But what if an aircraft tried to take off from a conveyor belt . . .
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 131
If you look at the opening sequence, it looks like the a/c is stationary but riding a conveyor belt going in the opposite direction
Well I thought it was fairly amusing to see 'evidence' that would put that old chestnut to bed
Well I thought it was fairly amusing to see 'evidence' that would put that old chestnut to bed
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 165
Sue
It's never a good idea to post ideals the way you see them? I have learned this the hard way!
Hardly anyone sees things the way you see them?
For what it's worth I got it.
But did you notice the change of camera position? I think it slipped on it's mountings?
It's never a good idea to post ideals the way you see them? I have learned this the hard way!
Hardly anyone sees things the way you see them?
For what it's worth I got it.
But did you notice the change of camera position? I think it slipped on it's mountings?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 198
I find it curious that at the start, it sounded a bit like an old farm vehicle, and wondered if an enterprising farmer was towing a recent acquisition, to put on display in his front garden. A popular pastime in places…
Maybe a cousin of Jeremy Clarkson?
Maybe a cousin of Jeremy Clarkson?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,523
Ah ! - thank you.
The illusion bit didn't work for me , possibly because I could see the small background strip indicating aircraft movement, Interesting timing, since i have just had a cataract 'sorted', the effect of which ts beyond expectation ! "Don't drive !!!" to 20/20 in just 15 minutes - extraordinary.! The optician offered an aviation related connection - WW 2 airmen suuffering Perspex splinters in their eyes having minimum damage. Interesting !
The illusion bit didn't work for me , possibly because I could see the small background strip indicating aircraft movement, Interesting timing, since i have just had a cataract 'sorted', the effect of which ts beyond expectation ! "Don't drive !!!" to 20/20 in just 15 minutes - extraordinary.! The optician offered an aviation related connection - WW 2 airmen suuffering Perspex splinters in their eyes having minimum damage. Interesting !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by happyjack
Sue
It's never a good idea to post ideals the way you see them? I have learned this the hard way!
It's never a good idea to post ideals the way you see them? I have learned this the hard way!
Yes, I'm putting this one in the fail column
Gentleman Aviator
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 73
Posts: 3,576
WW 2 airmen suuffering Perspex splinters in their eyes having minimum damage.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Peter Fanelli
Can a helicopter take off from a spinning turntable?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Sue Vêtements
but wouldn't you only get giddy due to changes in the rotational speed?
Once you were at a constant speed, would the giddiness stop?
Once you were at a constant speed, would the giddiness stop?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by teeteringhead
Which I believe is one of the "eureka" moments that made contact lenses possible.........
The realisation that perspex fragments in eyes did not cause irritation made intraocular lens implants to replace cataract affected natural lenses possible. I had one done at 27yo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraocular_lens#History
See and avoid
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Ninthace
The hardest part must be getting the ac through the doors to find the conveyor belt.
If it happened six hours later, the tidal water would have been heading upstream at a similar clip.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by visibility3miles
The “Miracle on the Hudson” was probably aided by the fact that the tide was going out when they landed on the river, which was heading to the ocean at around six knots at the time, in the same direction as the plane.
If it happened six hours later, the tidal water would have been heading upstream at a similar clip.
If it happened six hours later, the tidal water would have been heading upstream at a similar clip.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by Ninthace
My father flew Catalinas and Sunderlands in India during the war and mentioned landing on a river. Obviously, one would want to take off into wind but that aside, is upstream or downstream better? Downstream into wind would give more wind airspeed for a given engine power but upstream would give a shorter run to get up on to the step. Unfortunately he now flies in a better place so I cannot ask him.
Edit: Put another way, take the water as your frame of reference. So long as you can avoid hitting the land, its speed and direction are unimportant.
