FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

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."

"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!

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

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

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

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

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 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

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.

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-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 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

"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.