• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Runways not needed for take off.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OP you are such an asshole! :twisted:

Agent11 said:
Mythbusters have already proven a plane can take off from a treadmill. Whether it would be cost effective though I find doubtfull. Maybe for aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...

no. Aircraft carriers already have a good system in place.
 
force.gif



---
EDIT: I thought windmill in op's graphic was a fan in front of the treadmill. Realize now it was just a distant power source.
---

Fan will generate lift.
Fan will not generate thrust.
Treadmill does nothing.

I suppose, if the fan were tall enough and powerful enough, and as mentioned, eliminate the vortex, and you could keep the plane level, you could power up and fly out of the airstream.
 
Last edited:
dawp said:
OP seems to not know that it isn't the wheels that drive the plane forward on the ground but the engines. it would still moved forward even it the treadmill could go 200 mph.

besides didn't mythbusters already take care of this?
Click to expand...

Mythbusters experiment was kind of weak and not sure it can be used as proof.

BUT I still think plane will take off.

The only thing i see as being as issue is the wheel bearing taking double/triple the speed/stress of a regular take off.
 
Agent11 said:
Mythbusters have already proven a plane can take off from a treadmill. Whether it would be cost effective though I find doubtfull. Maybe for aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...

WOA, you have NO understanding of the issue. LOL

Cost effective?

The plane takes off because it moves forward. All the treadmill does is spin the wheels faster....
 
Tsavo said:
Or, if the plane had really good brakes and tires. Slam on the brakes = instant takeoff! :hmm:
Click to expand...

According to the OP's diagram, if the plane applies the brakes hard, the plane is going to be catapulted BACKWARD. Can a plane take off backward?
 
The book about the Air America airline says that the stall speed of their Pilatus Porter airplanes was 35 mph. If they were on a mountain top and the wind went faster than that they could take off from the wind generated lift.
 
Agent11 said:
Mythbusters have already proven a plane can take off from a treadmill. Whether it would be cost effective though I find doubtfull. Maybe for aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...

You know how I know you weren't really paying attention to that episode?

I was kinda hoping OP would be about EM catapults or giant slingshots or something. Troll Physics is so fucking 2010/11.
 
Don't the wings have to have air rushing over them in order to generate lift from underneath the wings? I don't see how moving the wheels going 200 m/hr would generate the air movement over the wings to generate enough lift for the airplane to actually fly.
 
dyel? you've never worked out at one of those crappy planet fitness gyms have you? they usually have a sea of treadmills and some how those things break down constantly. takes forever to get up and running again.
 
GrumpyMan said:
Don't the wings have to have air rushing over them in order to generate lift from underneath the wings? I don't see how moving the wheels going 200 m/hr would generate the air movement over the wings to generate enough lift for the airplane to actually fly.
Click to expand...


DING DING DING YOU WIN!

Well its actaully the low air presure on top of the wing the generates lift

wing.gif
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top