Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:16 pm
by Malcolm
Going to see them in about an hour. Fawesome.
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:16 pm
by Paul
My ex-wife took my daughter to see that.
They liked it.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:14 am
by TheCatt
Gordon wrote:That reminds me of one of Mythbuster's bullshit conclusions.
And which one is that?
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:08 pm
by GORDON
The one that said an airplane, standing still, could still become airborne. Problem was, their airplane wasn't standing still, was in motion, and had air moving over its wings producing lift.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:25 pm
by Malcolm
Uh, they said "standing still?"
How can an airplane take off if it is on top of a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction?
From here.
Semi-definitive explanation from elsewhere.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:33 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:The one that said an airplane, standing still, could still become airborne. Problem was, their airplane wasn't standing still, was in motion, and had air moving over its wings producing lift.
No, they said if it were on a treadmill, with the ground going backwards, it could still takeoff (which is obvious, since the wheels are not connected to the engine).
I don't think you can find an example of them being wrong.
Edited By TheCatt on 1387132506
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:11 pm
by GORDON
The whole point of the conveyor was to keep the plane stationary, otherwise what is the point? A stationary plane has no air moving over its wings producing lift. Wheels have nothing to do with a plane becoming airborne, nor, on a typical prop plane, does the propeller. The prop is to move the plane through space, so the wings can get lift. If the plane is stationary, it aint taking off, no matter how fast the prop spins.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:15 pm
by GORDON
Another one where I think they were wrong: they were reproducing the life raft free fall from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. That wanted to find out if a human could control a raft to a controlled landing onto a snowy down slope. Their experiment consisted of tying their crash test dummy's hands to a raft, taking it up under a helicopter, and cutting it loose to see how it would fall. Since it just tumbled and wrecked the dummy, they concluded that a human could not do it. Maybe a human can or can't, but they basically dropped a brick and called it a conclusion.
This is the equivalent of putting the dummy in the cockpit of an airplane, dropping it off a building, and when the plane crashes, concluding that airplanes can not, in fact, fly.
And there are other things half remembered.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:33 pm
by Malcolm
Wheels have nothing to do with a plane becoming airborne, nor, on a typical prop plane, does the propeller. The prop is to move the plane through space, so the wings can get lift. If the plane is stationary, it aint taking off, no matter how fast the prop spins.
That's the point.
Their experiment consisted of tying their crash test dummy's hands to a raft, taking it up under a helicopter, and cutting it loose to see how it would fall. Since it just tumbled and wrecked the dummy, they concluded that a human could not do it.
Really?
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:34 pm
by GORDON
Just now, just right this second, I am getting Catt's point about the wheels not being part of it. My entire take on the experiment was the plane being stationary and expected to take off, not the expectation that a conveyor could or couldn't stop the plane from being stationary. I thought the experiment was the plane flying, not about the conveyor being able to stop forward momentum.
Edited By GORDON on 1387136116
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:36 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:Their experiment consisted of tying their crash test dummy's hands to a raft, taking it up under a helicopter, and cutting it loose to see how it would fall. Since it just tumbled and wrecked the dummy, they concluded that a human could not do it.
Really?
They must have revisited it. That is nothing like what I saw.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:48 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:The whole point of the conveyor was to keep the plane stationary, otherwise what is the point? A stationary plane has no air moving over its wings producing lift. Wheels have nothing to do with a plane becoming airborne, nor, on a typical prop plane, does the propeller. The prop is to move the plane through space, so the wings can get lift. If the plane is stationary, it aint taking off, no matter how fast the prop spins.
That was exactly the point, since that is what the viewer question was. The point is that THE CONVEYOR DOESNT KEEP THE PLANE STATIONARY... and therefore it can take off fine.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:49 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:GORDON wrote:The whole point of the conveyor was to keep the plane stationary, otherwise what is the point? A stationary plane has no air moving over its wings producing lift. Wheels have nothing to do with a plane becoming airborne, nor, on a typical prop plane, does the propeller. The prop is to move the plane through space, so the wings can get lift. If the plane is stationary, it aint taking off, no matter how fast the prop spins.
That was exactly the point, since that is what the viewer question was. The point is that THE CONVEYOR DOESNT KEEP THE PLANE STATIONARY... and therefore it can take off fine.
I was arguing something completely different. I retract my objection to that episode.
Edited By GORDON on 1387137031
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:51 pm
by TheCatt
Gordon needs to stop the drugs.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:52 pm
by GORDON
I don't know why drugs need to be part of it.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:53 pm
by TheCatt
Cuz they're fun?
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:59 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:02 pm
by Malcolm
Malcolm wrote:Uh, they said "standing still?"
How can an airplane take off if it is on top of a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction?
From here.
Semi-definitive explanation from elsewhere.
Airplane on a treadmill even got a website
Hah. Sc00p3d.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:05 pm
by TheCatt
Sorry, I have you on Ignore.
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:08 pm
by Malcolm
Funny how you seemed to respond to that post, then.