HKUSP45C
Member
AJ Dual said:
Heat comes to mind.
Mythbusters movie myths
- Thread starter Flyboy73
- Start date
- Status
Heat comes to mind.
First off: I love that show. It's fun, entertaining, and (somewhat) informative all at the same time.
Now, having said that, there are usually a variety of problems with their methodology--OCCASIONALLY they need to do a bit more due diligence, to truly replicate the myths they are trying to bust.
The sword segement is a case in point: I believe they said they were using "high-carbon steel" for the cutting blade, and stainless blades for the target. Well, "high carbon steel" and "stainless steel" cover a lot of ground, as there are many alloys of each. And none duplicate the properties of a well made (the old fashioned way) sword. sooo the results were really invalid.
As far as the car jump (I missed the end), if you look at the original Dukes of Hazzard (haven't seen th movie), they destroyed several Dodge Chargers in making the series. They filmed a bunch of landings, from different angles, and used them repeatedly. This was because, if you watch the landings, you can clearly see that the entire front subframe of the car "folds up" on impact. And there's no way that car is going anywhere after that. Same thing with MANY other movies ("Gone in 60 seconds" comes to mind). Most of the "muscle cars" used it the chase scenes, as well as most new ("unibody") cars cannot take that kind of front end landing without bending upward seriously, crippling the car permenently.
If you have specific info about how they've done any of their "Mythbusting", drop them a line, as they've repeated more than a few experiments, with different parameters, if they have more factual data or more credible information to back it up.
Now, having said that, there are usually a variety of problems with their methodology--OCCASIONALLY they need to do a bit more due diligence, to truly replicate the myths they are trying to bust.
The sword segement is a case in point: I believe they said they were using "high-carbon steel" for the cutting blade, and stainless blades for the target. Well, "high carbon steel" and "stainless steel" cover a lot of ground, as there are many alloys of each. And none duplicate the properties of a well made (the old fashioned way) sword. sooo the results were really invalid.
As far as the car jump (I missed the end), if you look at the original Dukes of Hazzard (haven't seen th movie), they destroyed several Dodge Chargers in making the series. They filmed a bunch of landings, from different angles, and used them repeatedly. This was because, if you watch the landings, you can clearly see that the entire front subframe of the car "folds up" on impact. And there's no way that car is going anywhere after that. Same thing with MANY other movies ("Gone in 60 seconds" comes to mind). Most of the "muscle cars" used it the chase scenes, as well as most new ("unibody") cars cannot take that kind of front end landing without bending upward seriously, crippling the car permenently.
If you have specific info about how they've done any of their "Mythbusting", drop them a line, as they've repeated more than a few experiments, with different parameters, if they have more factual data or more credible information to back it up.
Gonefission
Member
Are you joking?
HOT!
knuckles
Member
Jeff Timm
Member
Knukles knoted: Anyone see the Kari Byron FHM shoot?
http://www.fhmus.com/articles-1276.asp
Good stuff..."
True, but heavily edited.
Geoff
Who has Army socks older than her mother, I suspect.
http://www.fhmus.com/articles-1276.asp
Good stuff..."
True, but heavily edited.
Geoff
Who has Army socks older than her mother, I suspect.
wingnutx
Member
Lets see, a smart, gorgeous woman who can fabricate, shoot, and loves to blow stuff up. I think I'll kick her to the curb because she spells her name funny.
Well, they did use it for lots of assaulting
Well, they did use it for lots of assaulting
Firehand
Member
With deadbolts, shoot for the bolt itself, not the locking mechanism with most things; less bits flying around you easier to break out with a handgun.
So far as the swords, cutting another sword in two is bull; breaking one is another matter, and that's what happened when they broke them.
Actually, from what I've found, most of the surviving old swords they've tested were quite consistent in quality; the good makers learned to do it right a long time ago.
Yeah, the test swords were(mostly) dull; why spend time properly sharpening one you're going to beat on another one with? As they mentioned, in real life blocking a cut with your sword(earlier period; by rapier days things had changed) was to be avoided unless no other choice because it would damage the edge; blocking was what you had a shield for.
So far as the swords, cutting another sword in two is bull; breaking one is another matter, and that's what happened when they broke them.
Actually, from what I've found, most of the surviving old swords they've tested were quite consistent in quality; the good makers learned to do it right a long time ago.
Yeah, the test swords were(mostly) dull; why spend time properly sharpening one you're going to beat on another one with? As they mentioned, in real life blocking a cut with your sword(earlier period; by rapier days things had changed) was to be avoided unless no other choice because it would damage the edge; blocking was what you had a shield for.
Taking down an airplane
How can anyone doubt that a .50cal (BMG) will take down an airplane? During WWII, the .50BMG was the premier gun for air combat. Against combat aircraft, many of which had armor plating to protect the pilot.
ANY medium rifle round can take down a plane it it hits in the right spot. The pilot is of course, the most vulnerable spot. Any other single hit is unlikely to cause an immediate crash. Force it down with a good hit, maybe. All the big .50 gets you is a bit more range.
Multiple hits are another matter. Rifle caliber machine guns have downed alot of low flying planes over the years. Even very large ones. Even jets.
How can anyone doubt that a .50cal (BMG) will take down an airplane? During WWII, the .50BMG was the premier gun for air combat. Against combat aircraft, many of which had armor plating to protect the pilot.
ANY medium rifle round can take down a plane it it hits in the right spot. The pilot is of course, the most vulnerable spot. Any other single hit is unlikely to cause an immediate crash. Force it down with a good hit, maybe. All the big .50 gets you is a bit more range.
Multiple hits are another matter. Rifle caliber machine guns have downed alot of low flying planes over the years. Even very large ones. Even jets.
Tommygunn
Member
44AMP said:
Yes, during WW2, when planes had piston powerd propellors and the top speed was well below the Mach. In the Korean War our F-86 Sabre Jets went up against the MiG-15, which had, IIRC, 23MM. cannon. The Sabre had .50 cals. They proved less than effective against jets. We learned to up the firepower in jetfighters and modern jets since then use 20MM. cannon, called "TWENTY MIKE-MIKE" by pilots.
If you had a .50 BMG and could shoot an airplane on landing or takeoff, critical points in the flight envelopes, you probably could cause the aircraft severe problems IF you could put the bullet into an engine. But you probably could do the same with .338Lapua or a lot of other heavier cartridge.
Just putting a round through the fuselage wouldn't do much. Oh, it would easily kill any human it passed through, for near sure, but today's aircraft don't decompress, they already have valved openings and a bullet hole would just make the air pressurizing system work about 0.00003% harder.
You make good points about machine guns, but the guns the polticos are talking about are Barrets and either bolt action or semis, and real big heavy rifles.
The politicos can ban the .50's, but that won't prevent terrorists from other alternatives if they remain determined to attack our aircraft and aviation industry. They could smuggle in man-portable infra-red guided missiles, if they wanted to.
wingnutx
Member
Hosing an airliner with .50BMG might due significant damage, but nobody is selling an M2 at the local gunshop. You wouldn't likely bring one down, just mess it up so that it wouldn't fly another route without repairs. Those things have a lot of redundancy.
Hitting an airliner with a couple of rounds from a Barrett is just going to poke a couple of holes in it, if you can manage to hit it.
Different between throwing a pebble at me and dumping a truckload of pebbles on top of me.
Hitting an airliner with a couple of rounds from a Barrett is just going to poke a couple of holes in it, if you can manage to hit it.
Different between throwing a pebble at me and dumping a truckload of pebbles on top of me.
Metapotent
Member
I know alot of women named Kari and they all spell it that way. Besides, its not like she had a say when her parents gave her that name. So its kind of an odd thing to use to judge the caliber of a woman.
"She's so damn goofy"
Perhaps, but I like that. I'd take a smart, goofy, and interesting female over a drop-dead gorgeous, yet unintelligent and monotone female.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
