• 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.

Will the plane take off v.2?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OP: DIAF for bringing this up again.

The mechanics and physics haven't changed, water or treadmill. Same / Same.

The plane take off.

 
Originally posted by: ScottMac
OP: DIAF for bringing this up again.

The mechanics and physics haven't changed, water or treadmill. Same / Same.

The plane take off.

You're wrong.

In the water case, you're dragging the pontoons against the water. The faster the current, the more skin friction against the pontoons, requiring more force to take off.

In the treadmill case, the friction force on the airplane from the wheels is NOT dependent on the speed of the wheels.

In this case, though, the question is "how fast is the current" because whether or not it will take off depends on this. In the treadmill case, the speed is not relevant.

<--- Professional aerodynamicist for major airplane manufacturer
 
Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Originally posted by: ScottMac
OP: DIAF for bringing this up again.

The mechanics and physics haven't changed, water or treadmill. Same / Same.

The plane take off.

You're wrong.

In the water case, you're dragging the pontoons against the water. The faster the current, the more skin friction against the pontoons, requiring more force to take off.

In the treadmill case, the friction force on the airplane from the wheels is NOT dependent on the speed of the wheels.

In this case, though, the question is "how fast is the current" because whether or not it will take off depends on this. In the treadmill case, the speed is not relevant.

<--- Professional aerodynamicist for major airplane manufacturer

Time to find another job!!!!!

Muthbuster is going to do the plane on a threadmill story in December I believe.
 
Originally posted by: Number1
Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Originally posted by: ScottMac
OP: DIAF for bringing this up again.

The mechanics and physics haven't changed, water or treadmill. Same / Same.

The plane take off.

You're wrong.

In the water case, you're dragging the pontoons against the water. The faster the current, the more skin friction against the pontoons, requiring more force to take off.

In the treadmill case, the friction force on the airplane from the wheels is NOT dependent on the speed of the wheels.

In this case, though, the question is "how fast is the current" because whether or not it will take off depends on this. In the treadmill case, the speed is not relevant.

<--- Professional aerodynamicist for major airplane manufacturer

Time to find another job!!!!!

Muthbuster is going to do the plane on a threadmill story in December I believe.

Sorry, Mythbusters are stupid.
 
Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Originally posted by: Number1
Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Originally posted by: ScottMac
OP: DIAF for bringing this up again.

The mechanics and physics haven't changed, water or treadmill. Same / Same.

The plane take off.

You're wrong.

In the water case, you're dragging the pontoons against the water. The faster the current, the more skin friction against the pontoons, requiring more force to take off.

In the treadmill case, the friction force on the airplane from the wheels is NOT dependent on the speed of the wheels.

In this case, though, the question is "how fast is the current" because whether or not it will take off depends on this. In the treadmill case, the speed is not relevant.

<--- Professional aerodynamicist for major airplane manufacturer

Time to find another job!!!!!

Muthbuster is going to do the plane on a threadmill story in December I believe.

Sorry, Mythbusters are stupid.

I find the show quite entertaining.
 
Originally posted by: Number1
Time to find another job!!!!!

Muthbuster is going to do the plane on a threadmill story in December I believe.
No, he's right. The pontoons are directly connected to the airplane, and any force that affects them will affect the entire aircraft.

<--- Cartographer
 
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: Number1
Time to find another job!!!!!

Muthbuster is going to do the plane on a threadmill story in December I believe.
No, he's right. The pontoons are directly connected to the airplane, and any force that affects them will affect the entire aircraft.

<--- Cartographer

On second tought, he might be right. A current strong enough might generate enough friction to stop the plane.

<---Radio Technician
 
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
If Mythbusters do this I hope they blow the plane up at the end for no scientific reason.

They also need an excuse to have Kari Byron in a skimpy swimsuit. Maybe they should sink it and make her recover the blackbox or something.

Already done.

http://www.loveredheads.com/wp...6/08/kari_byron_02.jpg (SFW)
http://saturn5.com/darwin/beef...adio_belly_800x600.jpg (SFW)
http://saturn5.com/darwin/beef...adio_smile_800x600.jpg (SFW)
 
Originally posted by: Ctrackstar126
I feel bad for the random people who come and read the forums. For people who dont know the history these threads would just be a big WTF. Actually I know the history and its still a WTF

QFT
 
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
If Mythbusters do this I hope they blow the plane up at the end for no scientific reason.

They also need an excuse to have Kari Byron in a skimpy swimsuit. Maybe they should sink it and make her recover the blackbox or something.

Already done.

http://www.loveredheads.com/wp...6/08/kari_byron_02.jpg (SFW)
http://saturn5.com/darwin/beef...adio_belly_800x600.jpg (SFW)
http://saturn5.com/darwin/beef...adio_smile_800x600.jpg (SFW)

n00dz?

2nd and 3rd linkz need teh fix.

*FAP* *FAP* *FAP*
 
Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Originally posted by: ScottMac
OP: DIAF for bringing this up again.

The mechanics and physics haven't changed, water or treadmill. Same / Same.

The plane take off.

You're wrong.

In the water case, you're dragging the pontoons against the water. The faster the current, the more skin friction against the pontoons, requiring more force to take off.

In the treadmill case, the friction force on the airplane from the wheels is NOT dependent on the speed of the wheels.

In this case, though, the question is "how fast is the current" because whether or not it will take off depends on this. In the treadmill case, the speed is not relevant.

<--- Professional aerodynamicist for major airplane manufacturer
Coefficient of friction was never defined in the original problem, nor was the geometry of the pontoons. For all we know the water could be in a super-fluid state.

 
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: Number1
Time to find another job!!!!!

Muthbuster is going to do the plane on a threadmill story in December I believe.
No, he's right. The pontoons are directly connected to the airplane, and any force that affects them will affect the entire aircraft.

<--- Cartographer

Don't know what kind of a plane you fly on but everyone i have the wheels are directly connected to the plane.
 
Another issue is that as the plane gains speed, some lift will be created slightly raising the pontoons in the water. This will reduce pontoon/water contact and reduce friction, allowing the plane to gain more speed. Most likely the plane will take off, but there are too many undefined variables to know.
 
Depends if it can attain necessary relative speed to take off, EXACT same question (and just as stupid/useless) and answer as the treadmill, regardless of how you want interpret the friction.

A treadmill and a current would both force a "thrust less" plane backward.

The question is not definitively answerable, but it can be interpreted and clarified.
 
Back
Top