FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

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".

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".

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

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.

"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

"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.

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

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

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.

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?!