My thoughts exactly. What are they teaching in schools these days?!?>> ^Fantomas:

Someone needs to learn how to hold a camera.

Damn. He's extremely lucky there was no roll when he went airborne.

http://videosift.com/video/Liquid-Helium-And-Party-Balloons
>> ^brycewi19:

I've heard that helium is getting quite expensive. Something about supply being limited.
Wouldn't that have to factor in to the feasibility of this being financially practical?

>> ^zor:

>> ^sillma:
What a waste of perfectly good helium.

Right. Helium is not a good choice. Should have used hydrogen because it's renewable. They can use the energy to make more from water and if it explodes no harm no foul since there are no people on board.


But a 35 foot wide burning anything crashing to the earth has got to be bothersome.

>> ^sillma:

What a waste of perfectly good helium.


Right. Helium is not a good choice. Should have used hydrogen because it's renewable. They can use the energy to make more from water and if it explodes no harm no foul since there are no people on board.

Your video, Airborne Helium Wind Turbine Prototype 2012, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^doogle:

omg they created a real-life prototype of Google's App Engine logo.
http://screenshots.en.sftcdn.net/en/scrn/70000/70210/google-app-en
gine-1.jpg


OMGZ ! ! ! ! !

>> ^ulysses1904:

Actually wouldn't that just be a 900? He went airborne facing up, did two 360 degree spins (facing up two more times) then did a 180 to be facing down again.


Follow the top edge of the board. It's pointing up again when he lands. He turns his head during the jump, but his chest faces left both before and afterwards.

Actually wouldn't that just be a 900? He went airborne facing up, did two 360 degree spins (facing up two more times) then did a 180 to be facing down again.

Could've done without the editing, but a great moody visual overall. And to see that fast frigate go half airborne at 3:00+ , wow.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'crazy, driver, snow, offroad, interstate, 81, wtf, airborne, bumps' to 'crazy, driver, snow, offroad, median, divided, interstate, 81, wtf, airborne, bumps' - edited by calvados

Can't believe I just watched three guys try to fly a warthog and shoot stuff. It takes them a while to get airborne but it's all rather fascinatingly obscure, difficult and funny as they butt heads trying to work it all out.

I know you weren't the one crying about the downvote, and my smarmy reply was intended for Payback, not you.

As to messenger's original comment, we obviously read it/into it differently. I don't think he was suggesting what you thought he was. I took his comment in the context of the video (plane starting on the ground), which is the way I believe he meant it. I wasn't exactly sure what part of his comment you were being critical of, which may be the reason for my extremely basic explanation. It wasn't to be condescending.
In reply to this comment by sirex:
I guess critical flaw is perhaps over-egging it. But the original statement seems misleading to me. It suggests that without a propulsion system any aircraft is incapable of flight, which is obviously incorrect. Its likely just a case of clarification, but yes, once airborne the aircraft will lose forward momentum and be carried by the wind the same as any lump of rubbish in a hurricane, at that stage its likely its acting as a kite rather than anything aerodynamic.

(Also, i couldn't care less about comment votes. Its the internet.)

I guess critical flaw is perhaps over-egging it. But the original statement seems misleading to me. It suggests that without a propulsion system any aircraft is incapable of flight, which is obviously incorrect. Its likely just a case of clarification, but yes, once airborne the aircraft will lose forward momentum and be carried by the wind the same as any lump of rubbish in a hurricane, at that stage its likely its acting as a kite rather than anything aerodynamic.

(Also, i couldn't care less about comment votes. Its the internet.)

They can take off without a teather, in exactly the same way as the plane in this video takes off. It's not at all safe, which is why it isnt done that way. You can even throw a glider directly off a cliff to gain the airspeed if you have a deathwish.

The way you need to look at it is that the thermals increase the height of the glider which increases its potential energy. The pilot converts this into forward momentum by pushing forwards on the stick, and in turn losing height. With fast enough winds (and we're talking 70-80mph, not great flying weather), a light aircraft will fly regardless of the updraft.

Also, its perfectly possible for aircraft to be flying either under propulsion or unaided and have a negative groundspeed (i.e, be going backwards). As long as the wind over the wing provides the needed lift, the aircraft *will* fly.

That said, landing with a negative ground speed is going to be interesting. However you can land with a tail wind as long as the overall air speed still provides the lift needed.


>> ^messenger:

I don't. Gliders cannot take off from the ground without a tether, and can only stay airborne by riding up thermals or other updrafts. This is a form of propulsion. Without updrafts and untethered, a glider will eventually fall to the ground.>> ^sirex:
>> ^messenger:
What we both didn't see in our heads is that once the plane leaves the ground, if the propulsion system isn't engaged, the plane will be pushed backwards, lose speed, and crash again.

I foresee a one word critical flaw in your argument.
Glider.