NZFF

Came across these vids on Youtube yesterday. You may have seen them, but if not I think it's some good watching.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:


Nick

Lol.
I saw that a while ago.
I like:

"this flight is only an hour. Short by today's terms but will still consist of one landing and take-off as determined by the laws of physics"

Haha:
"Right, so the place we're entering now is called Ops."
"And that's short for..?"
"Convenience."

Haha: "The economics of modern air travel dictate that an aircraft should be in the air for as much of the time possible, whether between take-off and landing, or landing and take-off"

Absolute *classic*

I loved the bit where the stewardess pours the "tea" out of the same (coffee) jug.

Top rate - I love Brit humour of the unlaboured flavour.
Was that really an aircraft reflection in the window - going backwards?
Yes it was...

Your not a NERVOUS flier are you

Haha, I love part 2 @ 3.25. Watch and listen carefully, with an open mind.

ROFL...
I mean it's just FULL of stuff, earnestly delivered:
"Would this be part of the accident, or just happen any old time..."

Charl wrote:

QUOTE (Charl @ Nov 1 2008, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ROFL...
I mean it's just FULL of stuff, earnestly delivered:
"Would this be part of the accident, or just happen any old time..."

Agreed, we could go on, but in the end...we would be only quoting the WHOLE film!

Hilarious video. Too bad they promote the equitime air particle fallacy though.

Generic wrote:

QUOTE (Generic @ Nov 21 2008, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hilarious video. Too bad they promote the equitime air particle fallacy though.

Fallacy? how so??

Edit: Just to be clear im not calling you a liar i have heard there are a few other theories, i just got told to forget about them until after my exams, lol.

Check out the pages linked on http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/BGA/Monro...heories_act.htm

In short, there's no reason why the two particles of air have to meet up at the back of the aerofoil. In actuality, they don't, and if they did the aeroplane wouldn't fly. However, for PPL you don't really go into things any deeper so for the exam just assume they do.

All of the pages on the Beginner's Guide Index (linked on from that page) are a wealth of information on POF and are well worth reading if you have the time and inclination.

I also recommend:

See How It Flies by John S. Denker... especially Section 3 - Airfoils and Airflow.

Effectively it is Newtons 3rd Law - Action = Equal, Opposite Reaction... By moving X amount of air 'down', X amount of something else (ie. the aircraft via lift) wants to go up...

Took me a while to get my head around the fact that aircraft flew differently to how they did when I first started to fly back in 1999 (and from when I first learned about thrust, drag, lift and weight)

Generic wrote:

QUOTE (Generic @ Nov 21 2008, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hilarious video. Too bad they promote the equitime air particle fallacy though.

I have no issue with them promoting this, it adds to the video, earnestly delivered, as with all the rest
Great link to the NASA stuff, though.
Instead of playing Flight Simulator this AM, I have clicked through all the Wrong Theories, and watched Orville and Wilbur, highly entertaining.
I love the way aerodynamicists (and other engineers) create simple equations from complex ones, by adding a Constant in front of the variable they are looking at.
(It's actually called a Fudge Factor, but Constant sounds more learned).
Generally, it is not constant at all, but depends on factors like time of day, which direction you are pointing, the pressure, temperature, and what you had for breakfast.
Others discover this simple-looking equation, apply it in a totally inappropriate environment (no breakfast) and then create an argument.

Air has always flowed over a wing in the same way, but the way the popular press describes it, certainly has changed...

Interesting stuff that.

The equitime theory is simple enough to understand, but it's also simple to see how it would be wrong:
As in what HCP linked to, the idea is that curved top and flat bottom leads to the pressure and speed difference, thus providing lift (see Bernoulli and the pages HCP linked to).
Those pages also bring up the idea of inverted flight, where the curved part of the aerofoil is now on the bottom.
Basically, some lift is still generated so the equitime theory is esentially proved wrong.

The other 'bullet' theory has some grounding in Newton's laws (equal and opposite reactions) but it's false too.
Once again, see the pages linked to.

It's very, very interesting to read, but also quite long .
The videos are great too BTW.