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.

[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

[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

[[email protected]]

I see, is this "people" or pilots. Or those computer game pilots who have
all the hard earned knowledge of how flight is accomplished. (Sorry just got
lectured at length last week about how MY aircraft works, by a computer
flier.) (stupid effin git!)

Anyway, I'll likely miss the show. My guess is that I'm better off without
it.

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[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:->)

[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.

[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.

[Maxwell]

"Some Other Guy" > wrote in message
...
> " <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? I've seen the show but I
>> watch very little tv, have they run out of urban myths?
>
> A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that if you are flying into a
> strong headwind close to stall speed and make a U-turn, you will stall
> (because now the wind is coming "from behind").
>
> The basics of flight just isn't obvious to some people.
>

Ah, but if you are flying near stall with the wind, and the wind suddenly
slows, will you stall?
..OR.
If you are slow on approach, into a gusty head wind, and a gust suddenly
resides, will you stall?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Some Other Guy" <> wrote

> A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that if you are flying into a
> strong headwind close to stall speed and make a U-turn, you will stall
> (because now the wind is coming "from behind").
>
> The basics of flight just isn't obvious to some people.

Partially so. IF you could do a 180 degree turn super fast, like .1
second, you would stall.

At least for the amount of time it takes the airplane to accelerate, the
wind would be making you go too slow.

Of course, no plane can make a 180 degree turn that fast, so we are all safe
from the dreaded downwind turn. <g>

I think one thing that people don't realize is that while a car can make an
instant turn, an airplane can not.

Well, all but Shawn Tucker's plane. I think he could make the turn in less
time than .1 second, from the crazy crap I have seen him do!
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> "Some Other Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > " <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? I've seen the show but I
> >> watch very little tv, have they run out of urban myths?
> >
> > A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that if you are flying into a
> > strong headwind close to stall speed and make a U-turn, you will stall
> > (because now the wind is coming "from behind").
> >
> > The basics of flight just isn't obvious to some people.
> >
>
> Ah, but if you are flying near stall with the wind, and the wind suddenly
> slows, will you stall?

Yes -- Your momentum needs to catch up with your new (reduced) airspeed.

> .OR.
> If you are slow on approach, into a gusty head wind, and a gust suddenly
> resides, will you stall?

It depends on how much margin you have between stall and airspeed to
begin with. If the margin is less than the (now non-existent) gust, you
will stall. Otherwise, you will see a sudden increase in sink rate.

[Matt Whiting]

Some Other Guy wrote:
> " <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? I've seen the show but I
>> watch very little tv, have they run out of urban myths?
>
> A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that if you are flying into a
> strong headwind close to stall speed and make a U-turn, you will stall
> (because now the wind is coming "from behind").
>
> The basics of flight just isn't obvious to some people.
>

Yes, and they aren't obvious to others just as proper use of grammar
isn't obvious! :-)

Matt

[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...
>

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Some Other Guy" <> wrote
>
> > A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that if you are flying into a
> > strong headwind close to stall speed and make a U-turn, you will stall
> > (because now the wind is coming "from behind").
> >
> > The basics of flight just isn't obvious to some people.
>
> Partially so. IF you could do a 180 degree turn super fast, like .1
> second, you would stall.

Nope. Wrong.

>
> At least for the amount of time it takes the airplane to accelerate, the
> wind would be making you go too slow.

The turn has to include the acceleration.

>
> Of course, no plane can make a 180 degree turn that fast, so we are all safe
> from the dreaded downwind turn. <g>
>
> I think one thing that people don't realize is that while a car can make an
> instant turn, an airplane can not.
>
> Well, all but Shawn Tucker's plane. I think he could make the turn in less
> time than .1 second, from the crazy crap I have seen him do!

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Ed Sullivan]

lOn Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:45:43 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Some Other Guy wrote:
>> " <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? I've seen the show but I
>>> watch very little tv, have they run out of urban myths?
>>
>> A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that if you are flying into a
>> strong headwind close to stall speed and make a U-turn, you will stall
>> (because now the wind is coming "from behind").
>>
>> The basics of flight just isn't obvious to some people.
>>
>
>Yes, and they aren't obvious to others just as proper use of grammar
>isn't obvious! :-)
>
>Matt

Suggest you take a look at this site.
www.aeroexperiments.org/brainteasers.shtml

Ed Sullivan

[Morgans[_2_]]

Ah, but if you are flying near stall with the wind, and the wind suddenly
>> slows, will you stall?
>
> Yes -- Your momentum needs to catch up with your new (reduced) airspeed.
>
>> .OR.
>> If you are slow on approach, into a gusty head wind, and a gust suddenly
>> resides, will you stall?
>
> It depends on how much margin you have between stall and airspeed to
> begin with. If the margin is less than the (now non-existent) gust, you
> will stall. Otherwise, you will see a sudden increase in sink rate. I
> guess it might not be fair to call it a stall.

Everyone, remember that this is not a real airplane, but instead it is a
theoretical airplane, like in physics class, where they tell you to figure a
problem without any friction being taken into account.

This airplane was going 70 knots (airspeed) north, with a 30 knot wind out
of the north, and it suddenly, and instantly is going to be going south, in
..1 second.

That means it had 40 knots worth of momentum. When that sudden reversal of
direction takes place, it will have the same momentum, for that first
instant of reversed flight, until the wind blowing at its back starts to
blow on it and accelerate it. That means the 40 knots of momentum will have
the airspeed component of the tailwind subtracted from it, so 40 knots minus
30 knot wind means it will see an airspeed (only for an instant) of 10
knots, until the tail wind plus the thrust starts accelerating the plane
back to its original airspeed of 70 knots.

I would agree that the airplane would develop a VERY serious sink rate.
Would that be a stall, though? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[[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

[Harry K]

On Dec 10, 12:16 am, Ed Sullivan > wrote:
> lOn Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:45:43 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Some Other Guy wrote:
> >> " <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? I've seen the show but I
> >>> watch very little tv, have they run out of urban myths?
>
> >> A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that if you are flying into a
> >> strong headwind close to stall speed and make a U-turn, you will stall
> >> (because now the wind is coming "from behind").
>
> >> The basics of flight just isn't obvious to some people.
>
> >Yes, and they aren't obvious to others just as proper use of grammar
> >isn't obvious! :-)
>
> >Matt
>
> Suggest you take a look at this site.www.aeroexperiments.org/brainteasers.shtml
>
> Ed Sullivan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah, something to do while I am staring at that 6" snowfall with a
30'x100' driveway to be cleared including the plow berm from the state
which will contain all the snow off a 16' wide stretch of highway.

Gonna be a fun project for both of them

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 10, 12:58 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> Ah, but if you are flying near stall with the wind, and the wind suddenly
>
> >> slows, will you stall?
>
> > Yes -- Your momentum needs to catch up with your new (reduced) airspeed.
>
> >> .OR.
> >> If you are slow on approach, into a gusty head wind, and a gust suddenly
> >> resides, will you stall?
>
> > It depends on how much margin you have between stall and airspeed to
> > begin with. If the margin is less than the (now non-existent) gust, you
> > will stall. Otherwise, you will see a sudden increase in sink rate. I
> > guess it might not be fair to call it a stall.
>
> Everyone, remember that this is not a real airplane, but instead it is a
> theoretical airplane, like in physics class, where they tell you to figure a
> problem without any friction being taken into account.
>
> This airplane was going 70 knots (airspeed) north, with a 30 knot wind out
> of the north, and it suddenly, and instantly is going to be going south, in
> .1 second.
>
> That means it had 40 knots worth of momentum. When that sudden reversal of
> direction takes place, it will have the same momentum, for that first
> instant of reversed flight, until the wind blowing at its back starts to
> blow on it and accelerate it. That means the 40 knots of momentum will have
> the airspeed component of the tailwind subtracted from it, so 40 knots minus
> 30 knot wind means it will see an airspeed (only for an instant) of 10
> knots, until the tail wind plus the thrust starts accelerating the plane
> back to its original airspeed of 70 knots.
>
> I would agree that the airplane would develop a VERY serious sink rate.
> Would that be a stall, though? <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

I suspect it would pile in very shortly after the turn began. Making
a turn at "near stall speed" into a head wind to begin with....

Harry K

[Gladrock]

I'm amazed that this argument is happening. You are arguing about the
behaviour of a non-existent aircraft doing something that real aircraft
cannot do. Why don't you discuss what a real aircraft, turning downwind at a
normal rate will do. Every pilot has to make a downwind turn entering the
pattern, it appears to be a fairly survivable manoeuvre.

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Well, all but Shawn Tucker's plane. I think he could make the turn in less time than .1 second, from the crazy crap I
> have seen him do!
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Shawn ends up with bug splats on the wing trailing edge!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gladrock" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm amazed that this argument is happening. You are arguing about the
> behaviour of a non-existent aircraft doing something that real aircraft
> cannot do. Why don't you discuss what a real aircraft, turning downwind at
> a normal rate will do. Every pilot has to make a downwind turn entering
> the pattern, it appears to be a fairly survivable manoeuvre.

I believe I am pointing out how the non flying public sees the problem, in
their heads.

They do not understand that as the turn is made over time, it accelerates
with the air mass, so nobody can tell the difference.

A plane exhibiting the characteristics I pointed to is how they see the
problem unfolding.
--
Jim in NC

[Mark Hickey]

"Gladrock" > wrote:

>I'm amazed that this argument is happening. You are arguing about the
>behaviour of a non-existent aircraft doing something that real aircraft
>cannot do. Why don't you discuss what a real aircraft, turning downwind at a
>normal rate will do. Every pilot has to make a downwind turn entering the
>pattern, it appears to be a fairly survivable manoeuvre.

Unlike a 0.1 second 180 degree turn (effectively the same as going
from 140 knots to zero in 0.1 seconds). I suppose the whole point
would become moot since the PIC would e splattered all over the
cockpit.

OTOH, the only way that most people can get their arms around this
concept is to reduce it to absurd levels (which the 0.1 second U-turn
is, of course).

I like to use the example of flying a toy helicopter inside a bus to
describe the concept of downwind turns. Doesn't really matter how
fast the box full of air is going, the helicopter will behave the same
(minus the effects of accelerating the bus, of course).

Mark "how many G's is that?" Hickey

[Andreus]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gladrock" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'm amazed that this argument is happening. You are arguing about the
>> behaviour of a non-existent aircraft doing something that real aircraft
>> cannot do. Why don't you discuss what a real aircraft, turning downwind
>> at a normal rate will do. Every pilot has to make a downwind turn
>> entering the pattern, it appears to be a fairly survivable manoeuvre.
>
> I believe I am pointing out how the non flying public sees the problem, in
> their heads.
>
> They do not understand that as the turn is made over time, it accelerates
> with the air mass, so nobody can tell the difference.
>
> A plane exhibiting the characteristics I pointed to is how they see the
> problem unfolding.
> --
> Jim in NC

I willing to bet that the non flying public looks up and sees a plane and
thinks, hmm.. a plane, without giving any thought at all to flight in
various attitudes.

[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.

[dave]

I think that a plane could be doing 70kts due north and be going south
..1 second later without missing a beat.

Morgans wrote:
> Ah, but if you are flying near stall with the wind, and the wind suddenly
>>> slows, will you stall?
>> Yes -- Your momentum needs to catch up with your new (reduced) airspeed.
>>
>>> .OR.
>>> If you are slow on approach, into a gusty head wind, and a gust suddenly
>>> resides, will you stall?
>> It depends on how much margin you have between stall and airspeed to
>> begin with. If the margin is less than the (now non-existent) gust, you
>> will stall. Otherwise, you will see a sudden increase in sink rate. I
>> guess it might not be fair to call it a stall.
>
> Everyone, remember that this is not a real airplane, but instead it is a
> theoretical airplane, like in physics class, where they tell you to figure a
> problem without any friction being taken into account.
>
> This airplane was going 70 knots (airspeed) north, with a 30 knot wind out
> of the north, and it suddenly, and instantly is going to be going south, in
> .1 second.
>
> That means it had 40 knots worth of momentum. When that sudden reversal of
> direction takes place, it will have the same momentum, for that first
> instant of reversed flight, until the wind blowing at its back starts to
> blow on it and accelerate it. That means the 40 knots of momentum will have
> the airspeed component of the tailwind subtracted from it, so 40 knots minus
> 30 knot wind means it will see an airspeed (only for an instant) of 10
> knots, until the tail wind plus the thrust starts accelerating the plane
> back to its original airspeed of 70 knots.
>
> I would agree that the airplane would develop a VERY serious sink rate.
> Would that be a stall, though? <g>

[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.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Dave wrote:
> I think that a plane could be doing 70kts due north and be going south
> .1 second later without missing a beat.
>

As it passes over the North Pole?

[Harry K]

On Dec 10, 7:46 am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 12:16 am, Ed Sullivan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > lOn Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:45:43 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> > wrote:
>
> > >Some Other Guy wrote:
> > >> " <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? I've seen the show but I
> > >>> watch very little tv, have they run out of urban myths?
>
> > >> A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that if you are flying into a
> > >> strong headwind close to stall speed and make a U-turn, you will stall
> > >> (because now the wind is coming "from behind").
>
> > >> The basics of flight just isn't obvious to some people.
>
> > >Yes, and they aren't obvious to others just as proper use of grammar
> > >isn't obvious! :-)
>
> > >Matt
>
> > Suggest you take a look at this site.www.aeroexperiments.org/brainteasers.shtml
>
> > Ed Sullivan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ah, something to do while I am staring at that 6" snowfall with a
> 30'x100' driveway to be cleared including the plow berm from the state
> which will contain all the snow off a 16' wide stretch of highway.
>
> Gonna be a fun project for both of them
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I read it. Reread it "he's full of it". Thought about it.
Took my 3 mile walk while thinking aobut it.

By golly he's right!

The problem is divorcing oneself from including ground speed into the
problem. No matter how many times I kept telling myself "ground speed
is not a factor in flight dynamics"' I still had problems seeing it.

Harry K

[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

[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.

[dave]

You got it! lol

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> I think that a plane could be doing 70kts due north and be going south
>> .1 second later without missing a beat.
>>
>
> As it passes over the North Pole?
>

[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

[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.

[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 ---

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[Blueskies]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message ...
> "Gladrock" > wrote:
>
>
> I like to use the example of flying a toy helicopter inside a bus to
> describe the concept of downwind turns. Doesn't really matter how
> fast the box full of air is going, the helicopter will behave the same
> (minus the effects of accelerating the bus, of course).
>
> Mark "how many G's is that?" Hickey
>

Nothing to do with down wind turns, but ever notice how a helium filled balloon fixed inside a car leans toward the
inside of a turn, or leans backward when a car stops, or leans forward when it accelerates?

Interesting problem there ;-)

[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)

[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!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Blueskies" <> wrote>

> Nothing to do with down wind turns, but ever notice how a helium filled
> balloon fixed inside a car leans toward the inside of a turn, or leans
> backward when a car stops, or leans forward when it accelerates?

Yep, and I have another good one for you. Inside a big motor home, on a
cold night, if you get in, and get the engine powered heater going, the
front of the vehicle will get nice and warm, while way in the back is still
nearly as cold as it was before you fired it up.

If you stop suddenly, all of the cold air in the back will rush up to the
front, and you will be cold again, almost instantly!
--
Jim in NC

[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.

[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_]]

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

[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_]]

cavelamb himself > wrote in
:

> 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????
>

You want him? He'll probably try to te you how to build an airplane using
plane constructor and photoshop next.

Bertie

[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

[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

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> cavelamb himself > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>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????
>>
>
>
> You want him? He'll probably try to te you how to build an airplane using
> plane constructor and photoshop next.
>
> Bertie

PASS!

[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.

[Chris Wells]

Suggest you take a look at this site.www.aeroexperiments.org/brainteasers.shtml

This site, while useful for those having difficulty with the concept of different frames of reference, is actually wrong. Downwind turns ARE different, though perhaps only for ultralights and other light aircraft in the real world.

Don't believe me? Try hang gliding. When you circle, you can usually feel which way the wind is blowing. When I first discovered this, it took me a while to figure out what was happening. I might have had difficulty believing if someone else had told me this, but I couldn't deny personal experience.

I'll see if anyone else knows, or can figure out, why this is true before I explain further...

[Al G[_1_]]

"Chris Wells" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Suggest you take a look at this
>> site.www.aeroexperiments.org/brainteasers.shtml
>
> This site, while useful for those having difficulty with the concept
> of different frames of reference, is actually wrong. Downwind turns ARE
> different, though perhaps only for ultralights and other light aircraft
> in the real world.
>
> Don't believe me? Try hang gliding. When you circle, you can usually
> feel which way the wind is blowing. When I first discovered this, it
> took me a while to figure out what was happening. I might have had
> difficulty believing if someone else had told me this, but I couldn't
> deny personal experience.
>
> I'll see if anyone else knows, or can figure out, why this is true
> before I explain further...
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Wells

It is your perception of travel across the ground that gives you that
feeling in a hang glider. Upwind you are practically stopped, and downwind
you are really moving. Never the less, you can still do turns without
changing attitude to adjust for any change in wind direction. Close your
eyes for a turn or two, and you'll never be able to tell the difference.

Al G

[Morgans[_2_]]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote

> Who is this fool????

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

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Chris Wells > wrote:

> > Suggest you take a look at this
> > site.www.aeroexperiments.org/brainteasers.shtml
>
> This site, while useful for those having difficulty with the concept
> of different frames of reference, is actually wrong. Downwind turns ARE
> different, though perhaps only for ultralights and other light aircraft
> in the real world.
>
> Don't believe me? Try hang gliding. When you circle, you can usually
> feel which way the wind is blowing. When I first discovered this, it
> took me a while to figure out what was happening. I might have had
> difficulty believing if someone else had told me this, but I couldn't
> deny personal experience.

I'm sorry, but the only reason turns feel like that in a hang-glider is
proximity/reference to the ground.

>
> I'll see if anyone else knows, or can figure out, why this is true
> before I explain further...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[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)

[Chris Wells]

Nope, nothing to do with looking at the ground. Here's a hint: you're making an incorrect assumption, and earlier in this thread there's a post related to the reason.

[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

[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)

[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

[Ron Webb]

"Some Other Guy" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Webb wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Actually, even then it doesn't always work.
>
> They did an episode on seeing if cellphones could mess up a VOR. They got
> fairly elaborate with this, using an enclosed mockup cockpit and a
> "cellphone signal generator" with adjustable power output.
>
> But! This was just a *single* generator. The real problem, as I see it,
> is
> when you have *more* than one cellphone transmitting. You then get mixing
> products generated all over the place, any of which could land in IF range
> of the VOR receiver.
>


Yea - I saw that one. 'Twas all I could do not to yell and throw things at
the TV! Maybe Grant is so into his robotics stuff that he's forgotten all
that stuff on RF...

They never mentioned (as I recall) the real reason for the "no cellphone"
rule, either. It wasn't the FAA that wanted it so much as the cell phone
industry.

A cell phone in flight is going to give the ground network a headache ---
figuring which cell site should handle the call. A LOT of cell sites are
going to be in range, and the strongest signal will be changing too fast to
follow.

Remember that the rule was put in place 20 years ago or better, when
computers were much slower and the cell co-ordination software was still
working out bugs. Now multiply that one high flying cell phone by 50,000 or
so (over L.A. say) and you can see why they were worried.

The new computers can handle it, so there are moves afoot to do away with
the rules. Some are already gone.

[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?

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Blueskies" <> wrote>
>
>> Nothing to do with down wind turns, but ever notice how a helium filled balloon fixed inside a car leans toward the
>> inside of a turn, or leans backward when a car stops, or leans forward when it accelerates?
>
> Yep, and I have another good one for you. Inside a big motor home, on a cold night, if you get in, and get the engine
> powered heater going, the front of the vehicle will get nice and warm, while way in the back is still nearly as cold
> as it was before you fired it up.
>
> If you stop suddenly, all of the cold air in the back will rush up to the front, and you will be cold again, almost
> instantly!
> --
> Jim in NC
>


Cool! ;-)

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> If you stop suddenly, all of the cold air in the back will rush up to the
>> front, and you will be cold again, almost
>> instantly!
>
> Cool! ;-)

Very! ;-)
--
Jim in NC