12/12/2007 - the Conveyor Belt myth will be busted

[BUMP!]

It's January 30th... and tonight the Mythbusters episode airs!

I don't have cable here, so I will be going to my friends' house to watch it with them, and we are having pizza!
 
Re: Reminder: Mythbusters/conveyor show airs tonight

Yep! I just posted on the other thread.

Going over to friends' house w/ cable!

Pizza is ordered already!
 
One could be persuaded to copy it from their Media Center box to a DVD and send it out for the cost of a disk and postage. :)

It should fit on a 4.7gb disk.
 
Small Scale:

R/C Plane on a treadmill going backwards at 11.5mph, plane simply accelerated straight off the end of the treadmill.

Hmm... :D
 
The fact that it moved at all busts the myth... as I'm sure we'll see in the LSA example.

If the treadmill for the RC had been longer, it would have taken off - the takeoff acceleration did not seem too reduced.
 
OMG, they have a THEORY as to why the plane took off from the butcher paper!!

HAH.

Car thrust != Plane thrust.

Easy!
 
KennyFlys said:
Are you kidding? I have Charter Cable.

But, I have the Golf Channel in HD! I'm so excited! :p
Click to expand...

Just watch out for those bird calls that aren't indigenous to the region they're playing in :D

We're almost to the end of the episode!
 
"Ten years of flying experience"

BAH.

Looks like those ten years meant nothing.
 
Settled, then? It has NO problem taking off, just like we said. Even the pilot (Mark Johnson) thought it wouldn't work but his Rans S-5 took off no problem.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Settled, then? It has NO problem taking off, just like we said. Even the pilot (Mark Johnson) thought it wouldn't work but his Rans S-5 took off no problem.
Click to expand...

I promise people are going to argue that the original question meant "impart enough force to keep the aircraft stationary" instead of "match speed in other direction". It'll live on. Sadly.
 
Jamie even said he GUNNED it after the ultralight started to roll. Belt moving FASTER than plane takeoff speed, and plane unaffected.

Idiot pilot.
BUSTED MYTH.
 
I almost fell off the chair when the pilot said he would not take off.

Dan
 
wbarnhill said:
I promise people are going to argue that the original question meant "impart enough force to keep the aircraft stationary" instead of "match speed in other direction". It'll live on. Sadly.
Click to expand...

That is the problem with the people that said it can't take off, They read things into the question that are not there.

Dan
 
They said that they "hired" the pilot. Since it has an N number, I presume it is a certified aircraft and must have a certified pilot, right? So he must have a Commercial license!

Only 23 Mark Johnson's registered in CA with the FAA. :)
 
gprellwitz said:
They said that they "hired" the pilot. Since it has an N number, I presume it is a certified aircraft and must have a certified pilot, right? So he must have a Commercial license!

Only 23 Mark Johnson's registered in CA with the FAA. :)
Click to expand...

Only one in Santa Rosa ;)

And yeah.. the whole hiring thing is a good question! Did he inadvertently violate the FARs? :D
 
It wasn't scientific with calibrated speeds and throttle settings for both vehicle and aircraft. And, I want to see a full picture of the entire event... not just a couple narrow views.

So, Der! :D
 
gprellwitz said:
They said that they "hired" the pilot. Since it has an N number, I presume it is a certified aircraft and must have a certified pilot, right? So he must have a Commercial license!

Only 23 Mark Johnson's registered in CA with the FAA. :)
Click to expand...

Umm, that you know of... people can opt out of the FAA database.

Although frankly, for being so dumb as to believe he wouldn't take off, he should get a 609 ride.
 
KennyFlys said:
It wasn't scientific with calibrated speeds and throttle settings for both vehicle and aircraft. And, I want to see a full picture of the entire event... not just a couple narrow views.

So, Der! :D
Click to expand...

Hold on tight to that certificate Kenny, particularly if you go to any fly-ins ;) :D
 
TMetzinger said:
Umm, that you know of... people can opt out of the FAA database.

Although frankly, for being so dumb as to believe he wouldn't take off, he should get a 609 ride.
Click to expand...
They can opt their address out of the database, but I don't believe they can opt out entirely. I noted a couple of those in CA that did not display addresses.
 
TMetzinger said:
Umm, that you know of... people can opt out of the FAA database.

Although frankly, for being so dumb as to believe he wouldn't take off, he should get a 609 ride.
Click to expand...
Someone who think's still a Section 609 should get a 709 ride. :D
 
gprellwitz said:
They can opt their address out of the database, but I don't believe they can opt out entirely. I noted a couple of those in CA that did not display addresses.
Click to expand...

Grant, Look up Michael Gregory Bockelman and see what you get. I don't even show up in the databases I look into. If you find me, post a link.
 
wbarnhill said:
I promise people are going to argue that the original question meant "impart enough force to keep the aircraft stationary" instead of "match speed in other direction". It'll live on. Sadly.
Click to expand...

In that scenario, the airplane won't fly. But the whole point is to do everything possible TO fly. Otherwise the whole thing is stupid.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Grant, Look up Michael Gregory Bockelman and see what you get. I don't even show up in the databases I look into. If you find me, post a link.
Click to expand...
https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A0170468&certNum=1

MICHAEL GREGORY BOCKELMAN

Address
Address is not available

Medical
Medical Class: FirstMedical Date: 9/2007
MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES.


Certificates
1 of 4
1234
DOI:1/31/2003Certificate:AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
Rating(s):
AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LANDCOMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

Type Ratings
A/B-777 A/BA-3100
Click to expand...
The other certificates are for the flight instructor, ground instructor, and flight engineer.
 
Last edited:
wbarnhill said:
"Ten years of flying experience"

BAH.

Looks like those ten years meant nothing.
Click to expand...

wbarnhill said:
So we track down that pilot and his instructor now? :D
Click to expand...

stingray said:
I almost fell off the chair when the pilot said he would not take off.
Click to expand...

wbarnhill said:
I see a Sport Pilot cert issued January 2007.
Click to expand...

KennyFlys said:
It wasn't scientific with calibrated speeds and throttle settings for both vehicle and aircraft. And, I want to see a full picture of the entire event... not just a couple narrow views.

So, Der! :D
Click to expand...

To Mark Johnson, Kenny, and the naysayers: May I suggest the perfect laminator for your pilot certificate:


 

Attachments

  • 3218701.jpg
    3218701.jpg
    14.8 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:
I was very disappointed in the entire 'xperiment. I thought the conveyor belt was to be going the same speed as the plane in the opposite direction; in that case, if the plane flew, it would rise straight up over a fixed spot on the conveyor belt. That just flat didn't happen. In each case, the plane moved forward and accelerated off the conveyor belt. They said they matched speeds, but the plane didn't match that speed in either case.

I would have liked to see the plane remain fixed over one spot, but that just didn't happen.

"Course, they really aren't trying to settle anything; just get their ratings up <g>

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top