FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

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-schedule...=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)

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.

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!!!)

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 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.

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=c9x...patent:1824346

"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?

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

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

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.