GoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 2 Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 29158 times:
This may be a little early to post, but next week, Mythbusters will air an "Air Plane Hour" episode. This is a new episode. Everyone set your DVRs (or, go forbid, an antiquated VCR).
The discovery.com episode description:
Quote: Jamie and Adam take wing to test if a person with no flight training can safely land a 747 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 imagine they'll test this in a simulator, but they always do try to ramp it up somehow. Is there any airline crazy enough to allow Adam or Jamie to have a go at landing one of their 747s?
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3238 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 29116 times:
Quoting GoCOgo (Thread starter): if a plane can take off from a conveyor belt speeding in the opposite direction.
That is, I believe, thanks to a thread I started on the website about the infamous discussion we had here regarding the same topic!
I've made a difference in the world! Haha!
TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
EphemeralFox From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 28981 times:
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4779 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 28977 times:
Quoting GoCOgo (Thread starter): Is there any airline crazy enough to allow Adam or Jamie to have a go at landing one of their 747s?
Lexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 28893 times:
Quoting AF340 (Reply 6): Or maybe Metis Transpacific
LOL! That's classic man. Nice response.
This is a great day! Not only do I love Mythbusters, but I love 747's. This is almost too cool because I too have wondered if anyone could land a 747. I can get one off the ground, but putting it back on the ground is my problem.
Ebs757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 757 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 28810 times:
Tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1398 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 28471 times:
Quoting GoCOgo (Thread starter): I imagine they'll test this in a simulator, but they always do try to ramp it up somehow. Is there any airline crazy enough to allow Adam or Jamie to have a go at landing one of their 747s?
Maybe Kalitta when they were up in Oscoda blowing the bus and car away. No traffic and about 11,000' of runway up there, that should be plenty of room to learn. I would imagine they will be using a sim for this one. We seem to have a good relationship with them so maybe Kalitta's 747 sim in Detroit? lol
Pilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 28249 times:
Quoting GoCOgo (Thread starter): if a plane can take off from a conveyor belt speeding in the opposite direction
Surely Jamie and Adam know how airplanes fly and that this is physically impossible. They know just because the wheels are turning doesn't mean the plane is just going to magically lift off the ground. My guess is that they just want to use this to explain the non-aviation public that it's impossible, and even show them if they don't believe that.
Other then that, this is should a very interesting episode. I'll be sure to record it!
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3054 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 28235 times:
Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 11): Well, any airline may do it, and just have a qualified Captain sitting in the Left hand seat. Just in case..
I have a feeling most if not all airlines' insurance providers would vehemently disagree with you.
Tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1398 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 28106 times:
Quoting 777STL (Reply 15):
I have a feeling most if not all airlines' insurance providers would vehemently disagree with you.
Nor will the law allow you to do it. You would have to be a pilot and have your Multi-Engine rating in order to operate the flight controls of a real 747.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 28060 times:
Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 14): Surely Jamie and Adam know how airplanes fly and that this is physically impossible.
Do you know how an airplane flies?
The friction between the landing gear and runway is not the reaction that accelerates the airplane. The engines of an airplane are reacting with the surrounding air to apply force directly to the airframe. Wheels are just a convenient means to allow the aircraft to translate while on the ground. The friction forces involved with the landing gear are not sufficient to prevent the aircraft from accelerating if the conditions of the conveyor belt follow the guidelines of the experiment.
The aircraft accelerates, air flows over the wing, the airplane takes off. To quote a good friend of mine: the conveyor is moot
Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 14): My guess is that they just want to use this to explain the non-aviation public that it's impossible, and even show them if they don't believe that
I don't see any way for them to execute this experiment on a proper scale, so they will probably screw it up and come to the wrong conclusion.
Mythbusters is a fun show, but they often use poor methodology and come to inane conclusions.
Pilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 10 Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 28054 times:
Quoting Tb727 (Reply 18): You would have to be a pilot and have your Multi-Engine rating in order to operate the flight controls of a real 747.
What about a type rating? Just because you have a multi-engine rating doesn't mean you can fly anything with multiple engines. It has to be under 12,500 lbs, and I believe there are other restrictions to a regular license.
RobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3940 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 27969 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 14):
Surely Jamie and Adam know how airplanes fly and that this is physically impossible.
Do you know how an airplane flies?
The friction between the landing gear and runway is not the reaction that accelerates the airplane. The engines of an airplane are reacting with the surrounding air to apply force directly to the airframe. Wheels are just a convenient means to allow the aircraft to translate while on the ground. The friction forces involved with the landing gear are not sufficient to prevent the aircraft from accelerating if the conditions of the conveyor belt follow the guidelines of the experiment.
The aircraft accelerates, air flows over the wing, the airplane takes off. To quote a good friend of mine: the conveyor is moot
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 27847 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): Mythbusters is a fun show, but they often use poor methodology and come to inane conclusions.
Thats why I have said on another forum about Mythbusters and aviation: They do not mix, period!
PlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 27824 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): The engines of an airplane are reacting with the surrounding air to apply force directly to the airframe.
For all I know true for props, but not for jets. The principle of a jet engine (and rocket motor) is that the high pressure gas on the inside can only escape in one direction, driving the engine in the other direction. As far as the propulsion goes, no outside air is required. (Of course, you do need to feed air into a jet engine to actually run it.) Otherwise, rocket motors could not work in the vacuum of space.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): The friction forces involved with the landing gear are not sufficient to prevent the aircraft from accelerating
I would guess that the gist of the experiment will be to run the conveyor belt at the exact takeoff speed of the airplane in the opposite direction. Otherwise, the entire exercise would not make much sense. Obviously, this can only be done with a small and relatively slow plane. This way you do show that even if the wheels of the plane are rotating at takeoff speed, the plane does not take off.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): I don't see any way for them to execute this experiment on a proper scale
They have certainly done larger things on Mythbusters. I remember one episode involving two colliding large trucks pulled by another large truck through a system of wires and pulleys, crushing a car in between them. If they do limit themselves to a small plane (e.g., a Piper Cub or something similar), I can see them doing a full scale real experiment.
Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
Pilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 27800 times:
I don't quite know where you are going with your whole explaination there, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I'm talking about.
25 Graphic: Ehh I don't think that's exactly right. The Pilot in Command must have all the ratings covered, but as far as Second in Command goes, if the Pilot in
26 AirframeAS: You sure about that? I'm sure the F.A.A. would love to have a chat with you about part 65. I'm no pilot but that statement scares the hell out of me.
27 RobK: Yup, this is going to turn into yet another 300+ post thread of arguments about why it can and can't take off. R
28 RJ111: The plane may or may not take off depending on the parameters of everything. Rolling resistance on wheels, speed of belt, lift/drag characteristics, t
29 Scramjetter: You are mostly correct. The other pilot would need to have a student pilot license. To obtain the rating necessary to fly a 747, other ratings would
30 Mir: To be PIC, yes. But that doesn't apply to some guy in the left seat and the instructor captain in the right seat. The instructor captain has the MEL,
31 Ogre727: I have always wondered about this. I mean, you all remember those silly movies from the 70s in which either the flight attendant, or a kid landed a p
32 Traineepilot: Why does everyone turn any innocent topic into an argument over who thinks they have more knowledge than others. Instead of arguing about the prinicpl
33 Warszawa: It's illegal to record copyrighted material without permission from the broadcasting station/show onto a disc for anything other than personal use he
34 SupraZachAir: Not sure what reg's you're looking at, but part 65 has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.
35 Theginge: If they had some practice in the simulator they could land it I would think with no X winds etc etc. I have been in an A320 simulator a few times and
36 Mhodgson: I'd imagine that if the 747 was set up for them, at about 4dme on an ILS so that they can follow the FD bars as well as maintain visual with the runwa
37 Boeing767mech: Can you fly this plane???? Shirley you can be serious??? I am...... and don't call me Shirley??? I could do it, and yes I did stay at a Holiday Inn Ex
38 797: Uhhh Awesome! Can't wait to see it... when is it exactly going to be shown? Anyone here? That would be cool for me too! Thanks! I'm with you on that..
39 Jmbarros12: Might be a fantastic advertisement for Boeing. Maybe Boeing itself will offer a 747 used for tests to Mythbusters. Hope to watch this episode asap he
40 Wolflair: 747 at Meigs? Hmm. I guess that was before the major turned the place into a big slice of a gruyere cheese! On the other hand, where was the realism
41 Ogre727: I invite you to try it, it's actually pretty fun. Taking off is another story though...
42 SKA380: Anyone who knows a little about aerodynamics knows that an aircraft needs airflow over its wings to create positive lift. So if we here are talking a
43 Bond007: We're not talking about that! The whole point is that unless the wheels are bolted to a 1,000 ton block of concrete, once the jet engines produce thr
44 BeechNut: I assume they will use a GA aircraft. Up until a certain (very low) airspeed, rolling resistance will be the main force to overcome. If you don't bel
45 SBBRTech: No way they are touching a real a/c. US authorities wouldn't let them properly replicate that SBRJ episode when a taxi got blown away by jet stream, i
46 ScrubbsYWG: in a recent episode they used a real 747 to blow away a school bus, among other things. I think the issue was with the plane's insurer the first time
47 DfwRevolution: That's Executive Decision. Air Force One is where Harrison Ford gets zip-lined over to a C-130 or something.
48 Kempa: My guesses: 747 - Not anyone can land it, but some people without commercial aircraft training, properly coached and assisted by radio by skilled pilo
49 Jman40: That has been attempted.... It took a few hundred posts and it never got anywhere. Maybe (just maybe!) this will solve the question forever. But I wo
50 Jush: Wow how cool that is. Unfortunately in Germany we can't see this episode on that day or the next time. If someone has a link or anything where one can
51 Tb727: The 747 classic has a required flight crew of 3 qualified pilots, the Captain(PIC), the FO(SIC) and the FE(Plumber). 61.55(a)(1) Requires you to be a
52 Luv2cattlecall: Just to make sure, you do know that Metis Transpacific is a fake airline trying to scam people, right? Their IATA code is BS for a reason! Make sure
53 PanAm747: Hey, if a cross-eyed flight attendant can fly a 747-123 (leased from AA, of course) through the Wasatch mountains of Utah, then I think that anything
54 Threepoint: Of course they do. They are among the top posters in the anti-Metis Transpacific thread and have had contact with the scammer.
55 Bohlman: As has been noted, Executive Decision. A private pilot who's shown forgetting about landing gear in the beginning of the movie is proved competent en
56 Mirrodie: Thank God no one else here even thought to ask the same question you did! Obviously there are different opinions about this. How about the guys who'v
57 Spacecadet: She was using the auto-pilot... I imagine anyone *could* fly a 747 that way. I don't remember how she supposedly landed it, but I do remember she obv
58 SirDeath: I'm sure they will do the landing from some advanced flight simulator (maybe UA's 744 sim in Denver considering the show is based in SFO and UA is a b
59 PGNCS: Yes; insurance is a showstopper. You can train in a control seat with a properly certificated airman in the other seat; as long as it's dual instruct
60 0NEWAIR0: Did the sim instructor have the "allow crash" function on? Not meaning to take away any kudos from your brother...just a question.
61 ShyFlyer: She didn't. Charlton Heston's character was "dropped" into the cockpit from a helicopter.
62 GeorgeJetson: There’s no reason to become alarmed and we hope you’ll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a
63 AirframeAS: Excuse me, I was wrong... Part 65: Certification for mechanics. Its Part 61 that I was referring to which completely covers pilots.
64 KPWM: Yahoo shows times here: http://tv.yahoo.com/mythbusters/show/airplane-hour/episode/155326 times are in eastern daylight time.
65 Desh: Would'nt a conveyor belt have a similiar effect as a catapult would on aircraft carriers ? ? ?
66 Bond007: if it was connected to the aircraft and went in the same direction .... yes. This isn't and isn't .... This thread please: If A Plane Took Off A Conv
67 Glydrflyr: Why are they fooling around with little airplanes like the 747? Let 'em borrow a 380 from Airbus or that Russian thing with all the engines on it. If
68 Mirrodie: Perhaps we should start an Anet pool, since we have so many theories. Is anyone keeping books? Flashback, she was a nice looking esotrope.
69 Bohlman: Not among the people that have read the FARs No, you can't. See my post above. You can do training in a 747, however, you must satisfy the exceptions
70 Warszawa: Yeah thats right, it is Executive Decision.
71 JRDC930: No need to even test this. NO! Not just any one can land a 747. Theres a reason 747 captains get paid 120,000 plus dollars. I cant believe they even n
72 MDL21483: Anyone remember that little side room at one of the exibits in Epcot with MSFS3.1 running a DC-10? BTW, who says that they'll be staying in the States
73 XXXX10: I was lucky enough to fly the full motion 744 simulator. I had a former 744 pilot in the left hand seat who put me about 4 miles out on the approach.
74 Lrdc9: That is very true! When they tested whether an airplane could flip a taxi over they used some Hollywood prop with a combined 2500 lbs static thrust w
75 Bond007: You missed the one when they used a Kalitta 747 then ??? Jimbo
76 RayChuang: As for "anyone landing a 747," I think if you can find an airport with ICAO Category IIIB certified navigation systems for landing approach and a plan
77 Charliejag1: In a modern high bypass turbofan engine, about 90% of the air that enters the inlet cowl does NOT go through the engine and get burned. I find your c
78 NwAflyer07: Emirates'l have no problem donating one of their 747s. They have all the money in the world plus tons of A380s on order. haha In reality, even if an
79 Pilotpip: Trying to teach somebody how to program an FMS would be much harder than a basic landing. And you guys all seem to forget that there are these things
80 BlueSkys: I think it is possible. I m a private pilot, and while working is a part-time AME I had the chance to go up on a falcon900 test flight after some MX.
81 PGNCS: I think you are correct after re-reading this. In the times I have done bounce rides in large aircraft we have all been CPL's or ATP's.
82 Bohlman: Yeah, air is the propellant. High bypass engines like the GE90 have bypass ratios in the area of 9:1, but that doesn't mean that 90% of the thrust is
83 Bohlman: We probably have the same reaction when reading FARs: instant sleep aid .
85 SKA380: Quoting BeechNut (Reply 44): It's air speed that matters, not ground speed. The Cub has a 33 knot stall speed. Turn it into a wind greater than 33 kno
86 ShyFlyer: They have, couple of seasons ago I think. I believe the outcome was plausible.
87 Tdscanuck: This isn't exactly right. Although correct that the thrust ratio doesn't match the bypass ration, the vast majority of the thrust (80%+) comes from t
88 Scramjetter: I am not sure about that one. He did mention that there were a couple of 'crashes' by students. The entire flight sequence was flown in night conditi
89 Chase: All I really have to add to this: My father used to work on the full-motion sims at a US-based legacy carrier. He took me in to work with him twice -
90 Rwessel: Unfortunately that's been dumbed down to the point of being flatly incorrect. A jet engine, or rocket engine, works by flinging mass (air+fuel in onc
92 DeltaRules: I would've said no way in hell until you mentioned SRB. With him, it's possible. The more ridiculous, the merrier. There was one movie where a 747 wa
93 PhilSquares: Those 74Fs are owned and operated by Atlas on an ACMI contract for EK.
95 4holer: Mythbusters did get permission from the guys at Airbus to do the conveyor belt experiment a while back, but it did not turn out well. View Large View
96 Don81603: For every action there is an equal, and opposite react. Suck air in one side, and expel it out the other. Create low pressure on one side, and higher
97 MCIGuy: Sure! Even I could land a 747! Ohhh, you meant "...in one piece"! Reminds me of the day my buddy and I went down for his first "lesson" on a 172. He w
98 SEPilot: I once had the opportunity of "flying" a KC-135 simulator, and did manage a fairly decent landing. The instructor told me that few small plane pilots
99 Robsawatsky: Apparently some people don't know based upon the previous posts in this thread. Assuming the conveyor belt accelerates to match (in reverse) the take
100 JRDC930: No; how about trying to land any plane when you have no idea about stall speeds, landing speeds, crosswinds, not to mention the layout of the flight
101 Vega9000: This should make an interesting show, if they make the parameters right. I think is pretty obvious that an inexperienced person trying to land a 747 (
102 Arffguy: Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 72): Theres a reason 747 captains get paid 120,000 plus dollars. Yeah, it's called "emergencies" and "abnormal operations." Plu
103 AdamWright: I have thousands of hours on flight simulator. I can land anything. signed, Anet retard
104 Ebs757: Am I the only one confused on the meaningless theory that an airplane can take off on a conveyor belt?
105 Futurecaptain: No, after over 800 responses in a Tech Ops thread complete with videos and pictures we still can't agree. But then again, this is A.net....when do we
106 BWilliams: ... it's A.net. On topic, however, it will be interesting to see how this is done. Having no pilot experience myself, but understanding a little abou
107 Xtoler: I've been bugging my wife to let me watch this episode when it comes on. The challenge is, she hate's flying, she hate's when I fly and when I did it
108 Xtoler: That's the problem. You only have an hour long show and they usually have one or two other smaller myths to bust. I could start a show describing how
109 JRDC930: No offense but thats Bull Shi**, you obviously have no flight experience, it takes a lot more than just a Little knowledge to operate a 747 SAFELY. E
110 Xtoler: I should know the answer to this one, but wasn't the Concorde supposed to be able to land itself? That has to be a myth! GPS has been around for a lon
111 Bohlman: I'm not sure of the relevance of this post....
112 HowSwedeitis: I am excited about this episode! I have it in my plan-book! http://calendar.yahoo.com/?v=60&ST=2...%0d%0a&in_loc=On+the+couch&TYPE=22
113 Matt2242: I'm more interested to see what they will attach explosives on.... Its inevitable with Adam and Jamie... Something always ends up being blown to thous
114 LuiePL: If I had to take a guess, I would imagine this myth is about "emergency" situations more than the pilot running a lottery and some random schmo gettin
115 Mir: Whether or not an airplane has GPS or not is entirely irrelevant to whether it can land itself. Autoland systems do not use GPS at all. -Mir
116 BlueElephant: The Show is on now...looks like they're going to use a simulator. Enjoy!
117 Dakar: The "generic" simulator looked like an A321 to me, how about you guys? Nick
119 BlueElephant: Exactly like an A321....So much for a B747... I like when the narrarator said " it takes a pilot with hundreds of hours to fly a plane".. Funny...I'v
120 Whappeh: 321 instead of 747... got rid of the treadmill/aircraft take off. I am upset!
121 ScarletHarlot: Looks like they're not going to cover the conveyor belt question either.
122 KevinSmith: One gripe. At the end the instructor said that to land the plane it s a simple as flicking a few switches and selecting the approach. Incorrect One yo
123 Pilotboi: Actually it IS that simple. You are correct, he forgot to mention that the ILS needs to first be tuned. But even that may be automatically set using
124 KPWMSpotter: Ahh! But...but...but... I was looking for an ultimate answer to whether or not a plane could take off from a magical conveyor belt!! ...It may be anot
125 Boeing767mech: My major gripe is not enough of Kari..I enjoyed seeing them fly the sim, who cares what kind of airplane it was. David
126 Fbgdavidson: andddd....half the audience just fell asleep. Remember this is Mythbusters not 'Aviation Geeks Anonymous'. Things get simplified or else it becomes t
127 Joness0154: Sounds pretty simple to me. Airliners' systems are a lot better than most general aviation systems.
128 KevinSmith: Agreed, it is that simple if you have everything set up. He made it sound like pushing the approach mode will magically land you. You are correct. I
129 Jawed: The simulator in the show said "DON'T THINK. DON'T THINK. DON'T THINK" in an automated voice just before it crashed. Is this a real error warning in r
130 Pilotboi: Good point there. But I don't think most people will have gotten that out of the show. Either way - I don't think we'll ever find out. Even if both p
131 Pilotboi: Haha - I was surprised they didn't correct this, at least later on. What it was saying was "Don't Sink. Don't Sink." - as in, don't let the airplane
132 BillReid: Jeez, anyone can land an airplane, any airplane. The question is whether anyone can walk away? I am 100% sure that any airplane will land unless water
133 Pilotboi: Nice one! Thanks to the brilliant minds that thought up that one. Even the FAA calls it that, for water-based aircraft.
134 Jawed: haha... it totally sounded like DON'T THINK, even before the Mythbusters guy said "It's telling me not to think". I thought it was kinda funny. I gues
135 Joness0154: "Bitchin Bob (or Betty)" with a lisp
136 KiwiinOz: I don't understand how anyone with an IQ above 60 could possibly comprehend that a plane could take off from a speeding conveyor belt when it's statio
137 Pilotboi: I think it is because they are looking at it as a completely different scenario. They are saying that it it can use full power and overcome the speed
138 Futurecaptain: It's just you, refer to Tech Ops and plead your case after reading the mega thread. Oh, and it will takeoff.
139 DfwRevolution: The Discovery Channel forums are in full meltdown due to the conveyor belt deletion: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/9401967776 And,
140 Whappeh: Yeah, they made a vast majority of the internet upset tonight. Quote from someone on their boards: "Adam? Jamie? Dan? Someone step up and tell us what
144 Falzone: POCB seemed like a better fit to this episode than all that parachute crap, but that's just me being an aviation nut. Put that Point Break stuff in a
145 Adman737: what program was that it looked like FSX lol.
146 DfwRevolution: You bet. They credited Microsoft Flight Simulator at the beginning of the episode for the exterior simulation.
147 Graphic: Its because you don't need groundspeed to fly, you need airspeed, and conversely, a propeller does not act on the ground, it acts on the air. So yes,
148 Chiad: Not everyone can become a great pilot, but a great pilot can come from anywhere.
149 Teme82: Yeah and it had nice livery too Man that I would like to test that simulator my self ... I would go for ILS landing for sure And they forgot that pil
150 Nighthawk: in order to gain airspeed you need groundspeed (unless you have a 120mph+ headwind). The conveyor belt stops you getting groundspeed = no takeoff. An
152 Pilotboi: Yes, I know it's the wrong thread, but I can't help myself. What you are talking about is a completely different scenario then what he was talking ab
153 Bond007: Well the speed of the belt is irrelevant, unless you include the friction of the bearings and the max speed the wheels can spin. The airplane doesn't
154 RayChuang: After watching that episode, in a way I was right about fully automated landings even with 747-400. Any airport with ICAO CAT III-rated equipment will
155 Pilotboi: Yes, at first it will move forward - relative to the belt, but not the ground. Relative to the ground, it will decelerate first, arrive at a 0kt GS (
156 Bond007: It will move forward .... period. The propeller acts on the air, not the wheels. Apart from the friction of the wheels, the wheels and the belt have
157 Legoguy: So what happened in the program? Did Adam or Jamie manage to land a passenger aircraft with no experience what so ever? I think they could have gone a
159 RayChuang: Most modern jetliners built since the middle 1990's usually have on-board CAT III-rated equipment, thanks to the use of "glass cockpits" with a lot o
160 Pilotboi: Yes, it will move forward, relative to the belt. But if the belt is moving backwards at whatever speed, then the aircraft is moving backwards as well
161 Moo: The 'airplane on a conveyor belt' question is an insanely stupid and incomplete question, *there is no answer to the question as posed*. Its as simple
162 JoeCanuck: Nope...it merely needs to overcome whatever drag the wheels bearings are imparting on the airframe to maintain stationary...no matter what the belt i
163 Bond007: Correct The friction/drag of the wheels bearings is the only thing stopping the aircraft from moving forward... not the speed of the belt. if you mea
164 Moo: It entirely depends on what the interaction between the belt and the aircraft is defined as - and I have yet to see a version of the question where t
165 Graphic: Nope. It takes off either way. Pretty much. A Wheelbarrow does not have a propellor, which makes your assumptions and conclusions completely wrong. I
166 Mir: In the ideal case where you could build a conveyor belt that would always match the rotation of the wheels, and where the wheels had no spin limit, t
167 IFEMaster: Yes they did. They had a qualified pilot acting as ATC, but was blind (couldn't see any of the sim displays). He talked them down and both of them ma
168 David L: That's why we split the topic into 4 different options and people were able to discuss each option separately... apart from the smart arses who jumpe
169 Spacecadet: The narrator said it was "generic". At one point you could see the sim was called "advanced aviation concepts and training" or something like that, s
170 Bond007: I only partly agree with this "depends on the question" view. In any example, where the aircraft just sits on it's freely rotating wheels, on a conve
171 David L: OK, one of them was in jest but the other three were scenarios that people genuinely inferred, or at least preferred to discuss, from the question. W
172 Futurecaptain: We have been discussing this for a long time. It's very easy to solve. Somebody get an RC airplane, stick it on your treadmill at home, fire everythin
173 Moo: No, it wont in *every* circumstance - that is the entire point of *why* the definition of the interaction is the most important part of the question.
174 Moo: Yeah, I've done it (its amazing what the local gym allows you to get away with) - the plane didn't take off. But that experiment didn't cover every s
175 Bond007: You'll have a tough time explaining why it won't move forward in *every* realistic circumstance, where it is on it's wheels, on a conveyor, and not b
176 IFEMaster: Yeah, I remember that now. The sidestick and twin engine and width of the cockpit made me think A330 though. Either way, they concluded that the myth
177 Pilotboi: You see - there's another difference. In my scenario, I'm thinking that the airplane is placed on this gigantic conveyor belt (lets say in the middle
178 Moo: No, the rules of physics don't state that - physics is a substantially huge area of science, and a complex one at that. And this is why, as I keep sa
179 JoeCanuck: Sweet heyzuez...did you not understand I was comparing forces...? The propeller is a big, fat red herring. The wheels aren't directly powered which m
180 Yflyer: Was I completely imagining things last night, or was Jamie using a Boeing-style yoke during his first attempt, and then they switched to Airbus-style
181 Bond007: You can keep saying it, but it still doesn't matter Jimbo
182 Moo: Maybe not to you, but to me the question is pointless until that interaction is defined - until that point, its an unanswerable question and any answ
183 Spacecadet: I unfortunately have already deleted the episode from my DVR, but I'm pretty sure he was using the same Airbus controls. I remember the exact moment
184 Bond007: Because you think a jet engine or propeller moves the aircraft via the wheels ... it doesn't, which is why the belt doesn't matter at all (friction/d
185 Graphic: Umm, I think we're trying to say the same thing in two completely different ways
186 JoeCanuck: Could be...Sometimes I just lose perspective...that such a bizarre topic can actually stay alive astounds me...but if 'intelligent design' can be tau
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2007, 2786 posts, 
From Japan, joined Nov 2006, 2380 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jun 2007, 141 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3940 posts, 
I feel ya, bro...I feel ya.
Printer friendly format 
