FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

"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.

"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

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

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:-)

Dallas wrote in
:

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

and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you
already know the answer. What are they trying to prove?

I guess there are still a couple of people out there that believe the
aircraft won't take off.



I'd be one of them.



Bertie

Dallas wrote in
:

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

and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you
already know the answer. What are they trying to prove?

I guess there are still a couple of people out there that believe the
aircraft won't take off.



Ooops, disregard, misread it!


Bertie

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

Ooops, disregard, misread it!

Whoa... Bertie...

My mouth dropped open for a second.


--
Dallas

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

Ooops, disregard, misread it!

Whoa... Bertie...

My mouth dropped open for a second.


I'm only Bunyip, you know.

Bertie

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

"Jamie and Adam take wing to test if a person with no flight training can
safely land an airplane...
...I presume the plane they attempt to land without training is a 747.
Will be interesting to see if they try the real thing and are not limited
to a simulator.)

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

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

-Dana

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

Dana M. Hague 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.