Mythbusters, Plane on a treadmill..

[Captzaahlie]

Gosh...that's a little addicting isn't it?

Here ya go Amish this is better yet, enjoy:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~pontipak/redsquare.html

 

[Captzaahlie]

http://s262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/captzly/?albumview=slideshow



I've had 21 seconds before but my kids wore me out today.....



Your turn:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~pontipak/redsquare.html

 

[Sig]

Now I got bored at round 20 of the penguins and walked away, but this? THIS is fun!

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Fun but addicting game. I just got a 17.

http://s262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/captzly/?albumview=slideshow



I've had 21 seconds before but my kids wore me out today.....



Your turn:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~pontipak/redsquare.html

 

[Amish RakeFight]

20.697!!!!

okay.... I better stop. I'm obsessioning.

 

[John Pennekamp]

I guess a lot of pilots failed high-school physics.

Reminds me of the time I was flying with another pilot (ATP even, multiple type ratings) and I suggested we alter course to avoid the thunderstorm at our 12 O'Clock and 30 miles. He said no need... the wind was blowing from our right and the storm would be blown away by the time we got there. I tried to explain about heading vs. course and same air mass and all that and ended up just giving up. Not worth arguing I guess.

Um, actually...

Your theory may be true on a radar vector heading, but if you're tracking an airway or navigating with FMS, your heading corrects for the crosswind to maintain a constant ground track. The thunderstorm is simply drifting. Your ground track will continue straight, and the storm will drift out of your path if the wind is strong enough. This is one of the reasons why you deviate upwind of the storm at altitude.

 

[ackattacker]

Um, actually...

Your theory may be true on a radar vector heading, but if you're tracking an airway or navigating with FMS, your heading corrects for the crosswind to maintain a constant ground track. The thunderstorm is simply drifting. Your ground track will continue straight, and the storm will drift out of your path if the wind is strong enough. This is one of the reasons why you deviate upwind of the storm at altitude.

Wow. Keep in mind I was posting something I thought we all could agree on as being taught at the student pilot level.

Perhaps I need to clarify. We were flying in a relatively consistent air mass at a medium altitude (12,000 feet say), not about to cross any fronts or anything that would cause the storm and us to be in different wind patterns or drifting at different rates. We were *headed* directly at the storm, not tracking towards it. i.e. the storm was straight ahead in the windscreen (12:00). I was not using any strange "track up" FMS display.

 

[John Pennekamp]

Wow. Keep in mind I was posting something I thought we all could agree on as being taught at the student pilot level.

Perhaps I need to clarify. We were flying in a relatively consistent air mass at a medium altitude (12,000 feet say), not about to cross any fronts or anything that would cause the storm and us to be in different wind patterns or drifting at different rates. We were *headed* directly at the storm, not tracking towards it. i.e. the storm was straight ahead in the windscreen (12:00). I was not using any strange "track up" FMS display.

I must have missed something. Instead of stating that I was right, you implied I was wrong and then clarified your story to be a heading (not a track), while attempting to make me look like an idiot for not agreeing with your stupid example.

In my example of tracking (not heading), which is what 90% of your time as an Air Line Pilot will be, would the storm or would the storm NOT drift out of your path, Mr Smart Guy?

Oh, and when you fly something larger than a C-402 or a Navajo, you're realize that there's nothing "strange" about tracking an FMS course. Or in your general aviation terms a "GPS".

 

[ackattacker]

I wasn't trying to make you look like an idiot or getting personal. You did that all by yourself.

In my original post I did say that the storm was at our 12 O'Clock position. "O'Clocks" are always relative to the aircraft heading, not course. I realized you might have made the switch in your mind to course and that's why I clarified.

Yes I am familiar with flying a course and yes I have used an FMS and EFIS, thank you. I prefer to have heading up.

 

[Singlecoil]

Allright threadcreepers, I'll jump in here.

There isn't enough information in the above example. The storm can be at your 12 o'clock, but how far away? 5 miles, 30 miles? You may miss a storm at your 12 or you may not. How fast are you going? The faster you go, the less the wind correction angle for a given constant wind, therefore the closer you would be to a storm.
Basically you figure it with your eyeballs. Just like an airplane on a collision course with you, is it moving or not in your field of vision? If it is not moving, you're going to hit it so you better turn.
I'll agree that the ATP's response in the initial example didn't make much sense, which is what I think the point was.

 

[ackattacker]

Allright threadcreepers, I'll jump in here.

There isn't enough information in the above example. The storm can be at your 12 o'clock, but how far away? 5 miles, 30 miles? You may miss a storm at your 12 or you may not. How fast are you going? The faster you go, the less the wind correction angle for a given constant wind, therefore the closer you would be to a storm.
Basically you figure it with your eyeballs. Just like an airplane on a collision course with you, is it moving or not in your field of vision? If it is not moving, you're going to hit it so you better turn.
I'll agree that the ATP's response in the initial example didn't make much sense, which is what I think the point was.

That was the point. But I think I gave enough information for it to be obvious. Wind correction angle and airspeed and distance from the storm and so on is irrelevant so long as the storm is drifting in the same air mass that you are flying in. It is easy to clog your mind with extra, non-relevant info.

Picture the problem as if you could not see the ground or your track over it. Perhaps flying above an undercast with no navigation equipment. You are flying straight relative to the air. The storm is stationary relative to the air. If you are pointed at it then you will hit it. That's it, that was my point.

 

[rtmcfi]

Picture the problem as if you could not see the ground or your track over it. Perhaps flying above an undercast with no navigation equipment. You are flying straight relative to the air. The storm is stationary relative to the air. If you are pointed at it then you will hit it. That's it, that was my point.

Or picture flying a course the way airlines do 99% of the time. You fly a straight line over the ground, regardless of the winds. Unless you were flying a heading, your captain was most likely correct. Figure it out Urkel.

 

[ackattacker]

Really I can't believe we are arguing this. First off he wasn't "my captain". It was his leg however.

I specified, pretty clearly, that the t'storm was at our 12 O'Clock. As in "straight ahead of the airplane". You know, aligned with the longitudinal axis. Not clear enough? Picture sitting in your seat with a neck brace on and seatbelts tight. Eyes straight ahead. That's your 12 O'Clock. It is a relative bearing. Not necessarily your course over the ground.

The difference between "flying a heading" and "flying a course" means exactly nothing in this case. Doesn't matter so long as we don't turn! That's for ATC to worry about, not the laws of physics. Physically we *have* a heading and we *have* a course. In this problem only relative bearing is relevant.

Failure to comprehend the difference between heading and course was exactly this fellows problem. He seemed to think that the aircraft was going where it was pointed, whereas the thunderstorm was subject to drift. Clearly wrong, so why is everyone trying to defend this mystery dimwit?

 

[rtmcfi]

Your signature say's it all.

 

[Singlecoil]

Your signature say's it all.

Pretty much.
Apparently he think thunderstorms move at the exact same speed as the airmass like they are a ball of cotton or something.

 

[ackattacker]

Your signature say's it all.

Yep. And you are certainly not agreeing with me.

 

[Captzaahlie]

First off Picture sitting in your seat with a neck brace on and seatbelts tight. Eyes

Why are you wearing a neck brace? Are your landings that hard???????????????????????????

 

[Say Again Over]

Airmass, vector, heading? Who gives a rat's ass?

 

[Midnight Flyer]

He's probably a young know-it-all punk, fresh out of Embry-Riddle, with just enough knowledge to be dangerous. That's obvious due to his need to "over prove" everything. Seriously, I haven't heard the term "relative bearing" in who knows how long.

I bet he thinks his 172 will take off if the runway was a big treadmill. :laugh:

(oh yeah, since when in 12,000 feet considered a "medium altitude"?)

 

[homerjdispatch]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?