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

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: foghorn67
I'm not going to read the replies, but can someone answer me on this?

Most planes need airflow over the wings to take off.
How would you get around that?

hahah. Its cause the wheels spin freely so the treadmill going backwards wouldn't be more negative force on the plane than the positive force of the jet thrust.

No, I don't think you get it. The wings most create pressure at the right angles to take off.
Let me re-do this for people thinking they are only fighting drag or friction.
There are 2 things that a plane must fight to become airborne. Gravity and Drag.
You guys are fighting over the thrust-drag. And some how you are trying to put how gravity is affected by this WITHOUT including lift.
Now, think about how most planes will stall in mid air and become a brick if the airspeed is too low. When you hear pilot jargon about stalling, most of the time, they are NOT talking about the engine crapping out. It's flight surfaces not creating the right amount of pressure OVER the wings. To need this, you need headwind. Hence, why planes accelerate on the ground.
Now there are exceptions, VTOL aircraft with pointed exhausts and that sort.

 

[Atheus]

God, no, put it away...

 

[Krazy4Real]

So when is Mythbusters doing this?

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: jimbob200521

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: jimbob200521

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
ok kids, i never explained why the plane wont fly, because to me, it seems so obvious. listen kids, i will say this once and once only.

1.plane turns on trust/power to go forward in order to fly.
2.it cant move forward because when the wheels start to turn, the treadmill turns in the equal and opposite direction.
3.in order for a plane to fly, it needs movement of the plane. plane doesnt move bc of 2
4.air over/under wings creat life. no lift because plane is not moving.

kids, the key here is the plane is always standing still. the more power that is used, the faster the treadmill is moving in the opposite direction keeping the plane in the same place. you ever see a plane take off without a runway besides the harriers? no. no. no.

this is final and anyone who doubts are not BAI, but rather fvking retards.

Well aren't we going about this in a mature way...

The main flaw in your "logic" (and I use that term loosely) is that the plane would move forward. The THRUST from the engines THRUST the plane forward. THE WHEELS HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH IT (unless the treadmill can produce and equal amount of FORCE, NOT SPEED, to counter the planes movement, that is).

And thank you for the kind PM on the subject, btw.

Ok you figure out what is required to make your answer correct now show that a treadmill turning wheels does not apply a force to the plane?

I did not say, or at least did not mean to say, that the treadmill does not apply any force to the plane. The point I was getting at is that the treadmill, in the way that the original problem was stated, would not apply enough force to counter the plane's forward movement.

For those that say that the plane would not take off, do you realize that you are saying that a plane is driven via it's wheels?

No, the plane is not driven via its wheels. the wheels are needed for forward motion and once there is enough speed thus wind on wings, it will take off.

In this case, the "treadmill" nullifies any forward motion. goosh, dont you get it.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: foghorn67
I'm not going to read the replies, but can someone answer me on this?

Most planes need airflow over the wings to take off.
How would you get around that?

hahah. Its cause the wheels spin freely so the treadmill going backwards wouldn't be more negative force on the plane than the positive force of the jet thrust.

No, I don't think you get it. The wings most create pressure at the right angles to take off.

What's been said repeatedly though is that, because of the wheels, the speed of the ground/treadmill is completely irrelevant to the rest of the vehicle. It could be on ice, it could be on a maglev track - the wheels are there to (ideally) eliminate friction between the plane and the surface it is resting on. Therefore, the speed of that surface is irrelevant. Assuming no friction, the surface below the plane could be moving in any direction at any speed, and the plane would remain stationary. Once it turns on its engines, it begins to move forward normally. Air flows over the wings, and it takes off.

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: Krazy4Real
So when is Mythbusters doing this?

Please be soon.... I can't take much more

 

[jimbob200521]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: jimbob200521

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: jimbob200521

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
ok kids, i never explained why the plane wont fly, because to me, it seems so obvious. listen kids, i will say this once and once only.

1.plane turns on trust/power to go forward in order to fly.
2.it cant move forward because when the wheels start to turn, the treadmill turns in the equal and opposite direction.
3.in order for a plane to fly, it needs movement of the plane. plane doesnt move bc of 2
4.air over/under wings creat life. no lift because plane is not moving.

kids, the key here is the plane is always standing still. the more power that is used, the faster the treadmill is moving in the opposite direction keeping the plane in the same place. you ever see a plane take off without a runway besides the harriers? no. no. no.

this is final and anyone who doubts are not BAI, but rather fvking retards.

Well aren't we going about this in a mature way...

The main flaw in your "logic" (and I use that term loosely) is that the plane would move forward. The THRUST from the engines THRUST the plane forward. THE WHEELS HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH IT (unless the treadmill can produce and equal amount of FORCE, NOT SPEED, to counter the planes movement, that is).

And thank you for the kind PM on the subject, btw.

Ok you figure out what is required to make your answer correct now show that a treadmill turning wheels does not apply a force to the plane?

I did not say, or at least did not mean to say, that the treadmill does not apply any force to the plane. The point I was getting at is that the treadmill, in the way that the original problem was stated, would not apply enough force to counter the plane's forward movement.

For those that say that the plane would not take off, do you realize that you are saying that a plane is driven via it's wheels?

No, the plane is not driven via its wheels. the wheels are needed for forward motion and once there is enough speed thus wind on wings, it will take off.

In this case, the "treadmill" nullifies any forward motion. goosh, dont you get it.

Either you are 12 and don't understand this, or you are just flaming.

The treadmill does not nullify anything. It spins in the opposite direction at the same speed as the plane. It does not apply enough force to counter the thrust of the plane.

If you are serious and not trolling, then I have a couple questions for you:

1) Do you understand that ground speed is different from air speed?

2) How does the treadmill nullify forward motion?

3) Do you know that speed and force are two different things?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: foghorn67
I'm not going to read the replies, but can someone answer me on this?

Most planes need airflow over the wings to take off.
How would you get around that?

hahah. Its cause the wheels spin freely so the treadmill going backwards wouldn't be more negative force on the plane than the positive force of the jet thrust.

No, I don't think you get it. The wings most create pressure at the right angles to take off.

What's been said repeatedly though is that, because of the wheels, the speed of the ground/treadmill is completely irrelevant to the rest of the vehicle. It could be on ice, it could be on a maglev track - the wheels are there to (ideally) eliminate friction between the plane and the surface it is resting on. Therefore, the speed of that surface is irrelevant. Assuming no friction, the surface below the plane could be moving in any direction at any speed, and the plane would remain stationary. Once it turns on its engines, it begins to move forward normally. Air flows over the wings, and it takes off.

So if you were to stand near the plane as it spools up, it would remain stationary to you? And would it (by the theory in question)
a) angle up and become airborne while still being next to you?
b)when optimum tire speed is reached it can then move forward on the belt then angle up (rotate) to take off? Like a catapult? (meaning, if you were standing right next to it, it would remain next to you, then zing forward on the belt away from you then rotate?)

 

[Dean]

The treadmill theory is impossible to test. I do not feel like getting into it, as Jimbob already explained it fine.

A better test would be a plane tethered so it is stationary. The props will create enough wind to pass through it's wing area to promote lift on their own, as long as the plain has a large wing area and a great power to weight ratio.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: foghorn67
I'm not going to read the replies, but can someone answer me on this?

Most planes need airflow over the wings to take off.
How would you get around that?

hahah. Its cause the wheels spin freely so the treadmill going backwards wouldn't be more negative force on the plane than the positive force of the jet thrust.

No, I don't think you get it. The wings most create pressure at the right angles to take off.

What's been said repeatedly though is that, because of the wheels, the speed of the ground/treadmill is completely irrelevant to the rest of the vehicle. It could be on ice, it could be on a maglev track - the wheels are there to (ideally) eliminate friction between the plane and the surface it is resting on. Therefore, the speed of that surface is irrelevant. Assuming no friction, the surface below the plane could be moving in any direction at any speed, and the plane would remain stationary. Once it turns on its engines, it begins to move forward normally. Air flows over the wings, and it takes off.

The speed of the wheel is irrelevant (ignoring friction) but the acceleration of the wheels is not.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Dean
The treadmill theory is impossible to test. I do not feel like getting into it, as Jimbob already explained it fine.

A better test would be a plane tethered so it is stationary. The props will create enough wind to pass through it's wing area to promote lift on their own, as long as the plain has a large wing area and a great power to weight ratio.

What an impractical and lousy theory.
Most props won't do that, most wings are out of touch with the wind the props would create.
And nevermind any commercial jets.

 

[randay]

The airplane cannot take off. Its impossible, because we haven't checked it for snakes yet.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Dean
The treadmill theory is impossible to test. I do not feel like getting into it, as Jimbob already explained it fine.

A better test would be a plane tethered so it is stationary. The props will create enough wind to pass through it's wing area to promote lift on their own, as long as the plain has a large wing area and a great power to weight ratio.

What an impractical and lousy theory.
Most props won't do that, most wings are out of touch with the wind the props would create.
And nevermind any commercial jets.

You'd need a pretty special airplane to lift off like that (excluding vertical thrust, like a harrier), but it might be possible. Something like the YC-14 prototype.

 

[nweaver]

the problem is that the situation is not going to work. There is no amount of energy/speed to counter the forward motion of the airplane, so you cannot create the scenario.

2 ways to look at this...
1. There isn't enough energy/speed to overcome the forward MOTION of the airplane using the friction of the wheels, so plane takes off
2. We ignore energy/speed and say the treadmill moves fast enough to use friction to counter the forward movement of the plane, and the plane takes off.

2. follows the scenario (treadmill can stop forward motion) but breaks real world stuff, scenario 1 is what would happen (the treadmill would quickly hit it's max speed, plane would continue to move in spite of treadmill and take off)

can we please freaking let this die?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: randay
The airplane cannot take off. Its impossible, because we haven't checked it for snakes yet.

More importantly, will Homeland Security let a plane on a treadmill take off?

Originally posted by: foghorn67
So if you were to stand near the plane as it spools up, it would remain stationary to you? And would it (by the theory in question)
a) angle up and become airborne while still being next to you?
b)when optimum tire speed is reached it can then move forward on the belt then angle up (rotate) to take off? Like a catapult? (meaning, if you were standing right next to it, it would remain next to you, then zing forward on the belt away from you then rotate?)

If I was standing near the plane, while off the treadmill, the plane would move forward because of its engines.
If I was standing on the treadmill, the plane would move away from me even faster, as I would be propelled backward on the treadmill, due to my lack of wheels, and due to the fact that I don't have any jet engines on me.

I'll try another exercise in futility, and explain it another way.
I guess the first question to deal with, which seems to be causing the most problems:
Will the plane move forward against the treadmill's motion?
Yes, it will. No doubt.
A car turns its wheels to move forward. If the ground is moving beneath it to counter that motion, the car will not move.
Now look at the plane: its wheels turn freely. They do not cause it to move forward. The engines, isolated from the ground, are what push the plane forward.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: jimbob200521

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: jimbob200521

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
ok kids, i never explained why the plane wont fly, because to me, it seems so obvious. listen kids, i will say this once and once only.

1.plane turns on trust/power to go forward in order to fly.
2.it cant move forward because when the wheels start to turn, the treadmill turns in the equal and opposite direction.
3.in order for a plane to fly, it needs movement of the plane. plane doesnt move bc of 2
4.air over/under wings creat life. no lift because plane is not moving.

kids, the key here is the plane is always standing still. the more power that is used, the faster the treadmill is moving in the opposite direction keeping the plane in the same place. you ever see a plane take off without a runway besides the harriers? no. no. no.

this is final and anyone who doubts are not BAI, but rather fvking retards.

Well aren't we going about this in a mature way...

The main flaw in your "logic" (and I use that term loosely) is that the plane would move forward. The THRUST from the engines THRUST the plane forward. THE WHEELS HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH IT (unless the treadmill can produce and equal amount of FORCE, NOT SPEED, to counter the planes movement, that is).

And thank you for the kind PM on the subject, btw.

Ok you figure out what is required to make your answer correct now show that a treadmill turning wheels does not apply a force to the plane?

I did not say, or at least did not mean to say, that the treadmill does not apply any force to the plane. The point I was getting at is that the treadmill, in the way that the original problem was stated, would not apply enough force to counter the plane's forward movement.

For those that say that the plane would not take off, do you realize that you are saying that a plane is driven via it's wheels?

No, the plane is not driven via its wheels. the wheels are needed for forward motion and once there is enough speed thus wind on wings, it will take off.

In this case, the "treadmill" nullifies any forward motion. goosh, dont you get it.

Assuming the wheels are free to spin...similar to any plane ready for take off...
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/sao123/plane.JPG">At what speed will the treadmille cause this rope to break?
</a>

 

[mugs]

Wow MasonLuke, way to look like an idiot and an asshole at the same time. :laugh:

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: randay
The airplane cannot take off. Its impossible, because we haven't checked it for snakes yet.

More importantly, will Homeland Security let a plane on a treadmill take off?

Originally posted by: foghorn67
So if you were to stand near the plane as it spools up, it would remain stationary to you? And would it (by the theory in question)
a) angle up and become airborne while still being next to you?
b)when optimum tire speed is reached it can then move forward on the belt then angle up (rotate) to take off? Like a catapult? (meaning, if you were standing right next to it, it would remain next to you, then zing forward on the belt away from you then rotate?)

If I was standing near the plane, while off the treadmill, the plane would move forward because of its engines.
If I was standing on the treadmill, the plane would move away from me even faster, as I would be propelled backward on the treadmill, due to my lack of wheels, and due to the fact that I don't have any jet engines on me.

I'll try another exercise in futility, and explain it another way.
I guess the first question to deal with, which seems to be causing the most problems:
Will the plane move forward against the treadmill's motion?
Yes, it will. No doubt.
A car turns its wheels to move forward. If the ground is moving beneath it to counter that motion, the car will not move.
Now look at the plane: its wheels turn freely. They do not cause it to move forward. The engines, isolated from the ground, are what push the plane forward.

I have not seen the original question/conundrum/riddle in a while. So I am assuming several factors. I picturing a plane on a very short treadmill as opposed to say a small airports 5000ft runway. How long is this treadmill? Or does it matter.
I assumed that the argument was that the plane would spool its engine(s) remain stationary and rotate to take off...and blamo, the plane is airborne.
Or is the argument that if it could or could not power away from you while on the treadmill?

 

[mobobuff]

Are you serious? This got bumped again? No surprise it was bumped by a nontakeroffer.

Originally posted by: sao123

Assuming the wheels are free to spin...similar to any plane ready for take off...
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/sao123/plane.JPG">At what speed will the treadmille cause this rope to break?
</a>

That's a good way to explain it. I'd like to see MasonLuke answer that.

Originally posted by: Phokus
why don't we just email a phycisist and/or aerospace engineer and ask them for the damn answer?

If I recall, a few pilots and phycisists did post. No surprise they said it would take off.

What I have not yet to see, is a well thought out and defined argument for the plane not taking off, with examples and scientific support. I've seen MANY of those, however, for the other side. That speaks volumes.

 

[xcript]

The plane takes off, but one of its engines comes loose and falls through a wormhole taking it several minutes into the past. The engine lands on the plane just prior to its leaving the treadmill and prevents the takeoff from occuring, thus forking our reality and allowing both events to occur.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
Are you serious? This got bumped again? No surprise it was bumped by a nontakeroffer.

Originally posted by: sao123

Assuming the wheels are free to spin...similar to any plane ready for take off...
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/sao123/plane.JPG">At what speed will the treadmille cause this rope to break?
</a>

That's a good way to explain it. I'd like to see MasonLuke answer that.

Originally posted by: Phokus
why don't we just email a phycisist and/or aerospace engineer and ask them for the damn answer?

If I recall, a few pilots and phycisists did post. No surprise they said it would take off.

What I have not yet to see, is a well thought out and defined argument for the plane not taking off, with examples and scientific support. I've seen MANY of those, however, for the other side. That speaks volumes.

In theory...the treadmill moves fast enough to stop all forward movement (i.e. damn damn fast, because it's just friction between the wheels and the bearings). That is in theory....the treadmill would have to approach the speed of light, and you would likely end up kissing your own mother at her prom, sending you into a tailspin of playing oldies and muttering about gigawatts.

So in theory, plane never takes off, because the treadmill moves fast enough to stop the plane from moving forward (not "as fast as the wheels spin" crap, fast enough to cause friction to overcome forward movement)

in reality, there isn't a fast enough treadmill/enough power to power said treadmill to speed, so the plane's engines push against the air, moving the plane forward and it takes off.

 

[mobobuff]

I won't argue with that, but I believe the original question stated that the treadmill only matches the speed of the rotation of the wheels. If the belt could move as fast as it wanted to, many things would happen before the bearings created enough friction to halt forward movement, such as the bearings melting or the landing gear breaking away from the plane, both of those could probably prevent the plane from taking off... but either way, the original question stated the belt matches the speed of the wheels instantaneously.

Now this I'm not sure of... if a plane is on a regular runway and the engines are at full thrust but the brakes are applied... could the thrust overcome the friction of the rubber and cement and move the plane? Keeping in mind that any initial movement would gradually nullify the friction, would the plane gradually increase speed to the point of a successful (although incredibly shakey and wild) takeoff? Assuming you have the world's greatest pilot to keep the plane from floundering around.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
I won't argue with that, but I believe the original question stated that the treadmill only matches the speed of the rotation of the wheels. If the belt could move as fast as it wanted to, many things would happen before the bearings created enough friction to halt forward movement, such as the bearings melting or the landing gear breaking away from the plane, both of those could probably prevent the plane from taking off... but either way, the original question stated the belt matches the speed of the wheels instantaneously.

Now this I'm not sure of... if a plane is on a regular runway and the engines are at full thrust but the brakes are applied... could the thrust overcome the friction of the rubber and cement and move the plane? Keeping in mind that any initial movement would gradually nullify the friction, would the plane gradually increase speed to the point of a successful (although incredibly shakey and wild) takeoff? Assuming you have the world's greatest pilot to keep the plane from floundering around.

Reality aside, if the treadmill could move fast enough, as soon as the wheel STARTS moving, the treadmill speeds up until it counteracts forward movement via friction in the bearings (which again, is not possible, and would quickly lead to bearing/tire/gear failure prior to the plane taking off).

Theory: Plane doesn't take off
Reality: Plane takes off


Pick one of those two in your mind, hold on to it...and let this friggin thread die already.

 

[gsellis]

The plane will fly. Airplanes don't lift off. The earth moves away from them. Airplane wings are unique in that they create a nullified gravity zone, and push the earth away from them. If all the airplanes moved to one side of the planet, it would be pushed out of orbit around the sun.

And THAT makes more sense than a farking threadmill being able to cancel a plane's ability to take off because some morons do not get that the wheels are a free system that have a minimal effect on any Newtonian reaction created by the thrust of the engine.

Can we ban some of these folks to make the gene pool a little deeper here?

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
There has been a huuuuuge thread on the Mythbusters forums about this for a very long time (pre AT, I believe).

Yeah, that was actually the second link Google provided. :laugh:

The google news search didn't provide anything beyond articles saying that the creators of Mythbusters was coming out with two new shows.

I'm hoping it is true. It would probably end up being the highest-rated/most talked about episode of Mythbusters ever.

Which is why they will most likely wait until their ratings are already in decline.