have you guys been watching the mini-myths? those things have been surprising me.
-
87 GTA: it's winter time, all tore apart
ConElite: "Im 22, have had my TA since I was 21."
"I wont lie, I have a heavy foot, but at the same time I know when its the safest to ring out a gear or 2."
-
The episode called "airplane on a conveyer belt" will air Jan 30th at 9pm.
The episode about airplanes did not address this one. Watch this.
http://dsc.discovery.com/video/index...ryId=2100137042002 Electron Blue Vette, 1SC, FE3/Z51, G92 3.15 gears, 308.9 RWHP 321.7 RWTQ (before any mods), SLP headers, Z06 exhaust, MSD Ignition Wires, AC Delco Iridium Spark Plugs, 160 t-stat, lots of ECM tuning
1995 Z28, many mods, SOLD
A proud member of the "F-Body Dirty Dozen"Comment
-
Let's try again...
Supposed to be on tonight...
'87 Camaro - 2.8L MPFI, 700R4 swapped to T5, B&M Ripper Shifter, Dynomax Super Turbo muffler, CATCO high flow cat, K&N air filters, 180 degree thermostat w/200-180 fan switch, 3.42 rear end, Global West steering brace, polyurethane bushings/trans mount, Spohn adjustable torque arm.
'88 Formula (stolen), '96 Camaro RS, (sold), '91 Firebird (sold),
Bruce, μολων λαβέComment
-
The episode is on now!!!! We'll have an answer soon
edit: and for the record (before we get an answer) i think it will take off.2006 Saturn Ion Redline
2003 Mits. Eclipse SpyderComment
-
ha ha ha, It took off!2002 Electron Blue Vette, 1SC, FE3/Z51, G92 3.15 gears, 308.9 RWHP 321.7 RWTQ (before any mods), SLP headers, Z06 exhaust, MSD Ignition Wires, AC Delco Iridium Spark Plugs, 160 t-stat, lots of ECM tuning
1995 Z28, many mods, SOLD
A proud member of the "F-Body Dirty Dozen"Comment
-
im glad they did it but u kno there will be who will be questioning the whole deal just cuz they can
2009 Honda Civic EX- the daily beater
old toys - 1983 trans am, 1988 trans am, 1986 IROC-Z, 2002 Ram Off-Road, 1984 K10, 1988 Mustang GT, 2006 Silverado 2500HDComment
-
So i think we can finally let the topic rest in peace.
2006 Saturn Ion Redline
2003 Mits. Eclipse SpyderComment
-
as far as I was concerned, they didn't even need to do the test.Originally posted by Jeff_in_Atl
BTW Jeff, ever since we changed your user name, I cannot send you a PM.
Comment
-
lowers topic into the deep deep dark blue oceanOriginally posted by ryan34So i think we can finally let the topic rest in peace.2009 Honda Civic EX- the daily beater
old toys - 1983 trans am, 1988 trans am, 1986 IROC-Z, 2002 Ram Off-Road, 1984 K10, 1988 Mustang GT, 2006 Silverado 2500HDComment
-
What is really sad is that there are morons on the RC airplane forums that
foul..... that MB tested it wrong.
Stupidy shows itself at the most unusual times.
Morons.......Comment
-
the plane took off just as the majority of us thought it would. case closed.87 GTA: it's winter time, all tore apart
ConElite: "Im 22, have had my TA since I was 21."
"I wont lie, I have a heavy foot, but at the same time I know when its the safest to ring out a gear or 2."Comment
-
Yea me too. I was really surprised that the pilot they had thought it wouldn't work.Originally posted by Joe 1320
That's a bummer. Did you try to send a mesage by email? You have my email and my phone number.
2002 Electron Blue Vette, 1SC, FE3/Z51, G92 3.15 gears, 308.9 RWHP 321.7 RWTQ (before any mods), SLP headers, Z06 exhaust, MSD Ignition Wires, AC Delco Iridium Spark Plugs, 160 t-stat, lots of ECM tuning
1995 Z28, many mods, SOLD
A proud member of the "F-Body Dirty Dozen"Comment
-
I'm sorry, but they didn't do the test correctly. No way that plane takes off if tested the right way.
J/K
SOLD: 2002 Trans Am WS.6 - Black on Black - 6 Speed
SLP Loudmouth Exhaust
17K Miles
2005 Acura TL - Silver on Black
Navigation - Surround Audio - Bluetooth
Comment
-
You think we are bad? Check out the Vette forum. 1165 posts
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1921880
Here is what I posted for ya'll to laugh at.
Let's take a closer look at this. I have seen the question worded on more than 1 way. Here is what I have seen.
"Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?"
and
"A plane is standing on a runway that can move (like a giant conveyor belt). This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane's speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Will the plane be able to take off?"
I wish Mybusters had gone just a little deeper in this but with some analysis we can come to a conclusion.
There are 2 issues here that people are having a problem with wrapping their brain around.
A. The force applied to make the plane move. Propeller thrust verses driving a wheel in contact with the surface.
B. And they did not cover this but how the speed is measured. This is very important and the second version of the myth above does not define this. The first is not possible and I will get to that later.
I am going to give 2 example for comparison because the drive method is different to show A above.
Scenario #1. The speed is measured at the wheels.
Car, This is the same as scenario #2 and #4 because the dash gage in a car is driven from the wheels. As the car accelerate the tread mill accelerates the opposite direction making the car have a 0 speed to the non moving ground which means it appears to not move.
Airplane, To make the wheels move the plane has to accelerate. To accelerate it has to create thrust which moves it through the air. Since the air is still and measured to the non moving ground the airplane is therefore moving forward as measured to the ground. The tread mill matches the speed of the wheels moving as compared to the tread mill. Since the wheels spin freely there is no drag to stop the plane from moving forward. Besides you just proved the plane could move because if it didn't the tread mill would never move. So the plane keeps accelerating compared to the ground until it has enough air moving across the wing to achieve lift and it takes off. The thing about this one is what is the conveyer belt really doing. I have wrestled with this for a while and no matter how you look at it it doesn't matter. For example when the plane starts moving at say 1 mph to the ground the conveyer starts moving backwards at 1 mph. But now the speed of the wheel reads 2 mph so the conveyer speeds up to 2 mph but now the speed reads 3 mph so the conveyer speeds up to 3 mph but now bla bla bla. The only way the conveyer can match the speed of the plane is for it to move with the plane at 0 mph but that violates the myth too because it says the conveyer moves in the opposite direction.
Scenario #2. The speed is measured compared with the surface of the treadmill.
Car, see Scenario #1
Airplane, Basically Scenario #1 The speed of the tread mill matches the speed of the plane to the ground 2:1.
Scenario #3. The speed is measured compared with the surface of the non moving ground (air traffic control tower if you will).
Car, The car speedometer would read 2 times what the car is doing to the ground speed. For example if the car is doing 1 mph to the ground the tread mill would be doing 1 mph and the cars speedometer would show 2 mph. The car would move forward.
Airplane, Basically Scenario #1. The speed of the tread mill matches the speed of the plane to the ground 1:1.
Scenario #4. The speed is measured from the cockpit via a dash gage.
Car, see Scenario #1
Airplane, An airplane reads it's speed by an air pressure tube. In order to get the gage to read the plane has to move compared to the air. Since the air is measured to the ground the plane is moving compared to the ground. The tread mill matches the plane speed. Since the wheels spin freely there is no drag to stop the plane from moving forward. The plane keeps accelerating compared to the ground until it has enough air moving across the wing to achieve lift and it takes off. The speed of the tread mill matches the speed of the plane to the ground 1:1.
No matter how you slice it the plane still takes off. Funny after writing this it looks to me like the car is more complicated than the airplane.2002 Electron Blue Vette, 1SC, FE3/Z51, G92 3.15 gears, 308.9 RWHP 321.7 RWTQ (before any mods), SLP headers, Z06 exhaust, MSD Ignition Wires, AC Delco Iridium Spark Plugs, 160 t-stat, lots of ECM tuning
1995 Z28, many mods, SOLD
A proud member of the "F-Body Dirty Dozen"Comment
-
The reality of the entire paradox is that some are trying to argue that a conveyor belt can negate the airplane's foreward movement. They start all kinds of rediculous arguements with things like mythical conveyor belts with the equivalent of a million horsepower and can accelerate to 186,723 miles per hour instantly. The truth is that the mythical conveyor belt doesn't exist, we can't build it to do what some are trying to argue. They also can't wrap their heads around the concept that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. They confuse the conveyor belt's action and misapply it's counteracting force against the propellor when in fact, it's force is applied to wheels that are uncoupled (meaning that they freewheel). The only force against the propellor is the load imparted by the molecules of air and a miniscule amount of friction from the wheel bearings and rolling resistance of the tires.
It is understandable that most people do not understand physics. What defies belief is that they see it done and still question the validity.
Jeff, I can't change the clock...... it's tied into the server.Comment
Comment