If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
"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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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!!!) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 217 | December 21st 07 11:33 AM |
Mythbusters Episode and FMS | Marco Leon | Piloting | 19 | February 13th 07 05:45 AM |
Mythbusters and explosive decompression | Casey Wilson | Piloting | 49 | July 15th 04 05:56 PM |
MythBusters | Hilton | Piloting | 7 | February 4th 04 03:30 AM |
Mythbusters Explosive Decompression Experiment | C J Campbell | Piloting | 49 | January 16th 04 07:12 AM |