FYI: 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

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

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.

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?

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

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