Mythbusters to take on "the plane and the treadmill" conundrum?

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
the plane will not fly.

you bumped a week old thread to prove that you're a moron?
Congratulations...

:thumbsup:

Scary that this thread is so long despite the massive explanations explaining exactly why it would fly.......

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: oogabooga

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
the plane will not fly.

you bumped a week old thread to prove that you're a moron?
Congratulations...

:thumbsup:

Scary that this thread is so long despite the massive explanations explaining exactly why it would fly.......

It woldnt take off! why?

because rossane bar and rossy o'donnel is on it!

 

[ultimatebob]

Hurry up Mythbusters... I'm sick of seeing people argue about this!

 

[MasonLuke]

its alive :Q

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: waggy
It woldnt take off! why?

because rossane bar and rossy o'donnel is on it!

Dude, Waggy... I saw Roseanne on My Name is Earl (the episode with the Nun)... she is definitely not the land whale that you're making her out to be :Q.

You can see pictures of her here:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001683/

Unless I'm thinking of a different Roseanne.

 

[MasonLuke]

:laugh:

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
:laugh:

ban this motherfvcker please.

 

[Quasmo]

Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but how does the treadmill operate?

I forsee two senarios.

Senario 1) The treadmill is at a constant speed forcing the plane in the opposite direction, therefore the plane will take off after it overcomes this force in the opposite direction.

Senario 2) The treadmill's speed is the exact same as the wheels at all times, meaning the plane never moves forward, and if the plane never moves forward it does not take off.

Am I right in thinking this?

 

[ScottMac]

The wheels have nothing to do with the speed of a winged vehicle (one that is designed to fly) that derives it's forward motion from a propeller or jet (or rocket, for that matter), which pulls / pushes against the airmass, not the ground.

OK?

Scott

 

[Canai]

The pie will fly!

er...plane ?

 

[jimbob200521]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but how does the treadmill operate?

I forsee two senarios.

Senario 1) The treadmill is at a constant speed forcing the plane in the opposite direction, therefore the plane will take off after it overcomes this force in the opposite direction.

Senario 2) The treadmill's speed is the exact same as the wheels at all times, meaning the plane never moves forward, and if the plane never moves forward it does not take off.

Am I right in thinking this?

Scenario 2) No. This is why:

Originally posted by: ScottMac
The wheels have nothing to do with the speed of a winged vehicle (one that is designed to fly) that derives it's forward motion from a propeller or jet (or rocket, for that matter), which pulls / pushes against the airmass, not the ground.
Scott

 

[MasonLuke]

Lets lock this tread and move on.

 

[MasonLuke]

it cant take off

 

[BudAshes]

I always thought a plane had to be going a certain speed depending on size and shape to get off the ground. I mean just cause the engines are blasting doesn't mean a plane would lift off. It would just go very fast straight forward until it hit something. The wings are what makes it take off and the wings require moving through air to have an effect.

Seems pretty simple. But then again what do i know?

 

[archiloco]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
I always thought a plane had to be going a certain speed depending on size and shape to get off the ground. I mean just cause the engines are blasting doesn't mean a plane would lift off. It would just go very fast straight forward until it hit something. The wings are what makes it take off and the wings require moving through air to have an effect.

Seems pretty simple. But then again what do i know?

yes it's that simple

no air under the wings
no lift
equals
no flight,

now if the engines where pushing the air to the wings that would be a different story but the engines are expelling the air way past the wings. you have to have the difference in pressure under the wing in order for flight to happen, you can have a jet engine go as hard as it can but if it has no forward movement there is no air that gets under the wing.

if this was possible the air craft carriers would just have the jets on treadmills and they would take off magically, but they are thrown out to sea at extreme speeds in order to get lift.

 

[kthroyer]

Originally posted by: archiloco

Originally posted by: BudAshes
I always thought a plane had to be going a certain speed depending on size and shape to get off the ground. I mean just cause the engines are blasting doesn't mean a plane would lift off. It would just go very fast straight forward until it hit something. The wings are what makes it take off and the wings require moving through air to have an effect.

Seems pretty simple. But then again what do i know?

yes it's that simple

no air under the wings
no lift
equals
no flight,


now if the engines where pushing the air to the wings that would be a different story but the engines are expelling the air way past the wings. you have to have the difference in pressure under the wing in order for flight to happen, you can have a jet engine go as hard as it can but if it has no forward movement there is no air that gets under the wing.

if this was possible the air craft carriers would just have the jets on treadmills and they would take off magically, but they are thrown out to sea at extreme speeds in order to get lift.

It's funny how people can write something completely off base like this, and make it sound like it is complete fact. And maybe sway a person like Budashes, who seems to just need a little push in the right direction, into thinking that the plane wouldn't move, let alone take off.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: kthroyer

Originally posted by: archiloco

Originally posted by: BudAshes
I always thought a plane had to be going a certain speed depending on size and shape to get off the ground. I mean just cause the engines are blasting doesn't mean a plane would lift off. It would just go very fast straight forward until it hit something. The wings are what makes it take off and the wings require moving through air to have an effect.

Seems pretty simple. But then again what do i know?

yes it's that simple

no air under the wings
no lift
equals
no flight,


now if the engines where pushing the air to the wings that would be a different story but the engines are expelling the air way past the wings. you have to have the difference in pressure under the wing in order for flight to happen, you can have a jet engine go as hard as it can but if it has no forward movement there is no air that gets under the wing.

if this was possible the air craft carriers would just have the jets on treadmills and they would take off magically, but they are thrown out to sea at extreme speeds in order to get lift.

It's funny how people can write something completely off base like this, and make it sound like it is complete fact. And maybe sway a person like Budashes, who seems to just need a little push in the right direction, into thinking that the plane wouldn't move, let alone take off.

Yeah its hilarious that i listen to logic and agree with it.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: kthroyer

Originally posted by: archiloco

Originally posted by: BudAshes
I always thought a plane had to be going a certain speed depending on size and shape to get off the ground. I mean just cause the engines are blasting doesn't mean a plane would lift off. It would just go very fast straight forward until it hit something. The wings are what makes it take off and the wings require moving through air to have an effect.

Seems pretty simple. But then again what do i know?

yes it's that simple

no air under the wings
no lift
equals
no flight,


now if the engines where pushing the air to the wings that would be a different story but the engines are expelling the air way past the wings. you have to have the difference in pressure under the wing in order for flight to happen, you can have a jet engine go as hard as it can but if it has no forward movement there is no air that gets under the wing.

if this was possible the air craft carriers would just have the jets on treadmills and they would take off magically, but they are thrown out to sea at extreme speeds in order to get lift.

It's funny how people can write something completely off base like this, and make it sound like it is complete fact. And maybe sway a person like Budashes, who seems to just need a little push in the right direction, into thinking that the plane wouldn't move, let alone take off.

Yeah its hilarious that i listen to logic and agree with it.

But it's deeply flawed logic...

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: kthroyer

Originally posted by: archiloco

Originally posted by: BudAshes
I always thought a plane had to be going a certain speed depending on size and shape to get off the ground. I mean just cause the engines are blasting doesn't mean a plane would lift off. It would just go very fast straight forward until it hit something. The wings are what makes it take off and the wings require moving through air to have an effect.

Seems pretty simple. But then again what do i know?

yes it's that simple

no air under the wings
no lift
equals
no flight,


now if the engines where pushing the air to the wings that would be a different story but the engines are expelling the air way past the wings. you have to have the difference in pressure under the wing in order for flight to happen, you can have a jet engine go as hard as it can but if it has no forward movement there is no air that gets under the wing.

if this was possible the air craft carriers would just have the jets on treadmills and they would take off magically, but they are thrown out to sea at extreme speeds in order to get lift.

It's funny how people can write something completely off base like this, and make it sound like it is complete fact. And maybe sway a person like Budashes, who seems to just need a little push in the right direction, into thinking that the plane wouldn't move, let alone take off.

Yeah its hilarious that i listen to logic and agree with it.

But it's deeply flawed logic...

No the logic isn't wrong, it is just based on a piece of the puzzle that may or may not fit. This is the fact that the treadmill would have to moving at an insane speed to keep the plane from moving forward as the wheels are relatively frictionless.

 

[jimbob200521]

Plane Answer

^For those who have signatures turned off...

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: jimbob200521
Plane Answer

^For those who have signatures turned off...

ah but that is assuming there is no friction between the plane and the treadmill. Wheels maybe low friction but they aren't frictionless.

 

[OOBradm]

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: jimbob200521
Plane Answer

^For those who have signatures turned off...

ah but that is assuming there is no friction between the plane and the treadmill. Wheels maybe low friction but they aren't frictionless.

so the plane needs a little more thrust than usual? it'll still take off, once it reaches the right velocity

 

[jimbob200521]

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: jimbob200521
Plane Answer

^For those who have signatures turned off...

ah but that is assuming there is no friction between the plane and the treadmill. Wheels maybe low friction but they aren't frictionless.

Very true, but the amount of speed required to counter the plane's thrust would be so great that the treadmill would most likely fail before it got there, not to mention the wheels on the plane and many other things I'm sure I can't think of right now.

BUT assuming that the treadmill could move that fast and nothing mechanical would fail, doesn't the original problem state that the treadmill moves in the opposite direction at the same speed the plan is moving forward? That means the treadmill would not move at the speed needed to stop the plane...

And to address your point of the friction that would be applied, although I can not state it as a fact, I highly doubt that that friction would be enough to make any real difference on the planes movement.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: OOBradm

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: jimbob200521
Plane Answer

^For those who have signatures turned off...

ah but that is assuming there is no friction between the plane and the treadmill. Wheels maybe low friction but they aren't frictionless.

so the plane needs a little more thrust than usual? it'll still take off, once it reaches the right velocity

But what if the treadmill was going backwards faster than the plane could push forwards? If the treadmill was moving fast enough the friction between the wheel and the jet would keep it from moving. I realize the wheels would just snap off at some point but then the plane would just fall on the tread mill and and definitely wouldn't take off.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: jimbob200521
Plane Answer

^For those who have signatures turned off...

ah but that is assuming there is no friction between the plane and the treadmill. Wheels maybe low friction but they aren't frictionless.

It's not assuming that at all. The problem with your logic is that you're not factoring in that friction has a limit. It will never be strong enough to counteract a planes engines. And seeing as how friction is pretty much the only force combatting the engines, the plane will easily be able to overcome it.