FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

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

"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

I see, is this "people" or pilots. Or those computer game pilots who have
all the hard earned knowledge of how flight is accomplished. (Sorry just got
lectured at length last week about how MY aircraft works, by a computer
flier.) (stupid effin git!)

Anyway, I'll likely miss the show. My guess is that I'm better off without
it.

"Dallas" wrote in message
...
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

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?!

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:33:15 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:



Can we drop it now?!

I already did.

"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