Mythbusters to take on: PLANE ON A TREADMILL!!

[scoober78]

They may like their firearms, but they didn't know enough about terminal ballistics when they did the show. The penetration capability of say .30-06 isn't realized until the bullet slows down. It has it's best penetration between 200-300 yards. Shoot it point blank at water, it fragments... shoot it at range, such as a beach landing, it penetrates. Think of it this way, what happens when you jam a twig in the mud? It breaks. What happens when you push it at a slower speed? It sinks into the mud. Same principle.

Absolutely correct...but not quite that easy. It also gets much more complicated at range because of the angle of incidence and the velocity. As the bullet slows, a ricochet becomes much more likely to happen at a wider range of angles...testing the myth at 100 yards say, you may not be able to get the bullet to penetrate at all at an angle that worked at the muzzle.

Additionally, the bullets velocity obviously figures into lethality as well. Let's say that at 200 yards the bullet has lost 25% of its velocity. Well that 25% decrease in velocity translates into a nearly 50% decrease in energy. Take that into account and the "effective range" in water is dramatically reduced despite the fact that the bullet will penetrate.

 

[larbear]

Who says that if the airplane were to stay in one spot that it can't still fly? What if the aerodynamic friction on the moving treadmill causes air to flow over the wings? Can you say Euler? I win.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Who says that if the airplane were to stay in one spot that it can't still fly? What if the aerodynamic friction on the moving treadmill causes air to flow over the wings? Can you say Euler? I win.

Nope, you don't win. If that was even remotely theoretically possible, an engineer would have gotten paid BILLIONS to develop it, and enable airports to take up less real estate. If the airplane stays in one spot (aka not moving through the air mass) than it can't fly.

 

[phrogdriver]

Now, say you were to put enormous fans at the departure ends of each runway, generating 150 knot winds, you could make every aircraft vertical takeoff capable, thus enabling the airport to take up much less space, right?

 

[phrogpilot73]

Now, say you were to put enormous fans at the departure ends of each runway, generating 150 knot winds, you could make every aircraft vertical takeoff capable, thus enabling the airport to take up much less space, right?

But once they climb, there'd be the loss of wind effect that helos experiencing going down into an LZ. Only in reverse. It'd be ugly.

 

[BACONATOR]

This is great. Now we have TWO ridiculous threads where the coke-bottle glasses crowd is trying to gang-rape a football. That's just swell.

Brett

Wait a sec. Did an NFO just make a statement about other people's sub-par vision?

Pot? Kettle?

 

[phrogdriver]

But once they climb, there'd be the loss of wind effect that helos experiencing going down into an LZ. Only in reverse. It'd be ugly.

Touche. But it made about a lot more sense than a conveyor-belt airport.

 

[a_m]

Wait a sec. Did an NFO just make a statement about other people's sub-par vision?

Pot? Kettle?

Because every NFO has bad vision :glasses_1



Also, you suck.

 

[skidz]

They should see if you can take of vertically in a little cessna 150 in a hurricane.

 

[phrogpilot73]

They should see if you can take of vertically in a little cessna 150 in a hurricane.

That should work... Theoretically, it would sustain flight as well - and even hover if they yawed it just enough to not continue to climb. I'll let you know if the flying club will let me try it with one of their aircraft...

 

[skidz]

That should work... Theoretically, it would sustain flight as well - and even hover if they yawed it just enough to not continue to climb. I'll let you know if the flying club will let me try it with one of their aircraft...

I know that theoretically it would work, it's just getting someone to go out and try it. I don't think there would be all that many risks involved with it, shoot, get me a 150 and a hurricane and I'll try it. It would be something cool to video tape though.

 

[Brett327]

Wait a sec. Did an NFO just make a statement about other people's sub-par vision?

Pot? Kettle?

It's in reference to the enginerd crowd, obviously.

Brett

 

[BACONATOR]

It's in reference to the enginerd crowd, obviously.

Brett

I got that reference....all by myself!

A crowd of which I'm a part! Play nice!

 

[Fly Navy]

Absolutely correct...but not quite that easy. It also gets much more complicated at range because of the angle of incidence and the velocity. As the bullet slows, a ricochet becomes much more likely to happen at a wider range of angles...testing the myth at 100 yards say, you may not be able to get the bullet to penetrate at all at an angle that worked at the muzzle.

Additionally, the bullets velocity obviously figures into lethality as well. Let's say that at 200 yards the bullet has lost 25% of its velocity. Well that 25% decrease in velocity translates into a nearly 50% decrease in energy. Take that into account and the "effective range" in water is dramatically reduced despite the fact that the bullet will penetrate.

No argument here, I concur. What I was bringing to light was the fact that Mythbusters doesn't always get it right. There seems to be a permeating attitude online and real world that Mythbusters are infalible (sp?). It's not an easy test to conduct, and they did it wrong and people bought their gospel.

 

[phrogdriver]

It's first an entertainment show, then a science show. You can pick them apart on many levels, primary a lack of a sample size--no scientist ever makes a conclusion based on a sample of 1. At the same time, they do answer a lot of questions people have every day and throw a sprinkling of education on the side. I don't agree with everything they do, but I'm a huge fan of the show.