FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

"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...6.24704.3913.x

(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.)

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'm really anxious to see this episode, because apparently they filmed
the treadmill myth at my home airport.

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.

In article ,
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.

maybe we can get a rec.aviation.treadmill out of this...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"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."


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?

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

B A R R Y wrote:
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


It shouldn't :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

"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

"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...

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
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.