Low flying jets [Archive]

Shrinker

12th October 2006, 05:11 PM

Anti-sophist

12th October 2006, 05:13 PM

I remember working on the flightline of Nellis AFB for the first time, and watching the thunderbirds do stuff like that a few hundred yards away. Pretty mind boggling.

Bell

12th October 2006, 05:18 PM

*bleep* *bleepbleep* that's one *bleep* video! *bleep* me! :cool:

I was trying to find a video made by some dork who stood right next to a runway when a 747 took of. Shook him up real bad, but didn't suck him into the engine. Can't find it anymore though...

Mancman

12th October 2006, 05:24 PM

Aha, I've had that video favourited for a while now. It's bloody amazing.

Redtail

12th October 2006, 05:27 PM

I believe I remember a Mythbusters Ep. where they tested the myth that a jet can blow a car over. It couldn't.

elgarak

12th October 2006, 05:28 PM

How about 747 vs. people on the beach in St. Maarten:

WTLGsEErWJY

(Just playing Devil's Advocate here :dewink:)

Bell

12th October 2006, 05:31 PM

I believe I remember a Mythbusters Ep. where they tested the myth that a jet can blow a car over. It couldn't.

It could, actually. They showed a video (we all love video as evidence) of a taxi in Brazil somewhere that got blown upside down.

Redtail

12th October 2006, 05:34 PM

It could, actually. They showed a video (we all love video as evidence) of a taxi in Brazil somewhere that got blown upside down.

Couldn't blow their's over. It did nothing but buffet it while the car was moving, and when they parked it behind the jet it just ripped the front bumper off.

Bell

12th October 2006, 05:36 PM

Couldn't blow their's over. It did nothing but buffet it while the car was moving, and when they parked it behind the jet it just ripped the front bumper off.

I agree it didn't in their show. But IIRC that was because they couldn't get their hands on a comparable size of engine.

WildCat

12th October 2006, 05:38 PM

How about 747 vs. people on the beach in St. Maarten:

(Just playing Devil's Advocate here :dewink:)
But that plane is standing still, so all the thrust hits whatever is in back of it. If it's moving, the thrust energy is used for moving the plane.

elgarak

12th October 2006, 05:40 PM

Just to shorten the discussion here:
zz-GjajxFdo
Granted, it's just a 2CV against a 747, but still...

WildCat

12th October 2006, 05:40 PM

Rember the one about Flight 77 & the Pentagon, where the CTists claim the backwash from the jets would have blasted all the cars off the freeway?

A handy video rebuttal is big on YouTube at the moment, thanks to many showings on the UK news today. Look, no backwash at all, just a gentle breeze.
(Beware a bit of swearing in the audio)

During this year's Chicago Air Show I was on a wave runner on Lake Michigan for the Blue Angel's show. Some passed less than 50 feet directly over my head, I felt nothing at all (except excitement!).

Redtail

12th October 2006, 05:41 PM

I agree it didn't in their show. But IIRC that was because they couldn't get their hands on a comparable size of engine.

True.

elgarak

12th October 2006, 05:42 PM

But that plane is standing still, so all the thrust hits whatever is in back of it. If it's moving, the thrust energy is used for moving the plane.

Bingo!

You think THAT will convince a CTer? Fer cryin' out loud, they can't even get a simple speed measurement for a collapsing building right.

Mince

12th October 2006, 06:00 PM

Rember the one about Flight 77 & the Pentagon, where the CTists claim the backwash from the jets would have blasted all the cars off the freeway?

I don't believe I've yet heard this argument. But it is easily dispelled, even withouth the video, as, assuming the plane is parallel to the ground, the wash is likewise parallel to the ground and, consequently, the cars. How could anyone argue otherwise?

Polaris

12th October 2006, 06:14 PM

It's not a difficult concept to understand. When a jet is parked, air moves through the jet. When a jet is in flight, the jet moves through the air - no matter how much photo-chopping a dork on a Mac does to a photo of a highway.

Was this nugget in LC2 or just 1?

MarkyX

12th October 2006, 06:16 PM

Just 1.

TruthSeeker1234

12th October 2006, 07:02 PM

But that plane is standing still, so all the thrust hits whatever is in back of it. If it's moving, the thrust energy is used for moving the plane.

Wildcat is absolutely correct, I have pointed this out before.

Obviousman

12th October 2006, 07:29 PM

There is a United training video that demonstrates a 747 (I think - it isn't clear) blowing a ground vehicle off the tarmac.

But as people have pointed out, that was at high thrust and stationary. You'd get some disturbance from a moving aircraft along with wake turbulence, but not a huge amount.

(BTW, I sent Mythbusters the vid but they probably can't use it because it is copyrighted; we use it in our safety training).

Ask me about the turbulence created by a Seahawk in the hover - now THAT is a different matter....

LashL

12th October 2006, 07:38 PM

I remember working on the flightline of Nellis AFB for the first time, and watching the thunderbirds do stuff like that a few hundred yards away. Pretty mind boggling.

Back in the mid 80s, when I worked in aviation, I once stood on the tarmac while a 737 (modified for cargo) fully loaded, did a fly-by on departure. The captain was an incredibly talented pilot from Montevideo, Uruguay (formerly military, subsequently commercial) whom I'd flown with several times. He radioed the tower for permission to do a fly by as he had garnered quite a reputation for his piloting prowess and it was the day before the opening day of the annual air show and the place was crawling with pilots, crew, aviation buffs, etc. and he wanted to show off a bit.

So, I jumped in a truck with the airport manager and we rushed out to the tarmac for a close up view and to videotape it since I had a video camera with me. I caught it on video - it's stunning to watch. Oh, and we didn't get blown off our feet. (That said, I'm not entirely sure the same could be said had the C-5 attempted the same manoeuver :) - though I'm sure the C-5 could never have done such a manoeuver at such a low altitude)

And about the Thunderbirds, yes, I've also seen the Thunderbirds, the Blue Angels, and the Snowbirds up close numerous times, (and have partied with them several times over the years). They are pretty amazing all right.

Oliver

12th October 2006, 07:55 PM

Rember the one about Flight 77 & the Pentagon, where the CTists claim the backwash from the jets would have blasted all the cars off the freeway?

A handy video rebuttal is big on YouTube at the moment, thanks to many showings on the UK news today. Look, no backwash at all, just a gentle breeze.
(Beware a bit of swearing in the audio)
cbqQr2EEtHA

Here is the highresolution version of the clip:
http://www.killsometime.com/video/Files-1952196/Low-Jet.wmv

bjb

12th October 2006, 10:38 PM

Wildcat is absolutely correct, I have pointed this out before.

Good for you! I never would have thought of the relative velocity thing. But please understand how we feel when one of your fellow 9/11 deniers brings up 'evidence' that has already been thoroughly debunked, even by their own believers. When the same worthless evidence needs to be adressed over and over, eventually we get the idea that these 9/11 guys are totally brainless. Thanks to this behavior, you guys are well on your way to being permemantly labeled as total retards among the majority of the population. Once that happens, *all* of your evidence will be dismissed out-of-hand and the 9/11 deniers will share the same status as flat earthers, Holocaust deniers, moon-landing hoaxers, etc. Other than the truly mentally disturbed, no one will bother to 'do their own research and come to their own conclusion' any more.