What is Digg?71 Comments
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+55They don't do these things to see what happens, they do it because it's ridiculous and fun to watch :D
- SPLASTiK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Note to self:
Do not drive behind a 747 - panheaduk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15It's meant to be entertaining.
- interglenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10mythbusters was better. They've got Tori
- CaptainWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Three capital letters and eighty-six exclamation points later, I bury your comment. :)
- isemism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9the parking brakes on a jet let it sit still while it builds thrust for takeoff. They're plenty strong.
- EricJD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Didn't they do something like this on Mythbusters once?
- m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It's always fun to see stuff destoyed in the name of science...
- hardcle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They did something similar on the Mythbusters. They used a single engine and a stationary car. They couldn't move the car, but did do significant damage.
- keek4jc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It looks like they were only using 2 of the 4 engines.
- isemism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ok ok.. now a box truck... and then a schoolbus...... what if you taxi another plane behind it? Im sure thats happened before.... Nice.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I posted this in the comments of the other video too, but thought I might as well digg it on its own if more people get to see it...
- fiv3isaliv3, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12What did they expect would happen? I mean it seems common sense that something with 50,000+ pounds of thrust would cause anything behind it to get tossed around. Don't see why they needed to waste two cars to prove that. It was cool to watch though.
- OneManArmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Great video, specially with Lord Of The Rings OST playing in the background ;)
- christoscamaro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love mythbusters, but I haven't ever seen the cast test drive a new ferrari / lamborghini and give the high/low points about it.
- kyote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's interesting that the editor couldn't make up his/her mind whether or not to blur out the Virgin logo on the tail of the plane. at 1:16 through 1:19 it's blurred out. At 1:38 it's not, but at 2:06 the logo is blurred again. The rest of the time, it's not. Not sure what they were thinking.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Because the thrust was pushing the plane forward.
- Kink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Because it wasn't flying at twenty feet, and it was aiming down (meaning the engines were facing upwards)
- avocadobeandip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow, that was one of the least intelligent things I have ever read. Congratulations.
- dhuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3hahah... my feelings exactly. those two cars were cool, let's blow some more ***** up! what about those double decker busses? come onnnnnnn, just one.
- keek4jc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When the pilot is pushing up the throttle you can see on the screen two engines are powered up.
- gooshy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Top Gear has to be one of my most favorite programs. That video really rocks. Cheers Richard.
- Blobster2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is good reason for wasting two cars on this experiment. First and most importantly - this is filmed for the British public, and we love seeing old comical cars (like the 2cv) and caravans (which top gear is famous for) being destroyed.
Secondly, the 2cv has been hailed as the 'un-rollable' car.. various experiments on British car programs had been done to prove otherwise have been done on British TV with the only rolling method on the 2cv was driving it in reverse and then sharply turning. SO in traditional top gear style, getting a 747 to aid makes perfect sense! - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And it wasn't a 747 unless I'm mistaken.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4To answer the question in the title: Nothing pretty... but damn entertaining
- xtr3m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yep, that's what I saw too: the pilot was pushing only two throttle levers.
- Takteek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I KNEW I saw something like this before. Now that I remember, Mythbusters was much better.
- daone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This video has been seen on digg before, so I'm not going to digg it again. However it is entertaining as long as some geniuses don't relate the video to 9/11/01.
Seriously, there are some things you just don't joke about, and thats one of them. - ndm007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Never noticed that kyote. Although Virgin Atlantic strike me as the kind of company (and especially Richard Branson) that would want their aircraft and their logo to be seen everywhere, especially one of the most popular TV shows on BBC 2.
- jakhtar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When I was in university I had a part time gig loading planes at the Fedex hub at the Toronto Airport. Every morning before the flights came in, we would do a walk of the entire Fedex apron area on the tarmac to look for any loose bits of metal or pebbles or any other types of foreign object. The idea was that if they got sucked into the engine, they could do a lot of damage, or the exhaust from the engine could turn even a paper clip into a lethal projectile.
The video did pretty much what I expected to the car, but it was cool/funny to watch. - ross., on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The guys on mythbusters didn't think it was so obvious.
But in any case, this is s'posed to be entertainment! - cair0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah they only used one engine
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Whooah chricky"
- dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What's keeping the plane from moving forward? It's not like putting on the brakes would be enough.
- diggems, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good video good program too bad Top Gear doesnt air in the U.S
- Oline61, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What? Didn't you hear? That wasn't a plane. It was a missle. The plane was a coverup. This is a massive government conspiracy.
- NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*need more edit time
the previous was posted for those that may have missed your sarcasm - JAWA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1awesome. first time seeing that.
- NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's because the plane in the video was stationary opposed descending from the air. Then there is the angle of approach. Finally, there's the fact that 395 isn't in throwing distance of the Pentagon.
- RoshanK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder how cool it would be if they replaced the cars with people hmmm....
- floejoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was just about to say that. Love the Lord of the Rings music in the background, do they do that for all shows?
- spoid_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It sucks to not have access to a 747 to do my own scientific experiments.
- paulrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Note to badcarl - take off the foil helmet and get out of your bomb shelter and join the rest of normal society.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can only imagine that it was the rebroadcast that put that in. Although the BBC doesn't have commercials and can't accept payment where a particular brand is used, they don't blur out a company name. It's odd, I dunno why half is blurred and half isn't!
- 15thPD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1interglenn, just so you know, Kari is the hot redheaded chick from Mythbusters. Tori is a guy on the show. =/
- smallSHEEP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLGsEErWJY&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b
Jumbo Jet vs People on the Beach - iSlayer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is that brainiac show they air over in the uk, they make a lot of pointless experiments for the point of entertainment.
- dolemite5005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Perhaps because the engines were not at full thrust? That's only needed for takeoff.
- zclip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That was very entertaining to watch but did anyone catch the part where he says: "If the engines stay on for more than 25 seconds they will tear up the runway." Now that's impressive, the cars are only there to prove the point :)
And I agree with whoever said they should have a car drive straight at the engine, I bet it would get stripped to the frame. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe because it only just quickly went buy and it was 20 feet off the ground so it's not like it was level like in the video.
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is