roflatio

1/30/2008 10:07:50 PM

So what do all you naysayers claiming that my engineering degree should be revoked have to say now?

1/30/2008 10:08:23 PM

i mean like i said all along, i had no idea cause i dont know about that kind of shit. but i was gonna go with the jet pilot and the nasa rocket scientist guy

haha

the best part though is how out of all the equations and bla bla about force and this and that, the most simple explaination was the one that made the most sense to me (who had no idea how it worked)

1/30/2008 10:08:49 PM

Wraith i've been with you the whole time, cause you have what matters, the credentials and experience.

but dont do it man, dont let the fucking mythbusters prove you right, you were right all along.

1/30/2008 10:10:05 PM

Quote :

"take away his pilots license for not understanding the principals of physics."

take away your english license for not understanding the principles of spelling

1/30/2008 10:11:55 PM

Oh yeah I know you were with me, Duke, and everyone else who had some sense the whole time, but there are a lot of people throughout the 50 other threads over the past 3 yrs who swore on their mother's grave that the plane would not take off and that I was a travesty to this university and the aerospace engineering industry to think that it would.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2008 10:13:24 PM

spelling ftl?

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:14 PM. Reason : or words rather?]

1/30/2008 10:13:54 PM

for those of us w/o cable..... recap?

1/30/2008 10:15:28 PM

^The plane took off as if there wasn't even anything special under it.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM. Reason : tarp /= conveyor belt]

1/30/2008 10:16:23 PM

they tested on little tarp with little R/C plane and had success. Tried again with big tarp hooked to truck and an ultra light plane that takes off at 25mph and it took off just fine

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM. Reason : the pilot said "it felt like nothing was even there"]

1/30/2008 10:16:44 PM

small scale experiment:
- radio controlled plane moved off the treadmill
- had cloth pulled at 12mph one, radio plane went the other way; plane flew

large scale experiment:
- used ultralight plane and more cloth
- truck pulled 2000 ft of cloth in one direction, ultralight went the other way; plane flew


summary
- plane flew

1/30/2008 10:18:18 PM

OMFG THEY DIDN'T USE A PLANE WITH A JET ENGINE

A JET WOULDN'T TAKE OFF DUH!

1/30/2008 10:18:53 PM

OMG WE ALL KNOW JET ENGINE PLANES USE WHEELS DURING TAKE OFF FOR SPEED!!1!

1/30/2008 10:19:23 PM

Quote :

"for those of us w/o cable..... recap?"

the myth was actually "airplane on conveyor belt"

they started small scale. with an rc plane on a treadmill

it had no problem going forward and right off the end (which was proof enough for me, since the naysayers seemed to say that it would just stay there) but the thing wasnt long enough.

then they did a small physics lesson or whatever on why it was gonna work

so they set up an even longer "belt" with modified butcher paper dragged behind a segway



it lifted. then they took a giant tarp thing and hooked it to a truck and went the opposite direction of a real pilot in a real plane. and it lifted off (to the pilots apparant amazement)

thats what i got from it

1/30/2008 10:19:46 PM

so what was the groundspeed of the airplane when it flew?

1/30/2008 10:20:02 PM

they totally rigged the whole experiment. there's no way in hell that plane can take off because there's no windspeed over the wings

1/30/2008 10:20:48 PM

25 MPH for the 400lb plane.

1/30/2008 10:21:02 PM

they said somewhere around 25 mph, right?

1/30/2008 10:21:32 PM

only needed 85 ft of runway too

1/30/2008 10:21:34 PM

yeah, the full scale test definitely didn't do it for me. I'm sure it still would have taken off on a treadmill/conveyor belt but the results are pretty inconclusive.

1/30/2008 10:22:26 PM

im no scientist but wouldnt the propellers have some effect on some wind on some wings or whatever?

1/30/2008 10:22:51 PM

yeah, a plane taking off from a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction but same speed didn't do it for me.

1/30/2008 10:23:25 PM

^^Haha yeah they would be but it would be totally negligible.

I'm pretty sure he's trolling, smath

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2008 10:23:35 PM

see, wraith, this is what i meant with my comment earlier. the trolls are gonna troll even after the guys with the budget proved them wrong. even if they used a 50million foot treadmill and every kind of plane, they'd still find a problem with it. so thats why i still have to believe you over the mythbusters, because of your formal training (and affiliation with the people who FLEW TO THE MOON)

hahah here come the moon landing was fake people

1/30/2008 10:24:57 PM

what conveyor belt?

that tarp thing was too light to have any real effect

the weight of the plane caused the effect of the tarp to be insignificant

1/30/2008 10:26:09 PM

The plane was still traveling at take off speed. the propeller was still pulling the plane along. It wasnt like the fucking plane stayed in one static spot and the just raised off the ground flying. If air doesnt flow across the wings, lift doesn't occur and flight can not be achieved. Its not like the propeller blows air across the wings on the plane. This experiment prove fucking nothing except that the method they used as a conveyor belt was in affective.

1/30/2008 10:26:16 PM

Quote :

"agentlion oh, you know that when it takes off the deniers will just claim that it was on the wrong scale or the experiment wasn't set up properly or the speeds weren't sufficient or some bullshit excuse...."

Quote :

"pttyndal yeah, the full scale test definitely didn't do it for me. I'm sure it still would have taken off on a treadmill/conveyor belt but the results are pretty inconclusive."

1/30/2008 10:26:47 PM

i think the problem people have with this is that they think a plane can take off vertically...but like i said before, the treadmill is fucking negligable after the first couple of seconds...after that the plane says peace out treadmill, im moving forward

1/30/2008 10:27:34 PM

not trolling but dragging a tarp that someone running on could tear isn't really a good test.

and I'm not denying anything. It'd still fly regardless.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2008 10:27:38 PM

HA!

1/30/2008 10:27:45 PM

I'm sure they'll revisit this one with a heavier tarp. Maybe a bunch of lead aprons sewn together. That'll do it.

1/30/2008 10:28:13 PM

ok now we're talking about stuff i know enough to argue about

if a person could tear it, how the hell wouldnt an airplane tear it?

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:28 PM. Reason : this is like the time they re-owned the death ray people]

1/30/2008 10:28:25 PM

has anyone posted this yet:

http://mouser.org/log/archives/2006/02/001003.html

1/30/2008 10:28:40 PM

Face it, all the people who said it wouldnt fly need to deal with the fact they have zero logic or reasoning skills and probably should never venture into any engineering field and go on about their lives.

1/30/2008 10:28:44 PM

Quote :

"i think the problem people have with this is that they think a plane can take off vertically..."

nobody who knows what they are talking about thinks this.
the people who understand the problem know the plane will take off because it WILL be moving.

the people who do NOT understand the question think the plane will stay in one place.

1/30/2008 10:29:08 PM

Quote :

"The plane was still traveling at take off speed. the propeller was still pulling the plane along. It wasnt like the fucking plane stayed in one static spot and the just raised off the ground flying. If air doesnt flow across the wings, lift doesn't occur and flight can not be achieved. Its not like the propeller blows air across the wings on the plane. This experiment prove fucking nothing except that the method they used as a conveyor belt was in affective. "

no, fucking idiots. It proved that, as we all know already, that the thrust provided by the propeller has nothing to do with how fast the conveyor belt or tarp or treadmill or whatever is moving.

1/30/2008 10:29:22 PM

Alright I'm gonna go get ready for bed, I'll peek back into this thread tomorrow when I'm at work to see what the trolls are claiming was wrong with the experiment. Goodnight, folks.

1/30/2008 10:29:48 PM

yeah the weight of the treadmill has a decisive effect on the plane taking off.

1/30/2008 10:29:49 PM

are there any legitimately confused people in here or are they all trolls?

1/30/2008 10:30:47 PM

Yeah if they put enough mass under it the gravity would totally fuck stuff up.

^ It seems like some people thing that a tarp moving MUCH faster would change things. That's true- but not because of the force on the plane but because of it destroying the landing gear.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2008 10:30:52 PM

the weight of the air around the plane should have kept the plane from flying

planes are not less dense than air

1/30/2008 10:31:24 PM

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2008 10:31:36 PM

Quote :

"Yeah if they put enough mass under it the gravity would totally fuck stuff up."

hahaha amazing!

1/30/2008 10:31:59 PM

i vote for the plane crashing into a fiery ball

1/30/2008 10:32:27 PM

duh, more mass = more gravity so that would keep the plane on the ground!

1/30/2008 10:32:43 PM

an important question from early in the thread still hasnt been answered by either side

DID THEY USE THE PARKING BRAKE

1/30/2008 10:32:55 PM

fuck this shit moves too fast

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM. Reason : m]

1/30/2008 10:33:01 PM

the parking break would have torn the "conveyor" tarpalin

1/30/2008 10:33:27 PM

wow

1/30/2008 10:33:48 PM

Hey man, what I said is completely true. Sure that means replacing the tarp with neutron-degenerate matter... but hey, that's what hollywood budgets are for right?

1/30/2008 10:33:55 PM