FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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!!!)

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

"Casey Wilson" wrote:


"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.

And frightening. I think the results of the "experiment" caught
everyone off-guard. I know I for one have resolved to NEVER, EVER
place a shaped charge against the wall of an aircraft I'm flying on.

Mark" wouldn't be prudent" Hickey

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

"Casey Wilson" wrote:


"Newps" wrote in message
m...

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.

And frightening. I think the results of the "experiment" caught
everyone off-guard. I know I for one have resolved to NEVER, EVER
place a shaped charge against the wall of an aircraft I'm flying on.

Wouldn't be a surprise to antone familiar with the damage that can be
caused by a tear in the wrong spot on most any pressurised fuselage. the
damage caused by a simple tear can easily break an airplane in two. Just
ask DeHavillands...

there have been a number of airplanes lost over the years due to a simple
crack that grew rapidly...


Bertie