesser of AMAL.
Very similar design, but even more primitive. You run them with a pair
of air/fuel levers on the handlebars. I haven't run it yet, but it looks
pretty interesting to ride..

Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>
>>
> I had a bug eyed Sprite once. Had a Judson Supercharger on it. Used to
> blow the head gasket about twice a week if I remember right, but a great
> little car and had lots of fun with it.
>
>
Very cool! The blower probably got it up to over 60 hp! Wheehaw!

I saw an article on someone who was running one of those at about 150 BHP
recently. Can you imagine? It had suspension and brake upgrades as well.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>>>
>> I had a bug eyed Sprite once. Had a Judson Supercharger on it. Used to
>> blow the head gasket about twice a week if I remember right, but a great
>> little car and had lots of fun with it.
>>
>>
> Very cool! The blower probably got it up to over 60 hp! Wheehaw!
>
> I saw an article on someone who was running one of those at about 150 BHP
> recently. Can you imagine? It had suspension and brake upgrades as well.
>
> Bertie

Some of these car guys have performed miracles with their cars. It's
uncanny the money and effort that goes into some of their projects.
I must have been born without the car gene. I think for me it was
airplanes from about age 6 on. Now THERE'S a way to save money!!!!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[ManhattanMan]

muff528 wrote:
>
> Actually, they were quite simple to work on.....individually! The
> trick was to get them to play together well. Very touchy adjustments,
> especially if the carb (or engine for that matter) had any wear at
> all. Then there was the problem of getting the carbs to do the same
> thing at the same time, linkage-wise, which was not necessarily just
> making sure that throttle positions on each carb matched. Their
> performance was affected greatly by even a little wear. Kinda like
> the Amal's on a couple of BSA's I had. TP

You got that right! Getting them syncd was a real PITA! I found a nice
little gadget that helped immensely, and by coincidence happened to run
across it about a week ago when looking for something else in the tool
chest. Here's a pic: http://www.members.cox.net/drpics/carbtool.jpg
Why I'm hanging on to it after 45 years is anyones guess, probably should
put it on eBay!!

But for watching what 3 SU's were doing simultaneously, it was great! The
pistons dropped in place of the damper and would rise/fall with the suction,
with the wire pointers lined up. Plus there were another half dozen tricks
you could do with it. The one that looks like a weird crank shaft was to
adjust the float arms. Beats the hell out of sticking your head in there
with a stethoscope listening to the hiss... d:->))

Cheers'n beers.. [_])
Don

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>>>
>>> I had a bug eyed Sprite once. Had a Judson Supercharger on it. Used
>>> to blow the head gasket about twice a week if I remember right, but
>>> a great little car and had lots of fun with it.
>>>
>>>
>> Very cool! The blower probably got it up to over 60 hp! Wheehaw!
>>
>> I saw an article on someone who was running one of those at about 150
>> BHP recently. Can you imagine? It had suspension and brake upgrades
>> as well.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Some of these car guys have performed miracles with their cars. It's
> uncanny the money and effort that goes into some of their projects.
> I must have been born without the car gene. I think for me it was
> airplanes from about age 6 on. Now THERE'S a way to save money!!!!
>:-)
>

True, I like pretty much anything that goes, though"

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> I had a bug eyed Sprite once. Had a Judson Supercharger on it. Used
>>>> to blow the head gasket about twice a week if I remember right, but
>>>> a great little car and had lots of fun with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Very cool! The blower probably got it up to over 60 hp! Wheehaw!
>>>
>>> I saw an article on someone who was running one of those at about 150
>>> BHP recently. Can you imagine? It had suspension and brake upgrades
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Some of these car guys have performed miracles with their cars. It's
>> uncanny the money and effort that goes into some of their projects.
>> I must have been born without the car gene. I think for me it was
>> airplanes from about age 6 on. Now THERE'S a way to save money!!!!
>> :-)
>>
>
> True, I like pretty much anything that goes, though"
>
> Bertie

Got into racing boats as well. Really liked that. I had a place on the
riverfront in Maryland where we raced outboards. I had a D Utility made
by Sid Craft in New Brunswick New Jersey powered by a KG9 Mercury
running a quicksilver lower unit with an Oakland Johnson racing prop.
You knelt down hunkered on the floorboards wearing kneepads and held the
throttle in your left hand attached to the left side top chine with the
steering wheel in your right. When you opened the throttle, the bow came
up out of the water like a shot and went mid-air. When the boat came
back down, it was on the last several inches of the bottom near the
transom and you were going 60kts.
What a kick in the ass that was. Boy would I love to be a kid again and
go back to those good ole days for another round of "living" on the
river:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>
> Got into racing boats as well. Really liked that. I had a place on the
> riverfront in Maryland where we raced outboards. I had a D Utility made
> by Sid Craft in New Brunswick New Jersey powered by a KG9 Mercury
> running a quicksilver lower unit with an Oakland Johnson racing prop.
> You knelt down hunkered on the floorboards wearing kneepads and held the
> throttle in your left hand attached to the left side top chine with the
> steering wheel in your right. When you opened the throttle, the bow came
> up out of the water like a shot and went mid-air. When the boat came
> back down, it was on the last several inches of the bottom near the
> transom and you were going 60kts.
> What a kick in the ass that was. Boy would I love to be a kid again and
> go back to those good ole days for another round of "living" on the
> river:-))
>

This one of those littel duck boat type things made out of one and a half
sheets of plywood?

It's true, you ARE a lunatic!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>> Got into racing boats as well. Really liked that. I had a place on the
>> riverfront in Maryland where we raced outboards. I had a D Utility made
>> by Sid Craft in New Brunswick New Jersey powered by a KG9 Mercury
>> running a quicksilver lower unit with an Oakland Johnson racing prop.
>> You knelt down hunkered on the floorboards wearing kneepads and held the
>> throttle in your left hand attached to the left side top chine with the
>> steering wheel in your right. When you opened the throttle, the bow came
>> up out of the water like a shot and went mid-air. When the boat came
>> back down, it was on the last several inches of the bottom near the
>> transom and you were going 60kts.
>> What a kick in the ass that was. Boy would I love to be a kid again and
>> go back to those good ole days for another round of "living" on the
>> river:-))
>>
>
> This one of those littel duck boat type things made out of one and a half
> sheets of plywood?
>
> It's true, you ARE a lunatic!
>
> Bertie

Right! Nothing between you and the water but a sheet of marine ply :-)
Slight correction though........that should read 'WAS' a lunatic! Now
I'm just a stable old retired gentleman reminiscing of days long gone by
when I was indeed the biggest lunatic you could ever imagine.

I guess when I cross that final finish line, I'll have some crap eaten
smile on my puss for having at least tried it all :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>> Got into racing boats as well. Really liked that. I had a place on
>>> the riverfront in Maryland where we raced outboards. I had a D
>>> Utility made by Sid Craft in New Brunswick New Jersey powered by a
>>> KG9 Mercury running a quicksilver lower unit with an Oakland Johnson
>>> racing prop. You knelt down hunkered on the floorboards wearing
>>> kneepads and held the throttle in your left hand attached to the
>>> left side top chine with the steering wheel in your right. When you
>>> opened the throttle, the bow came up out of the water like a shot
>>> and went mid-air. When the boat came back down, it was on the last
>>> several inches of the bottom near the transom and you were going
>>> 60kts. What a kick in the ass that was. Boy would I love to be a kid
>>> again and go back to those good ole days for another round of
>>> "living" on the river:-))
>>>
>>
>> This one of those littel duck boat type things made out of one and a
>> half sheets of plywood?
>>
>> It's true, you ARE a lunatic!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Right! Nothing between you and the water but a sheet of marine ply :-)
> Slight correction though........that should read 'WAS' a lunatic! Now
> I'm just a stable old retired gentleman reminiscing of days long gone
> by when I was indeed the biggest lunatic you could ever imagine.
>
> I guess when I cross that final finish line, I'll have some crap eaten
> smile on my puss for having at least tried it all :-))
>

He who dies with the most toys wins!

Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Right! Nothing between you and the water but a sheet of marine ply :-)

Geezz, at least my brother put a few layers of fiberglass on the bottom of
his...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

ManhattanMan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Right! Nothing between you and the water but a sheet of marine ply :-)
>
> Geezz, at least my brother put a few layers of fiberglass on the bottom of
> his...
>
>
That was an option for both the Utility and the Hydroplane Utilities if
I remember right, and a lot guys did it and gained a few knots. Mine was
so pretty with all that McClosky's Man-O-War shining like a new diamond
through to the wood grain I didn't have the heart to FG it :-)
Kept the P51 the same way; as true to the original as I could. Took out
the old radios of course and replaced them with Collins. Those old
radios were HUGE :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:27:29 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Got into racing boats as well. Really liked that. I had a place on the
>riverfront in Maryland where we raced outboards. I had a D Utility made
>by Sid Craft in New Brunswick New Jersey powered by a KG9 Mercury
>running a quicksilver lower unit with an Oakland Johnson racing prop.

I used to work with a guy who raced antique outboard hydroplanes.

I was blown away with how fast one of those things went with so little
power. That takes nuts! <G>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:27:29 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Got into racing boats as well. Really liked that. I had a place on the
>> riverfront in Maryland where we raced outboards. I had a D Utility made
>> by Sid Craft in New Brunswick New Jersey powered by a KG9 Mercury
>> running a quicksilver lower unit with an Oakland Johnson racing prop.
>
> I used to work with a guy who raced antique outboard hydroplanes.
>
> I was blown away with how fast one of those things went with so little
> power. That takes nuts! <G>

Yeah; up to around 70mph can really get your attention when you're
kneeling on a piece of plywood, especially if you bury the bow in
somebody's rooster tail; but these new boats like the Formula 1's are a
whole new world of racing. In our day we never came close to imagining
the speeds these guys are capable of. Unbelievable!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:50:00 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>but these new boats like the Formula 1's are a
>whole new world of racing. In our day we never came close to imagining
>the speeds these guys are capable of. Unbelievable!!


Are those the boats that Top Fuel drag racer Eddie Hill used to race?

He used to say he switched to 300 MPH TF dragsters, because they were
"safer."

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:50:00 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> but these new boats like the Formula 1's are a
>> whole new world of racing. In our day we never came close to imagining
>> the speeds these guys are capable of. Unbelievable!!
>
>
> Are those the boats that Top Fuel drag racer Eddie Hill used to race?
>
> He used to say he switched to 300 MPH TF dragsters, because they were
> "safer."
I've been away from boat racing for many years and not up on much of
what's been going on. I think Hill ran in Drag Boats if I'm not
mistaken. Formula 1 is a different category; not sure if he ran with
them. Either way, both categories are extremely fast and pushing 300
wouldn't surprise me one bit.

--
Dudley Henriques

[muff528]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:50:00 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>but these new boats like the Formula 1's are a
>>whole new world of racing. In our day we never came close to imagining
>>the speeds these guys are capable of. Unbelievable!!
>
>
> Are those the boats that Top Fuel drag racer Eddie Hill used to race?
>
> He used to say he switched to 300 MPH TF dragsters, because they were
> "safer."

F1's are tunnel hull boats with large outboards. I also have been away from
boat racing for a long time but I believe straightaway speeds are around
140. I'm sure that someone that's more up-to-date with it will correct me.
One of the classes I used to run was a small tunnelboat with a small stock
outboard. Top end around 70-75. And!..I had a seat! Kneeling down never
appealed to me although it was probably easier to leave the boat if it
flipped. Also, the F1's and a couple of others of the faster classes are
known for their incredibly high-g turns. (That would be "gee" for anyone it
irritates) If you get a chance to see a race don't miss it.
Drag boats are a whole 'nuther matter.

BS, TP

[LWG]

I got good results from a piece of Tygon tubing. Just make sure you placed
the end at the same spot on each carb.

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 wrote:
>>
>> Actually, they were quite simple to work on.....individually! The
>> trick was to get them to play together well. Very touchy adjustments,
>> especially if the carb (or engine for that matter) had any wear at
>> all. Then there was the problem of getting the carbs to do the same
>> thing at the same time, linkage-wise, which was not necessarily just
>> making sure that throttle positions on each carb matched. Their
>> performance was affected greatly by even a little wear. Kinda like
>> the Amal's on a couple of BSA's I had. TP
>
> You got that right! Getting them syncd was a real PITA! I found a nice
> little gadget that helped immensely, and by coincidence happened to run
> across it about a week ago when looking for something else in the tool
> chest. Here's a pic: http://www.members.cox.net/drpics/carbtool.jpg
> Why I'm hanging on to it after 45 years is anyones guess, probably should
> put it on eBay!!
>
> But for watching what 3 SU's were doing simultaneously, it was great! The
> pistons dropped in place of the damper and would rise/fall with the
> suction, with the wire pointers lined up. Plus there were another half
> dozen tricks you could do with it. The one that looks like a weird crank
> shaft was to adjust the float arms. Beats the hell out of sticking your
> head in there with a stethoscope listening to the hiss... d:->))
>
> Cheers'n beers.. [_])
> Don
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> I got good results from a piece of Tygon tubing. Just make sure you
> placed the end at the same spot on each carb.

Yeah, tha's the best way, really. I've used all the gadgets for them, the
wire incatoers put in the dashpots, the gauges, just listening to the
whistle in the pipe is probably the best.


Bertie
>
>

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:36:06 GMT, "muff528" >
wrote:

>In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)

"As he stared at her ample bosom, he daydreamed of the dual Skinners
Union carburetors in his vintage MG, highly functional yet pleasingly
formed, perched prominently on top of the intake manifold, aching for
experienced hands, the small knurled caps of the oil dampeners begging
to be inspected and adjusted as described in chapter seven of the
Haynes shop manual."

-From the .sig file of a British car enthusiast

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If aliens are smart enough to travel through space, why do they keep abducting the dumbest people on earth?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote in
:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:36:06 GMT, "muff528" >
> wrote:
>
>>In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)
>
> "As he stared at her ample bosom, he daydreamed of the dual Skinners
> Union carburetors in his vintage MG, highly functional yet pleasingly
> formed, perched prominently on top of the intake manifold, aching for
> experienced hands, the small knurled caps of the oil dampeners begging
> to be inspected and adjusted as described in chapter seven of the
> Haynes shop manual."
>
> -From the .sig file of a British car enthusiast
>

MG, I live just to touch you,
when I double clutch you, MG it gies me a thrill.
MG, I love your ignition, your foru speed transmission,
your points your plugs and your grill!
MG, when I look inside you,
the sight of each valve and rod, brings me closer to God!
MG, I'll wash you and wax you.
If some Chevvy smacks you, I'll die, MG!


From Mad magazine, you can probably guess the tune..


Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:36:06 GMT, "muff528" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)
>>
>> "As he stared at her ample bosom, he daydreamed of the dual Skinners
>> Union carburetors in his vintage MG, highly functional yet pleasingly
>> formed, perched prominently on top of the intake manifold, aching for
>> experienced hands, the small knurled caps of the oil dampeners
>> begging to be inspected and adjusted as described in chapter seven
>> of the Haynes shop manual."
>>
>> -From the .sig file of a British car enthusiast
>>
>
> MG, I live just to touch you,
> when I double clutch you, MG it gies me a thrill.
> MG, I love your ignition, your foru speed transmission,
> your points your plugs and your grill!
> MG, when I look inside you,
> the sight of each valve and rod, brings me closer to God!
> MG, I'll wash you and wax you.
> If some Chevvy smacks you, I'll die, MG!
>
>
> From Mad magazine, you can probably guess the tune..
>
>
> Bertie

Ahhh mannnn, my dream car back in the 50's was the TD. That was before I
knew much about mechanics, later I changed my mind... :)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:36:06 GMT, "muff528" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the MG you probably had to stop halfway and adjust the SU's. :-)
>>>
>>> "As he stared at her ample bosom, he daydreamed of the dual Skinners
>>> Union carburetors in his vintage MG, highly functional yet
>>> pleasingly formed, perched prominently on top of the intake
>>> manifold, aching for experienced hands, the small knurled caps of
>>> the oil dampeners begging to be inspected and adjusted as described
>>> in chapter seven of the Haynes shop manual."
>>>
>>> -From the .sig file of a British car enthusiast
>>>
>>
>> MG, I live just to touch you,
>> when I double clutch you, MG it gies me a thrill.
>> MG, I love your ignition, your foru speed transmission,
>> your points your plugs and your grill!
>> MG, when I look inside you,
>> the sight of each valve and rod, brings me closer to God!
>> MG, I'll wash you and wax you.
>> If some Chevvy smacks you, I'll die, MG!
>>
>>
>> From Mad magazine, you can probably guess the tune..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Ahhh mannnn, my dream car back in the 50's was the TD. That was
> before I knew much about mechanics, later I changed my mind... :)
>
>
>

They were fine, really. Mine was pretty reliable. At least as reliable
as an old Ford would have been (OK, bad example) and easy to look after,
really. It was great fun to drive and actually handled well, but not as
well as the more primitive TC. The ride was abyssmal, though, and the
brakes diabolical.


Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the time
>>> to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the back
>>> seat of a Nova. :-(
>> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>>
>> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)
>
> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into that
> than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you were realy
> into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places (and I bet here's a
> website somwhere that capitises on exactly that sort of thing)

Or a Hillman.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the
>>>> time to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the
>>>> back seat of a Nova. :-(
>>> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>>>
>>> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)
>>
>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into
>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>> (and I bet here's a website somwhere that capitises on exactly that
>> sort of thing)
>
> Or a Hillman.
>

Which one? The Imp?

Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Jim Stewart > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>>>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the
>>>>> time to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the
>>>>> back seat of a Nova. :-(
>>>> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>>>>
>>>> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)
>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into
>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>>> (and I bet here's a website somwhere that capitises on exactly that
>>> sort of thing)
>> Or a Hillman.
>>
>
> Which one? The Imp?

Husky.

Not exactly a "pussy car"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>>>>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the
>>>>>> time to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the
>>>>>> back seat of a Nova. :-(
>>>>> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)
>>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into
>>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>>>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>>>> (and I bet here's a website somwhere that capitises on exactly that
>>>> sort of thing)
>>> Or a Hillman.
>>>
>>
>> Which one? The Imp?
>
> Husky.
>
> Not exactly a "pussy car"
>

Is that a military thing like the Austin Champ? Or is it one of those plain
as toast 1958 grey-with-a-lavender-roof 1200cc things like a Ford Prefect
brick? I have a vague recollection of the name, but can't picture it.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>>>>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the
>>>>>> time to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the
>>>>>> back seat of a Nova. :-(
>>>>> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining!
;-)
>>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them
into
>>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>>>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>>>> (and I bet here's a website somwhere that capitises on exactly that
>>>> sort of thing)
>>> Or a Hillman.
>>>
>>
>> Which one? The Imp?
>
> Husky.
>
> Not exactly a "pussy car"
>


Oh, OK, an IMP station wagon. 'Scuse me, "estate" car.



Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Jim Stewart > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at the
>>>>>>> time to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later with the
>>>>>>> back seat of a Nova. :-(
>>>>>> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining! ;-)
>>>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them into
>>>>> that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside. Unless you
>>>>> were realy into getting levers stuck into some uncofortable places
>>>>> (and I bet here's a website somwhere that capitises on exactly that
>>>>> sort of thing)
>>>> Or a Hillman.
>>>>
>>> Which one? The Imp?
>> Husky.
>>
>> Not exactly a "pussy car"
>>
>
> Is that a military thing like the Austin Champ? Or is it one of those plain
> as toast 1958 grey-with-a-lavender-roof 1200cc things like a Ford Prefect
> brick? I have a vague recollection of the name, but can't picture it.

Not mine, but looks just like it did...

http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/rgcci/member_profiles/ry.jpg

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, my social skills weren't quite good enough at
>>>>>>>> the time to take full advantage of it. Had to make do later
>>>>>>>> with the back seat of a Nova. :-(
>>>>>>> Try to make do with the back seat of a Corvair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll ONLY say that sometimes my feet got wet, if it was raining!
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> You should try an MG! Mind you, it was a lot easier to get them
>>>>>> into that than the Rambler, but less fun when you got inside.
>>>>>> Unless you were realy into getting levers stuck into some
>>>>>> uncofortable places (and I bet here's a website somwhere that
>>>>>> capitises on exactly that sort of thing)
>>>>> Or a Hillman.
>>>>>
>>>> Which one? The Imp?
>>> Husky.
>>>
>>> Not exactly a "pussy car"
>>>
>>
>> Is that a military thing like the Austin Champ? Or is it one of those
>> plain as toast 1958 grey-with-a-lavender-roof 1200cc things like a
>> Ford Prefect brick? I have a vague recollection of the name, but
>> can't picture it.
>
> Not mine, but looks just like it did...
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/rgcci/member_profiles/ry.jpg
>
>

Sexy! I was right with the grey blob guess then!

I must have seen one or a pic of one befre, because that's almost
exactly what I thought it might look like.


Bertie

[LWG]

I can't believe you remembered that. I thought I was the only one living
who could recall that. I think the art accompanying it was an MGA.

(And folks, he got it word for word.)

> MG, I live just to touch you,
> when I double clutch you, MG it gies me a thrill.
> MG, I love your ignition, your foru speed transmission,
> your points your plugs and your grill!
> MG, when I look inside you,
> the sight of each valve and rod, brings me closer to God!
> MG, I'll wash you and wax you.
> If some Chevvy smacks you, I'll die, MG!
>
>
> From Mad magazine, you can probably guess the tune..
>
>
> Bertie

[LWG]

My father bought an MGB for the family (mostly me) off the show room floor.
It wasn't new, but it was completely redone inside and out. I had zero
knowledge about auto mechanics. I learned quicky. Within a month, it
wouldn't start. Turned out to be a problem with the ignition wires under
the metal and wrinkle-coated dash.

One of my favorite stories was when it broke down by a stop light. I
usually carried a tool box in the boot, but that day I had nothing with me.
I quickly saw that the wire from the coil had popped out of the top of the
distributor. I check the boot, and since I had just really cleaned out the
car, there wasn't a thing in trunk except the spare tire. The metal ferrule
had fallen off the wire, and there was enough spring to the wire that it
wouldn't stay in.

In the old days, people smoked alot. The emptied their ashtrays at stop
lights. I looked at the curb, and saw a pile of cigarette butts. I took
one and wedged in between the ignition wire and the terminal on the top of
the distributor. It worked, and I was on my way. I forgot about it for
weeks. My family was sitting around the dinner table one night and my
brother said that the MG was running rough. I asked him whether he had
checked the cigarette butt in the distributor. My father, who was a
stickler for doing things right, went ballistic when I told him how I had
"fixed" the car.

It served me well, though. We got 100,000 miles off it, rebuilding the
engine only once. It had 150,000 miles before I finally drove it to a
friend's farm. He said he was going to restore it. I don't know what
became of him or the car.

When I look at my Sundowner's starter, it sure looks like the one I took off
the MG years ago. Same thing with the starter solenoid (with the exception
of the rubber-coated switch you could use to bump the MG's engine to TDC).
I learned more about mechanics from that car than anything else.

The car had what was called a double-yellow line suspension. When you
passed (illegally), you should have felt each yellow line as a separate
"thump" crossing in each direction.



> They were fine, really. Mine was pretty reliable. At least as reliable
> as an old Ford would have been (OK, bad example) and easy to look after,
> really. It was great fun to drive and actually handled well, but not as
> well as the more primitive TC. The ride was abyssmal, though, and the
> brakes diabolical.
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> I can't believe you remembered that. I thought I was the only one
> living who could recall that. I think the art accompanying it was an
> MGA.
>
> (And folks, he got it word for word.)

If only I could remember what I am supposed to do tomorrow!

And it was an MGB in the artwork.

Bertie
>
>> MG, I live just to touch you,
>> when I double clutch you, MG it gies me a thrill.
>> MG, I love your ignition, your foru speed transmission,
>> your points your plugs and your grill!
>> MG, when I look inside you,
>> the sight of each valve and rod, brings me closer to God!
>> MG, I'll wash you and wax you.
>> If some Chevvy smacks you, I'll die, MG!
>>
>>
>> From Mad magazine, you can probably guess the tune..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> My father bought an MGB for the family (mostly me) off the show room
> floor. It wasn't new, but it was completely redone inside and out. I
> had zero knowledge about auto mechanics. I learned quicky.

Yep, they are good for that!


Within a
> month, it wouldn't start. Turned out to be a problem with the
> ignition wires under the metal and wrinkle-coated dash.
>
> One of my favorite stories was when it broke down by a stop light. I
> usually carried a tool box in the boot, but that day I had nothing
> with me. I quickly saw that the wire from the coil had popped out of
> the top of the distributor. I check the boot, and since I had just
> really cleaned out the car, there wasn't a thing in trunk except the
> spare tire. The metal ferrule had fallen off the wire, and there was
> enough spring to the wire that it wouldn't stay in.
>
> In the old days, people smoked alot. The emptied their ashtrays at
> stop lights. I looked at the curb, and saw a pile of cigarette butts.
> I took one and wedged in between the ignition wire and the terminal
> on the top of the distributor. It worked, and I was on my way. I
> forgot about it for weeks. My family was sitting around the dinner
> table one night and my brother said that the MG was running rough. I
> asked him whether he had checked the cigarette butt in the
> distributor. My father, who was a stickler for doing things

Excellent. You must have made at least one journey with someone beating
the fuel pump to keep it going! Everyone has. I had to have my wife kick
the firewall of my Morris Minor Traveller in the middle of London in
rush hour traffic to keep us moving once... And I was in charge of
thumping the rear wheel well in an MAG for about 200 miles to keep it
going.
Turns out it was good training. They work almost exactly the same was as
a shower of sparks wxciter box in a jet's starter ignition.
Machines are machines.

Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Excellent. You must have made at least one journey with someone
> beating the fuel pump to keep it going! Everyone has. I had to have
> my wife kick the firewall of my Morris Minor Traveller in the middle
> of London in rush hour traffic to keep us moving once... And I was in
> charge of thumping the rear wheel well in an MAG for about 200 miles
> to keep it going.
> Turns out it was good training. They work almost exactly the same was
> as a shower of sparks wxciter box in a jet's starter ignition.
> Machines are machines.
>
> Bertie

Good grief, and here I thought I had a unique experience when I drove half
way across New Mexico and Colorado in the wee hours (nothing open) in my 62
Austin Healy, the fuel pump hidden directly under the removable left rear
seat (for dwarfs) drifting in and out of consciousness, and being kept alive
by reaching around the seat with the handle of the brass knock off mallet to
give it the occassional wake up call. Finally was able to get a universal
electric pump in Colorado Springs when a garage finally opened up. :)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> Excellent. You must have made at least one journey with someone
>> beating the fuel pump to keep it going! Everyone has. I had to have
>> my wife kick the firewall of my Morris Minor Traveller in the middle
>> of London in rush hour traffic to keep us moving once... And I was in
>> charge of thumping the rear wheel well in an MAG for about 200 miles
>> to keep it going.
>> Turns out it was good training. They work almost exactly the same was
>> as a shower of sparks wxciter box in a jet's starter ignition.
>> Machines are machines.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Good grief, and here I thought I had a unique experience when I drove
> half way across New Mexico and Colorado in the wee hours (nothing
> open) in my 62 Austin Healy, the fuel pump hidden directly under the
> removable left rear seat (for dwarfs) drifting in and out of
> consciousness, and being kept alive by reaching around the seat with
> the handle of the brass knock off mallet to give it the occassional
> wake up call. Finally was able to get a universal electric pump in
> Colorado Springs when a garage finally opened up. :)
>
>
>

Nah they all did it when the points got pitted. I flew a twin Beech for
a couple of weeks that had some sticking wiper points for the gear motor
which would allow extension easily enough, but not retraction. The
points were mounted underneath the cockpit floor, so if you stomped on
the floor after you lifted the handle, it came up. the airplane was
acutally the best '18 I ever flew, but we had some difficulty tracking
this part down. Cleaning the points with emory paper worked for a while,
but the problem always came back.


And that should have been MGA, and not
MAG above!
But ever Lucas fuel pump ever made did that trick evenually! Don't even
get me started on voltage regulators!


Bertie

[LWG]

The best MG story came from my boss. Years ago, he was a twenty-something,
Air Force type. He found himself on the Long Island Expressway around 2:00
am, tooling down the road on a summer's night. The top was down, and he
finished a cigarette. He flicked the butt high into the slipstream above
the windshield. In a few minutes, he noticed an odd aroma. The smell got
stronger with passing time. He looked behind him, and he saw that the
tonneau cover was on fire, with the flames being fanned by the wind. He
stopped in the middle of the LIE, trying to figure out what to do. He had
nothing with him, except a few beers which he had drunk during the course of
the evening. So, he stood up, turned around and unzipped. He put the fire
out...

> Bertie
>>
>>> MG, I live just to touch you,
>>> when I double clutch you, MG it gies me a thrill.
>>> MG, I love your ignition, your foru speed transmission,
>>> your points your plugs and your grill!
>>> MG, when I look inside you,
>>> the sight of each valve and rod, brings me closer to God!
>>> MG, I'll wash you and wax you.
>>> If some Chevvy smacks you, I'll die, MG!
>>>
>>>
>>> From Mad magazine, you can probably guess the tune..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> The best MG story came from my boss. Years ago, he was a
> twenty-something, Air Force type. He found himself on the Long Island
> Expressway around 2:00 am, tooling down the road on a summer's night.
> The top was down, and he finished a cigarette. He flicked the butt
> high into the slipstream above the windshield. In a few minutes, he
> noticed an odd aroma. The smell got stronger with passing time. He
> looked behind him, and he saw that the tonneau cover was on fire, with
> the flames being fanned by the wind. He stopped in the middle of the
> LIE, trying to figure out what to do. He had nothing with him, except
> a few beers which he had drunk during the course of the evening. So,
> he stood up, turned around and unzipped. He put the fire out...
>


Excellent.


The Chinese MGs wil never be the same.

Bertie

[LWG]

Funny thing. My old boss is an adminstrative law judge and retired some
time ago. He does get called back once in a blue moon. I happened to see
him the day after I made this post, and told him that I wrote his story on
this newsgroup. He added that he took the car into the insurance company,
and there was this big round hole in the tonneau cover, and the rest of the
back was saturated with pee. The adjuster just looked at him, shook his
head and wrote him a check.

This guy went through flight training in the Air Force. He wanted to be
selected for fighters, but was sent to transports. He didn't want that, and
arranged to get discharged in Europe. He bought a Vespa scooter, and spent
months touring the "country" side. He could *tell* some stories-- the Swiss
maids, the countess and her daughter on the train from Dusselldorf-- it was
incredible. Later I learned some things from other sources which convinced
me that every steamy, letters-to-Penthouse word of it was true. He was the
Dudley Henriques of p***y.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "LWG" > wrote in
> :
>
>> The best MG story came from my boss. Years ago, he was a
>> twenty-something, Air Force type. He found himself on the Long Island
>> Expressway around 2:00 am, tooling down the road on a summer's night.
>> The top was down, and he finished a cigarette. He flicked the butt
>> high into the slipstream above the windshield. In a few minutes, he
>> noticed an odd aroma. The smell got stronger with passing time. He
>> looked behind him, and he saw that the tonneau cover was on fire, with
>> the flames being fanned by the wind. He stopped in the middle of the
>> LIE, trying to figure out what to do. He had nothing with him, except
>> a few beers which he had drunk during the course of the evening. So,
>> he stood up, turned around and unzipped. He put the fire out...
>>
>
>
> Excellent.
>
>
> The Chinese MGs wil never be the same.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"LWG" > wrote in
:




> This guy went through flight training in the Air Force. He wanted to
> be selected for fighters, but was sent to transports. He didn't want
> that, and arranged to get discharged in Europe. He bought a Vespa
> scooter, and spent months touring the "country" side. He could *tell*
> some stories-- the Swiss maids, the countess and her daughter on the
> train from Dusselldorf-- it was incredible.
>

I hate him.


Bertie

[LWG]

Yeah, I was jealous as hell. When we would sit in his office, we could
always tell when there was a great story coming up. He had a picture of his
lovely wife on the credenza behind his desk. He would place it face down
before starting with the story, so she wasn't "looking" at him.

The best semi-printable story was when he was invited to the Playboy
mansion. He wound up in the grotto, looked up and saw these big silver
half-spheres at the top. It got to be about 1 am and the grotto cleared
out. The only other person there was a pretty young thing. He "dove right
in" on the walkway beside the pool, underneath those large silver cicles.
After they were done, he went up to the bar, which was full. He noticed
that all the women and some of the men were nodding at him approvingly. He
couldn't figure it out, since he was essentially crashing this party. That
is-- until he made it to the actual bar counter to get a drink. Behind the
bar, but low, were large plastic half spheres looking down into the grotto.
The light made it look like they were mirrors -- but only from the grotto.
From the bar, however, the view was crystal clear.


"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "LWG" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>
>> This guy went through flight training in the Air Force. He wanted to
>> be selected for fighters, but was sent to transports. He didn't want
>> that, and arranged to get discharged in Europe. He bought a Vespa
>> scooter, and spent months touring the "country" side. He could *tell*
>> some stories-- the Swiss maids, the countess and her daughter on the
>> train from Dusselldorf-- it was incredible.
>>
>
> I hate him.
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Dec 21, 1:47*am, "LWG" > wrote:
> Yeah, I was jealous as hell. *When we would sit in his office, we could
> always tell when there was a great story coming up. *He had a picture of his
> lovely wife on the credenza behind his desk. *He would place it face down
> before starting with the story, so she wasn't "looking" at him.
>
> The best semi-printable story was when he was invited to the Playboy
> mansion. *He wound up in the grotto, looked up and saw these big silver
> half-spheres at the top. *It got to be about 1 am and the grotto cleared
> out. *The only other person there was a pretty young thing. *He "dove right
> in" on the walkway beside the pool, underneath those large silver cicles.
> After they were done, he went up to the bar, which was full. *He noticed
> that all the women and some of the men were nodding at him approvingly. *He
> couldn't figure it out, since he was essentially crashing this party. *That
> is-- until he made it to the actual bar counter to get a drink. *Behind the
> bar, but low, were large plastic half spheres looking down into the grotto..
> The light made it look like they were mirrors -- but only from the grotto.
> From the bar, however, the view was crystal clear.

Now I want to kill him!




Bertie