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?

Wow, that's looking like its going to be a great episode.

Thanks for the heads up! 

AF340  

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

Oh, this should be great....  

I wonder if they will count using autoland...

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?

SRB perhaps? Ahhh we can only hope   

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?

Or maybe Metis Transpacific  


AF340  

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.

Thanks for the heads up. I will watch for sure

Great timing! I'll be done with finals that morning so I'll be sure to tune in.

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

Quoting AF340 (Reply 6): Or maybe Metis Transpacific

Well, any airline may do it, and just have a qualified Captain sitting in the Left hand seat. Just in case..

I wonder what the qualification is for the 'land' part.. are they looking for a 'good' landing, or are they looking for a 'great' landing?  

Any landing that they walk away from will be good!!

IF the 747 will leave the runway under control and intact, then it will be a great one.

Peter

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!

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.

Anyone kind enough to record and send me a DVD or VCD? Mythbusters shown in Singapore is much slower...

Quoting AF340 (Reply 6): Or maybe Metis Transpacific

I just e-mailed their management to see if they will lend one of their 747's to the show!

I cant wait to hear their response.......

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.

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.

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.

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

 

R

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!

Quoting RobK (Reply 21):

   I feel ya, bro...I feel ya.

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.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): Do you know how an airplane flies?

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.

Quoting Tb727 (Reply 18): 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.

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 Command is also a fully-qualified instructor, then the second in command can, in theory, be just about any tom dick and harry who has the money and wants to learn how to fly.

Now as far as what the insurance company has in mind could be a whole nother matter entirely.


...and yes I just said "whole nother" whatchya gonna do about it?   

Quoting Graphic (Reply 25): ...but as far as Second in Command goes, if the Pilot in Command is also a fully-qualified instructor, then the second in command can, in theory, be just about any tom dick and harry who has the money and wants to learn how to fly.

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....

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22): I feel ya, bro...I feel ya.

Yup, this is going to turn into yet another 300+ post thread of arguments about why it can and can't take off.        

R

The plane may or may not take off depending on the parameters of everything. Rolling resistance on wheels, speed of belt, lift/drag characteristics, thrust and weight ect.

Quoting Graphic (Reply 25): 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 Command is also a fully-qualified instructor, then the second in command can, in theory, be just about any tom dick and harry who has the money and wants to learn how to fly.

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 naturally apply (a 747 is over 12500 lbs). To simply learn to fly the 747, just a student pilot license will suffice.

My brother is an A&P working for a major airline in the US and was able to successfully land the 757 simulator with no experience whatsoever piloting a real airplane, just Flight Simulator. He got kudos from the sim instructor! I however have a US Pilot license but often wonder if I'd be able to get the heavy metal down in one piece...

 

Quoting Tb727 (Reply 18): 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.

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, the type rating, the high performance and complex endorsements, the CFI certificate, etc. The other guy needs a third class medical. You could in theory do your initial multi-engine training in a 747 if you had the money (and if anyone would insure you).

Quoting Graphic (Reply 25): The Pilot in Command must have all the ratings covered, but as far as Second in Command goes, if the Pilot in Command is also a fully-qualified instructor, then the second in command can, in theory, be just about any tom dick and harry who has the money and wants to learn how to fly.

  

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 23): 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.

You are technically correct. However, for the engines found on airliners are both jets and turbines, and as a turbine they do need outside air, since that is what they shoot out the back of the engine (the jet part). Rocket engines shoot their fuel (and only their fuel) out the back, which is why they don't need outside air. While airliners do shoot their fuel out the back of the engine, it is only a small portion of the total mass that is pushed backward, and is there more to keep the engine turning than to provide thrust.

-Mir

Quoting Scramjetter (Reply 29): My brother is an A&P working for a major airline in the US and was able to successfully land the 757 simulator with no experience whatsoever piloting a real airplane, just Flight Simulator. He got kudos from the sim instructor! I however have a US Pilot license but often wonder if I'd be able to get the heavy metal down in one piece...

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 plane because the pilots were killed or something.

Me, I fly on the microsoft flight simulator all the time, and have been able to land a 747 on that Meigs airport. This doesn't give me any comfort and I know I would have a really hard time to land a real one if the time came...

Perhaps they will conclude that one can easily set the autoland and do it that way?

Why does everyone turn any innocent topic into an argument over who thinks they have more knowledge than others.

Instead of arguing about the prinicples of flight if you don't know them, read up on them and then post a 'sensible' reply.

Back to the topic in hand, I would love to see it, but they wont air that in the UK for a long time probably!! Will probably find something in You Tube.

Quoting Ceph (Reply 16): Anyone kind enough to record and send me a DVD or VCD?

It's illegal to record copyrighted material without permission from the broadcasting station/show onto a disc for anything other than personal use here in the USA. The worst someone could then do would be to mail it, using the US Postal Service to provide a means of transportation for copyrighted materials is a big no-no 

Nonetheless, this show leaves a lot of loopholes open with the statement 'Can Anyone Land a 747'.

Yeah, billy bob can land a 747. At 500mph with the gear still up in a ditch in iowa cornfields  

Bottom line is, you need some basic pilot knowledge to at least even have a chance at a successful outcome of landing a 747. If you're trying to land and you dont know what flaps are, or approach speeds, or anything, it doesnt take a genius to figure out your F***ed.

I can tell you now, Jamie & Adam = Cannot land a 747, which is what this show will be about. It'll be 'BUSTED'. Unless they have the help of a real 747 pilot alongside, telling them what each button does, knob, etc. Though, that would dismiss the 'Can anyone land a 747' test. Because they're not 'anyone' anymore if they're getting prior knowledge from a real 747 pilot.

They'll probably reference the movie ' Air Force One ' as in that movie a Cessna-skilled pilot lands a 747 after the aircraft was hijacked for hours in flight.

What I would prefer to watch is this:

CAN an experienced FLIGHT SIMULATOR COMPUTER pilot land a 747.

I'd pay money to watch that show. I want the guys who have 3000 hours at a virtual airline flying payware FS2004 aircraft on the computer to go on mythbusters and try to land a 747 in a real airline simulator.

And yes, i'll admit, I believe in that same idealogy as every other flight sim pilot does. Even I think I can land a 747, and I chuckle at the thought myself. Which is why i'm eager for someone to prove me wrong, or perhaps, maybe prove me right?

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26): 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....

Not sure what reg's you're looking at, but part 65 has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

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 managed to land that successfully on all attempts. I have an idea about flying though as have started my PPL.

The 747 would be a lot more difficult than the airbus as the airbus does all the trim automatically so you basically point it where you want and it stays there!

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 runway and its PAPIs, it might be possible, especially if autothrottle is available to them. Unfortunately in the real world it isn't that simple!

If they had to do an extended approach with no automatics, I suspect they will struggle.

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 Express.

Why don;t we just wait until it shows on TV and them you can discuss, flame and trash the show all you want.

David

PS. but lets all hope Kari is shown maybe as a hot looking FA

Uhhh Awesome! Can't wait to see it... when is it exactly going to be shown?

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 14): the non-aviation public

Anyone here?   

Quoting Ceph (Reply 16): Anyone kind enough to record and send me a DVD or VCD? Mythbusters shown in Singapore is much slower...

That would be cool for me too!

Quoting Boeing767mech (Reply 37): Why don;t we just wait until it shows on TV and them you can discuss, flame and trash the show all you want.

Thanks! I'm with you on that...

Cheers

Quoting Scrumpy492003 (Reply 13): IF the 747 will leave the runway under control and intact, then it will be a great one.

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 here in Brazil.

Cheers,

Joao

Quoting Ogre727 (Reply 31): Me, I fly on the microsoft flight simulator all the time, and have been able to land a 747 on that Meigs airport. This doesn't give me any comfort and I know I would have a really hard time to land a real one if the time came

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 bar set?  

Quoting Warszawa (Reply 33): I'd pay money to watch that show. I want the guys who have 3000 hours at a virtual airline flying payware FS2004 aircraft on the computer to go on mythbusters and try to land a 747 in a real airline simulator.

It depends what level of realism and add-ons these users have and the level of information they are provided before flying. IIRC there is a blog in the internet (or a post here in a.net) which spoke about a 17/18 years old german kid. He did some sort of internship at the LH Cargo training centre. At some point he was allowed to get on one of the MD11 sims and made some good landings. He did mention that the MD11 Chief Pilot was with him giving him some useful info.

I do think it is feasible to land the 747 provided you are given the right information at the right time AND if you are familiar with the systems (good old PMDG, PIC or PSS add-ons can be helpful).

Quoting Wolflair (Reply 40): 747 at Meigs? Hmm. I guess that was before the major turned the place into a big slice of a gruyere cheese! banghead On the other hand, where was the realism bar set? Wink

I invite you to try it, it's actually pretty fun. Taking off is another story though...  

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): The aircraft accelerates, air flows over the wing, the airplane takes off. To quote a good friend of mine: the conveyor is moot

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 about (sorry, i haven't seen the previous discussion thread on this) a regular aircraft on a conveyor belt, doing basically 0 knots GROUND speed, then NO, the aircraft will not have liftoff..

When it comes to the 747 experiment, i'm exited to see if they can pull it off indeed. I'm guessing they'll test the theory of in case of a hijacking and you got control of the aircraft again etc etc. In witch case they would do it with with radio guidance from the "tower", like you see in the movies..

Quoting SKA380 (Reply 42): 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 about (sorry, i haven't seen the previous discussion thread on this) a regular aircraft on a conveyor belt, doing basically 0 knots GROUND speed, then NO, the aircraft will not have liftoff..

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 thrust, the aircraft WILL move forward. Whether the conveyor can 'match the speed' is another discussion, but regardless, the thrust WILL move the aircraft unless it's superglued to something fixed .... it's basic physics, and how a jet engine works.

BUT.... please see:
If A Plane Took Off A Conveyor Belt... (by Sovietjet Nov 29 2005 in Tech Ops)

It's been discussed to DEATH!


Jimbo

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19): 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

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 believe me, try a soft-field takeoff... you'll understand the impact of rolling resistance in getting airborne. At a certain point aerodynamic drag takes over but that should be pretty close to the point where lift starts and once that happens rolling resistance quickly gets negligible as the weight is lifted off the landing gear. There is, of course, also the impact of ground effect to consider, which is something we try to use in a soft-field takeoff, to get the plane out of the muck and accelerating quickly to flying speed

Bottom line though, the conveyor won't have any significant impact.

They may, however, want to have a look at the tire rotational speed limit on the sidewall if they want to avoid having a nasty (and expensive) experience, which will include pi$$ing off the owner of the aircraft.

Quoting SKA380 (Reply 42): 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 about (sorry, i haven't seen the previous discussion thread on this) a regular aircraft on a conveyor belt, doing basically 0 knots GROUND speed, then NO, the aircraft will not have liftoff..

I can make, oh say a Piper Cub, take off with zero knots ground speed.

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 knots, cut it loose, and you'll be airborne with no forward ground speed (hint: for some reason, people like to tie down their aircraft when not flying). I have seen pilots amuse themselves in a Cub by flying with negative groundspeed. That is, airspeed was forward, but the wind strong enough that the plane moved backwards over the ground. The stronger the wind (assuming it's straight down the runway... if not, at some point it overcomes the aircraft-and pilot's-crosswind limitation), then the lower the ground speed needed for takeoff, including up to theoretical zero or negative. Wouldn't want to try that in my plane though: clean stall is 63 knots. If the wind is that strong, I should be at home waiting for the roof to blow off, not out flying!

However, in most cases you need forward ground speed to achieve enough airspeed to take off.

Now for landing the 747... in a simulator... coached... maybe. Otherwise, forget it. I'm sure even a good GA pilot would be severely challenged. First of all, managing the momentum generated by 500,000 lbs of aircraft isn't the same as dealing with the momentum of 2450 lbs of aircraft (MGTOW of my bird). Secondly, sitting two stories up, the sight picture at the flare will be all wrong, you need to interpret radar altimeter readings, etc. Like I said, with coaching, maybe... but otherwise, a prang is likely.

Beech

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, imagine landing a whole airliner.
But, if The Incredible HULK managed to land a 747, anyone can!

Quoting SBBRTech (Reply 45): US authorities wouldn't let them properly replicate that SBRJ episode when a taxi got blown away by jet stream, imagine landing a whole airliner.

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.

Quoting Warszawa (Reply 33): They'll probably reference the movie ' Air Force One ' as in that movie a Cessna-skilled pilot lands a 747 after the aircraft was hijacked for hours in flight.

That's Executive Decision. Air Force One is where Harrison Ford gets zip-lined over to a C-130 or something.

My guesses:

747 - Not anyone can land it, but some people without commercial aircraft training, properly coached and assisted by radio by skilled pilots could have a good chance to save lives - with autoland. That's a "good" landing: one that you walk away from. A "great" landing is one that you can still fly the plane afterwards.

Taking off from conveyor belt - Totally irrelevant. The "findings" will be based solely on the methodology. If the plane is not allowed to have air speed, it will not take off. If it has air speed it could take off. As others have mentioned, planes can take off with zero ground speed or even fly with negative ground speed. They cannot fly with zero or very low airspeeds. I imagine that during the experiment there will be a natural tendency of the plane to acquire ground speed, so it will be up to the "busters" to find out how to counter it.

Quoting Traineepilot (Reply 32): Instead of arguing about the prinicples of flight if you don't know them, read up on them and then post a 'sensible' reply.

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 won't be on it!