The Concorde was just awesome! I hope NASA can figure out supersonic flight with the experimental planes they’ve been working on. I think a cool video would be to detail some of the impact NASA has on commercial aviation. People think of NASA as the people who work in space, but they do a whole lot for aviation as a whole.

DEBIAN!

I still feel extremely safe flying! As truck driver I know things happen and I also know that training makes all the difference! I think pilots are some of the most well trained pros in the world.

Brings me back to sms

Nope...no air flow over the wings, thus no lift.

Have a friend who wears Oakleys (I forgot which type), for *both* the shooting range *and* for flying his private plane.

So if most commercial planes fly around the 40,000 ft range, then what about all those massive unmarked white planes that always fly at about 70,000 ft at double the speed of commercial passenger aircaft and that ALWAYS have a thick "CONtrail" pouring out the back of them??????????

Engine on fire - check Engine dropped off - NO Engine still going - check

joe in the beginning "I would be out of that plane within seconds" made me laugh super hard.

Very cute, Joe. Did you smoosh her?

I've always wondered why aren't the gates on a slight slope. So they could just roll back. Surely you could fit reverse cams.

Once going into Fairbanks, there was heavy fog, but the captain said will try. We then kept on circling for a good while before trying. Ended up aborting though and going back to anchorage. I overheard someone saying the circling was to burn off fuel just in case? Burn off all fuel but leave enough to go back to anchorage? Or all hog wash? Holding pattern was maybe just to see if the fog lifts I guess?

Of course not. The airplane needs airspeed to takeoff, and by using the conveyor belt, it just spins the tires and not actually makes the plane to get any airspeed

I give zero f*cks if my pilot has tattoos. I have paid $5k for a business class ticket and wouldn’t judge anyone for the way they look. I’m honestly surprised rules like this still exist.

Video on Mh370 please

Polorized lenses and reinforced laminated windshields and lcds with their own polarization.. probably a bad idea anyways.. my first car had window tint on it.. I couldn’t see out the windows with polarized lenses on.. ammonia took care of that

Blödes Rätsel! Aber wenn die Startbahn aus mehreren hintereinander liegenden Transportbändern bestünde, die mit immer höherer Geschwindigkeit liefen und so das startende Flugzeug zusätzlich zu den Triebwerken beschleunigen würden, könnte man da nicht ne Menge Treibstoff sparen?!? 😉

My answer was right, the plane will not take off because the conveyer belt is moving in opposite direction to the motion of the aircraft, so at last there will be no motion at all because the conveyer belt kept on moving in such a way that the plane couldnt move back and forth...

3:11 why do people always say Bloomfield and not Broomfield? I used to love in Broomfield, never heard of any Bloomfield 🤣

OBVIOUSLY, The cat is the Navigator!

This is a very nice and efficient aircraft yet we get the Volatol in GTA 5 and it sucks lol 😭😭

Essentially all the aviation tires are equivalent to the steer tires on a semi truck.

47 hr flight ? when i googled it came back as flight time 6 hrs ?

case 1 was due to a wake turbolence of the plane before!!!!!

At first I was going to say *yes* because acceleration is not determined by torque at the wheels, it's determined by thrust using air. (The wheels are just tagging along.) But I _change my answer_ to *no,* because the conveyor belt would keep the plane stationary relative to the air around it, thus preventing the plane from gaining enough enough airspeed to be able to generate enough lift to take off.

Why was there no mention of fuel dump? You can't land a fully loaded aircraft with fuel to Hawaii without it breaking apart. Did they just not want to call attention to thousands of gallons of jet fuel atomizing onto cars, homes, people and animals?

"Pull them aft ????????????"....... WHAT DOES AFT mean to a non-pilot ?????????????

The tires would stay still - and the plane could take off. Instead of the wheels starting to turn, when the plane accelerates, the belt would start to move as soon as the tires *would* start to minimally move, as this would instantly move the belt forward and cancel out the rotation of the wheels. So my guess would be that the plane can successfully take off - and the belt would accellerate in sync with the plane... The wheels would be seemingly standing still on the belt.

No. Because even new cars after manufacture are tested on fast dynamometers but go nowhere

Really exited for my 747 model to come

There's no I in team, but there is me.

I've watched this video a few times now. It is absolutely outstanding. Whatever it is that you want to achieve in life, be it a pilot or any other career - just listen to Joes steps and start working towards it NOW!

I would honestly never want to be in a plane with only one pilot. What if that pilot had a heart attack and died? Everyone would be screwed.

No, because no lift is generated over the wings.... Unless someone pulls the plug on the conveyer, then yes. It's like, how far did you run on the treadmill? No wonder you're still fat. Or...how much work did you do today? But you never moved, so none.

Everybody is a pro after the matter

This was covered in the MYthbuster's video...watch it.. they do it for real

Tail wind...

I love the professionalism and skills of everyone involved in this accident. It makes me happy to know that we have such capable people taking care of us! Thanks for the great breakdown.

The coffee maker !!!!!!!!! No !

I remember watching the test flight in 1977. I was just 7 years old at the time and remember thinking to myself that that was really cool. My eyes were glued to the tv during the whole test.

MY GUESS: The engines would provide thrust, the 747 _would_ move forward, if it hadn't been for the conveyor belt rolling with rotational acceleration of the wheels they would go through had the 747 been throttling up its engines on solid ground. With the engines at takeoff thrust, the conveyor belt spinning the wheels of the 747 at takeoff speeds, the 747 should in theory be moving at a speed of 0 kts, but its wheels would spin in place due to the conveyor belt.

the mythbusters tested this like 12 years ago

45.100ft for 747/8F but it has reached 48.000 easily

Another reason for pilot to sit on left is they can use the central controls with the dominate hand.

Go back to making videos that are not about answering stupid questions... and actually worth watching, this seems like its meant for children

Junk

Captain Joe what would we do without your explanations for such a near disaster, great video/podcast, thank you.

No i don't think it can take off

Outstanding!

Could a jet take off on the moon? If not how did the spaceship take off from the moon?

Get a good 🎤 This sounds like 🚮

Broomfield**

I wonder why Volkswagen was punished nearly to death with the Diesel engine scandal, but Boeing gets away with fraud, criminal behaviour and bad manufacturing since many years... This is not any more free market, it is an economic war we are in. Peoples lives dont count too much for those Yuppies in the upper management... But dont get me wrong: I also think that it is wrong from Airbus to be controlled only by a joystick and let the computer control thrust without moving the levers (as far as i know they do)

If the 747 could relocate the shuttle, it must carry a HUGE amount of cargo.

That’s cool!

The neighborly workshop phongsaly wail because newsstand aerobically boil about a warm century. impolite, yellow break

It’s a porpoise! Also I think a mustache would reassure me when boarding a plane. If someone has the confidence to wear a mustache alone then they probably can land a plane. LOL!

This guy acts like no other aircraft has ever been flown that has stability problems designed in. As if the pilots can not trim there own dam aircraft and have to have a god dam computer do it for them . COME ON JACK ASSES this is about Boeing trying to commit fraud by pretending the MAX is just another 737 with no added flight training for the pilots. Boeing had to have the fucking computer trim the plane in order for there bean counters and sales team to sell to the airlines a plane that required no training of the crews. Come on this is about fraud not a honest mistake. This is about a massive corporation fat and happy wanting more more more more and them more of anything they can get breaking laws and rules to get it. Even a super cub pulling a glider has to trim the hell out of its horizontal stabilizer just to keep the pilot comfortable with how his plane flies as he pulls another aircraft. Boeing executives that fabricated this mass murder needs to have there asses locked up for years and years. But no everyone else is suffering while those ass holes go on to still be rich and involved in law making and aircraft building . It is like the Pandemic fabricators that are now in charge of our daily lives as they hold not only the patents on the virus but now the supposed cures. Fuck them and there kind. And do not be surprised if the virus pandemic is directly related to this god dam MAX shit. with same criminals involved with it . Now most of the losses caused by the grounding of the MAX by there criminal actions will be now be written off as part of the lock down and paid for by all of us collectively just as if we live in COMMUNIST China or Russia . FUCK BOEINGS executives that did this . Fuck Bill Gates and the commuter ass holes that have totally put in the toilet all forms of law and order in every realm of possibility. These fuckers have there jack ass in office of President right now. Dam right I am ranting. why the fuck isn't everyone else .

My initial answer was yes that it could take off, and I stand by that, the plane takes off because of relative ground speed not because of the speed of the wheels or the runway, if the plane started accelerating the wheels would start building up speeds to an infinitely great rate which obviously could cause mechanical failure, however the plane would still be accelerating forward because its forward momentum is not determinant on its wheels.

CJ: "If this video reaches 70K likes..." Me watching the video which currently has 70K likes:

Simple the inside diameter exceeded the outside diameter

One word - EMALS

No, because there is no wind running over the wings..

What kind of POS shines a laser at an aircraft? Some real losers in the world we all share.

Good explanation thanks. It would be interesting to know, did one of the pilots have the time to make a quick cabin announcement to passengers to reassure them? but in any case, aviate navigate communicate and they obviously did the most important things well.

What part of conveyor moves with the speed of what part of wheels in opposit direction??? Normal wheel - that is a basic principle how a wheel works - has zero speed on point of contact to surface - that is a basic principle how a wheel works! - so conveyor speed must be zero. If conveyor spead = minus speed of the wheel axle, then still i see no reason how can it to interfere take off. Speed of conveyer must be minus speed of the very top point of the wheel to stop the wheel axle and the plane therewith.

As long as the pilot doesn't goof up and go tumbling down the runway nose over tail, I'm fine.

Steve sounds like a fun guy to work with!

it is not the speed of rotation of the wheels that matters, but the speed of the air around the wings

Nice to see our beautiful fleet of SR-20s. Greetings from Western Michigan University

There isn’t enough friction in the wheel bearings to overcome the thrust and thus stop the plane from moving. It also won’t reach infinite speed. The plane will take off with the wheels spinning 2x takeoff speed. Once that happens the conveyor wheel speed escalation stops since there isn’t enough friction between the wheel and the conveyor.

Thanks Captain Joe

No, It can't. No air trough the wings

No

1:51 On zie German autobahn?

At 2'47" you mention that 1600 aircrafts were delivered in 16 months. Can you please give details ? Because Wikipedia shows a figure of 284 in 2018, 391 in 2019 and 253 in 2020 being the highest figures. The total A320neo delivered from 2016 to Jan 2021 is 1,157 units. I request you to please clarify..

Late to the party - your mum is lovely, but one VERY IMPORTANT question is missing: Has she ever flown with you as pilot, and in which aircraft??

Even though the question seems to be pretty precisely worded, there is some ambiguity in the phrase "match the speed of the wheels". Does that mean the speed of rotation? The speed of forward motion? Those two things can be different if the plane is on a conveyor belt. There are quite a few possible interpretations, but two of them are the most common by an overwhelming margin, so I'm only going to address those two. The first interpretation is that the conveyor belt moves backwards at the same rate as the plane's speedometer. Note that I used the word "speedometer" deliberately, because most people imagine the plane to be the same as a car. In a car, the engine drives the wheels and the speedometer measures the rotation rate of the wheels. Therefore, if the speedometer says 50 km/h*, and the belt is moving backwards at 50 km/h, then the car won't be moving across the ground. But that's *NOT* what happens to an airplane. A plane's engines don't turn the wheels, they accelerate the air around the plane. Similarly, the airspeed indicator measures wind flow, not the rotation of the wheels. The wheels are simply mounted on bearings, like the wheels on a shopping cart. If the airspeed indicator says 50 km/h, then the plane is moving at 50 km/h *through the air.* If the belt is moving 50 km/h backwards, then all that means is that the wheels will be turning at 100 km/h, there *is* airflow over the wings, and the plane can take off. The other possible interpretation is that the conveyor belt is moving "fast enough to cancel the speed of the plane". The friction within a bearing increases with speed, so, in theory, it's possible for them to generate enough friction to cancel the thrust of the engines. In which case, yeah, there is no airflow over the wings, and the plane can't take off. But in practice, the bearings would have exploded from overstress and overheating *LONG* before they reach that point, which means the plane would probably not be able to take off ever again. Also, the Mythbusters tested this one. They actually got a real plane and put it on a runway-sized conveyor belt. The plane took off just fine. *I'm an American, but I hate our unwieldy measurement system. So, yeah, I'm using metric for this. But all the speeds I'm using are just examples, so anyone offended by this is free mentally substitute "knots" for "km/h" without loosing any of the basic meaning of this post.

Loosu joe

6:29 *visible confusion* The angle make it looks like it's skidding