Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
LOL
don't confuse him!
I guess we need a good "sarcasm" smiley.
Usually you use the
or :evil: for that
I guess I am one of the "foolish" who have persuaded themselves that the treadmill can defeat the plane.
I think you're neglecting the effects of rolling resistance (which increases with wheel speed) when coupled with the possibility of an infinite amount of wheel speed (imparted by the belt). No matter how efficient your wheel bearings are, there is always some drag. With enough speed on the conveyor, the backwards drag from the wheels' rolling resistance will overcome the thrust from the jet's engines.
That's what you get when you're given a hypothetical situation where one object has no boundaries while the other one does. It's sort of like asking if ants could tow an aircraft carrier if you had unlimited ants. Sure they could. Ants can pull some non-zero amount of weight, and when you combine that with no limit to the amount of ants, they can't be stopped.
In our situation above we have a very minor influence like rolling resistance fighting against immensely powerful jet engines. But the person who posed the question made the engines limited in power, while they gave the belt no limitations whatsoever. So it's easy to see that given that scenario, you can easily make a minor factor like rolling resistance overcome the power of the engines by dragging the belt speed up towards infinity.
That's a lot of resistance!!!
The treadmill only travels as fast as the plane is moving...its not going to be enough to keep the plane from taking off
If you mean that the belt can only go as fast as the plane is moving, but in the opposite direction, then I totally agree with you- they wouldn't stop the plane. Instead of the tires spinning at 170 mph which is a normal takeoff speed, they'd be spinning at 340 mph.
I took it as asking if you can prevent the plane from taking off by spinning the belt faster and faster. In that case you could.
Theoretically...you have to realize you would also have to find motors that could spin a treadmill as fast as was needed....
I know, I know... it does get ridiculous pretty fast. Let's just say that the treadmill is powered by Duke Nukem Forever after drinking some cold fusion energy drink.
This thread is still going?
I say it doesn't take off.
Why?
Because the OP said that there is no airflow over the wing. That may break the law of physics, but as it is this is just a hypothetical question anyway.
No airflow = no takeoff
Whatever or how there is no airflow I guess doesn't matter in this case.
Somone should have just posted that and ended this useless piece of crap thread.
I say it doesn't take off.
Why?
Because the OP said that there is no airflow over the wing. That may break the law of physics, but as it is this is just a hypothetical question anyway.
No airflow = no takeoff
Whatever or how there is no airflow I guess doesn't matter in this case.
Somone should have just posted that and ended this useless piece of crap thread.
reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours eh?
"but the source of thrust is at the back of the plane so it never provides airflow over the wing. " - AKA the engines do not blow air over the wings
MBrown
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2001
- 5,726
- 35
- 91
Originally posted by: 1prophet
If it's a Harrier would it take off?
Nope. From the OP the thrust would be generated from the back. The harrier has swivle nozles that point downward for it to take off. Even when a harrier does hover it's not actually in flight because there are still no air going over the wings.
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours eh?
"but the source of thrust is at the back of the plane so it never provides airflow over the wing. " - AKA the engines do not blow air over the wings
SHUTUP....this thread needs to die!
JujuFish
Lifer
- Feb 3, 2005
- 11,454
- 1,057
- 136
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours eh?
"but the source of thrust is at the back of the plane so it never provides airflow over the wing. " - AKA the engines do not blow air over the wings
SHUTUP....this thread needs to die!
O RLY?
I can't believe this thread is still alive. I argued with my friend about this like a month ago. He's in training to be a pilot and for some reason he thinks it wouldn't move. I told him he's an idiot and there is no way that a conveyor is going to have any noticable effect on an airplane taking off.
When I first thought about the problem I thought it wouldn't move either, but the wheels really have nothing to do with the propulsion or velocity of an airplane.
When I first thought about the problem I thought it wouldn't move either, but the wheels really have nothing to do with the propulsion or velocity of an airplane.
this is the correct answer and should close this thread. Please do not extend this thread past 1000
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
LOL
don't confuse him!
I guess we need a good "sarcasm" smiley.
Best sarcasm smiley ever: http://pages.infinit.net/bluefire/Images/bustedwinkv2.gif
for the resistance to be sufficient enough to overpower the engine(s) the tires would need to be speeding thousands of miles per hour(unless you have ungreased/unlubed bearings, or if the tires were really small in diameter). To go this fast without the tire surfaces burning up you would need a tire made up of a different material other than rubber. Most metals wouldn't last at the speed needed either(unless maybe the treadmill contact surface was perhaps cotton or something that didn't create a lot of heat when rubbing against metal).
Incorrect.
The problem is in the language of the hypothetical situation:
If we interpret that the plane wheels' velocity is matched by the conveyor belt counter-velocity, with the wheels having 100% static friction (and 0% inertial friction) on the treadmill surface, then we conclude the plane will never move. We may derive this from the fact that most conveyor belts have their own power source, and that the conveyor belt acceleration is a perfect curve (not delayed) to the plane wheels' acceleration curve. Any backwards force the plane wheels are applying to the belt is equaled by a forward force the belt is applying to the wheels.
If we interpret that the forward force of the plane engine causes the plane wheels to move, and the force of the plane wheels is what is causing the conveyor belt to move in the opposite direction, then we conclude the plane will move ever so slightly (in agreement with action force <--> equal opposite reaction force), and with enough conveyor belt runway length, the plane will eventually reach a ground speed fast enough to achieve enough airflow to provide lift.
Seriously those of you that says NO are total fvcken dumbasses, I can't believe it took 32+ pages just to discuss this
THE FVCKEN PLANE TAKES OFF
if you read the damn link and still don't understand, god you're freakin retarded
Text
READING COMPREHENSION FTW.
Okay so a plane is moving forward on a treadmill going backwards at the same rate as the wheels moving forward, a plane uses its JET ENGINES for propulsion, so WHO GIVES A SH@T about the wheels moving backwards? The plane pushes itself with its engines, the wheels are just there so the fvcken plane doesnt explode due to friction.
Read the damn article!
THE FVCKEN PLANE TAKES OFF
if you read the damn link and still don't understand, god you're freakin retarded
Text
READING COMPREHENSION FTW.
Okay so a plane is moving forward on a treadmill going backwards at the same rate as the wheels moving forward, a plane uses its JET ENGINES for propulsion, so WHO GIVES A SH@T about the wheels moving backwards? The plane pushes itself with its engines, the wheels are just there so the fvcken plane doesnt explode due to friction.
Read the damn article!
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
The plane doesn't move forward relative to the air around it. So it cannot take off.
Man that was soooooo hard.
Man that was soooooo hard.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter