Aces High III

[DPQ5]

Looks like my Zero, were you taking pictures of me flying?!

that be a 109

[DPQ5]

ok

[SD67]

Fix the Little things first of all, like the convoy going over feilds, the water convoy also going over fields, make the game compatible for every computer. Like make it so my computer can fly like 40 frame rate on Ground Vis, or fly Full Vis in a massive Furball. Then move on to the Bugs and stuff. Then on to all the big stuff yall were talking about. 

My computer maintains a rock solid 60FPS at max res and vis regardless of what sort of action I'm getting in the game.

[Gryphons]

Um, A plane on some theoretical conveyor belt that DID actually work will STILL develop forward motion precisely because it is not using powered wheels to push itself forward, it is using the thrust of the engine. I dont' think anyone was trying to prove that an airplane can fly with no relative wind, what they were proving was that a conveyor belt cannot stop an airplane from moving forward and developing relative wind. The fact that it will generate forward motion in spite of a treadmill effect is in fact the whole crux of debunking the myth, which I took to be that the plane will simply sit there on the conveyor belt, vainly trying to take off. The plane will always either take off OR run off the end of a conveyor belt of any finite length.

Instead of a conveyor belt, imagine a hypothetical very fast, very long aircraft carrier steaming along at 50 mph in dead calm air. This will have the same effect as a conveyor belt under a plane, but the practicalities involved are more familiar to flight sim buffs, and easier to wrap the mind around. Imagine a plane that can take off at 50mph IAS. Now what happens if the pilot of this plane guns the engine and takes off in the direction the carrier is steaming? We all know this, it will have the same effect as taking off in a 50mph head wind, he will use little deck length indeed . If he takes off and flys at a perfectly steady 50 mph IAS, he can simply fly formation with the carrier until his fuel ran out. If he was over land and had a perfect unceasing 50mph head wind, he could theoretically "hover" over one spot on the runway at 50mph IAS and 0 ground speed until his fuel ran out.

Now imagine the pilot for some reason takes off the wrong way on the carrier. The effect of this is no different than that of a plane sitting on a conveyor belt going backwards. As all can see, this will be exactly like taking off with a 50 mph tail wind. The plane will still generate thrust, it will move forward, and will still eventually take off. Only thing, is, it will take QUITE abit more deck to get airborne, because when he gets to 50 mph IAS, his "ground speed" relative the deck of the carrier will be 100mph!, just like how if he were taking off and flying at 50mph with a 50 mph tail wind, his ground speed would be 100mph.   

Any conveyor belt we can dream up is irrelevant, the plane will generate thrust and airspeed and either take off or run off the end of the conveyor. What the Mythbusters really proved was that the ultra light in question can take off with a slight tail wind within X distance.

I completely understand that the plane will create thrust and move along the belt; and that the wheels are free spinning and not powered by the engine (I just picture the aircraft on ski's), I misunderstood what myth they were trying to bust.  I thought they were trying to prove that as long as the runway was moving under the plane it would take off.  I was wondering why they didn't just hold the airplane in place while they pulled the conveyor belt out from under it. I should have clued in when they were using a powered airplane instead of a glider to prove this.

Next time I'll try and watch the whole episode (and cut back on the booze  ); tho I know that others thought along the same lines as I did; perhaps the episode was poorly presented?

[Sketch]

Nope. He dropped the tank & was able to land.

Where are those photo's taken from?  I am with Murdr on this as the tank will most likely not go up in flames.  They had a post of a Lancaster (i think) that was in the 'process' of blowing up due to a...<cough> Flak burst <cough> striking an 'armed' bomb in the bomb bay....   Wouldn't happen.... 

[Denholm]

We need sharks with friken' laser beams on their heads.

[Motherland]

Murdr didnt say it wouldnt ignite... I mean, theres incidiary rounds in .50 caliber belts for the very purpose of ingiting fuel tanks. He said it wouldn't explode, which, you can see, it did not explode, it just caused a large fireball.
The images are taken from a guncam.

[BlackJack]

NEWBS!!!!!!!!!!

[Sketch]

Murdr didnt say it wouldnt ignite... I mean, theres incidiary rounds in .50 caliber belts for the very purpose of ingiting fuel tanks. He said it wouldn't explode, which, you can see, it did not explode, it just caused a large fireball.
The images are taken from a guncam.

I can tell they are from a guncam...
I mean, your source.  What site, book, etc. did it come from is what I wanted to know.
I deal with ordnance on a day to day basis, just think it is interesting is all.

[Larry]

Sketch Iv seen that footage before. I dont know if the plane did land. I may have it somewhere around here. Ill post it if I find it.

[Sketch]

Sketch Iv seen that footage before. I dont know if the plane did land. I may have it somewhere around here. Ill post it if I find it.

Thanks Larry!