You have a plane and a conveyor belt.

[mugs]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: Evadman
I am done with this thread. I am beginning to understand why Japan schooling is better than the system in the U.S. This is just sad.

My last comment:
The plane takes off. Everyone who thinks it doesn't, please think about the difference between how a car and person produce thrust (tire pusing against the ground, feet pusing against the ground) and how a plane produces thust (propeller or jet pushing against the air). Once you undertand the difference between those, then you will undertand why the plane takes off. Heck, the pilot probably wouldn't even notice if the runway started moving backwards.

Wrong. Actually the pilot will notice that either his airspeed indicator is broken or that he might've entered the twilight zone because he looks like he's going so fast but there's absolutely no resistance to his controls.

As for your comment on Japanese schooling, I am Japanese myself so I don't know what you're talking about.

Well at least you proved him wrong on the Japan thing.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: alien42
here is an analogy from me:

put your car on a dyno and drive as fast as you can with a balsa wood toy plane out the window. when you let go of the plane it will fall straight down because there is no airflow.

Ok, one more post.
Tie an F15 down on that Dyno. Spool up to full afterburner thrust. How many HP does your dyno read?

0 nada none zilch.
No horsepower at the wheels. But yet an F15 can clearly takeoff.

Why?
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T USE THE WHEELS TO ACCELERATE.

of course the wheels arent used to accelerate but the entire issue here is airflow on the wing to produce thrust and the wheels have nothing to do with it. the F15 can not take off without airflow over the wings. in my analogy the balso toy plane has nothing to do with the wheels of the car.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: alien42
here is an analogy from me:

put your car on a dyno and drive as fast as you can with a balsa wood toy plane out the window. when you let go of the plane it will fall straight down because there is no airflow.

How about putting the non-driving wheels of your car on a dyno and see what happens when you hit the gas. The car will move. Why? Because there is nothing acting against the force that actually moves it! It doesn't matter what happens to the plane's wheels, the wheels don't move the plane.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: Evadman
I am done with this thread. I am beginning to understand why Japan schooling is better than the system in the U.S. This is just sad.

My last comment:
The plane takes off. Everyone who thinks it doesn't, please think about the difference between how a car and person produce thrust (tire pusing against the ground, feet pusing against the ground) and how a plane produces thust (propeller or jet pushing against the air). Once you undertand the difference between those, then you will undertand why the plane takes off. Heck, the pilot probably wouldn't even notice if the runway started moving backwards.

Wrong. Actually the pilot will notice that either his airspeed indicator is broken or that he might've entered the twilight zone because he looks like he's going so fast but there's absolutely no resistance to his controls.

As for your comment on Japanese schooling, I am Japanese myself so I don't know what you're talking about.

Well at least you proved him wrong on the Japan thing.

So you're saying that in that above example, the plane would take off as usual? If so...wow.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

i would think that would have to do with a car having the power from the engines converted directly to the wheels. on a plane the wheels arent powered and roll freely. i would guess that if you had a car with free rolling wheels and a small jet engine mounted on the trunk, the car wouldnt have any trouble driving in a straight line, either.

as far as this op, he clearly states there is no airflow over the wing. the wings have to move in relation to the air, so if the plane is stationary, where does the airflow over the wings to provide lift come from? the wings do not move forward.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: alien42
here is an analogy from me:

put your car on a dyno and drive as fast as you can with a balsa wood toy plane out the window. when you let go of the plane it will fall straight down because there is no airflow.

FTW

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: alien42
here is an analogy from me:

put your car on a dyno and drive as fast as you can with a balsa wood toy plane out the window. when you let go of the plane it will fall straight down because there is no airflow.

Ok, one more post.
Tie an F15 down on that Dyno. Spool up to full afterburner thrust. How many HP does your dyno read?

0 nada none zilch.
No horsepower at the wheels. But yet an F15 can clearly takeoff.

Why?
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T USE THE WHEELS TO ACCELERATE.

of course the wheels arent used to accelerate but the entire issue here is airflow on the wing to produce thrust and the wheels have nothing to do with it. the F15 can not take off without airflow over the wings.

And what makes you think there is no airflow over the wings. There is nothing keeping the plane stationary.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

He hee... FeuerFrei is retarded.

Dude, the wheels are on ball bearings... The wheels will just be spinning at the air speed of the plane plus the opposite speed of the conveyer, even though the plane will be moving forward at the same rate as if it was on a runway. Of course the conveyer will slow it down somewhat, since the wheel bearings will have some friction associated with them, but the plane will still be travelling forward. Think about it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: mugs
MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!

Yes it will take off, it has been discussed ad infinitum in another thread.

Actually this is a little different and plenty more precise

There was nothing wrong with the wording in the previous thread. This is basically the same thread with the same retarded arguments.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

i would think that would have to do with a car having the power from the engines converted directly to the wheels. on a plane the wheels arent powered and roll freely. i would guess that if you had a car with free rolling wheels and a small jet engine mounted on the trunk, the car wouldnt have any trouble driving in a straight line, either.

as far as this op, he clearly states there is no airflow over the wing. the wings have to move in relation to the air, so if the plane is stationary, where does the airflow over the wings to provide lift come from? the wings do not move forward.

You answered your own question. The wheels roll freely, hence the plane can take off, no matter how fast this conveyor is moving.

 

[InlineFour]

The belt compensates for the rotation of the wheels in reverse, as in the belt moves in reverse exactly as fast as the wheels move forward.

even if the plane would have enough power to push it faster, the conveyor belt will just increase its speed, thus the plane will remian stationary, or am i reading the question wrong?

i think the question is a little vague. basically, no headwind for lift = no take off.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

i would think that would have to do with a car having the power from the engines converted directly to the wheels. on a plane the wheels arent powered and roll freely. i would guess that if you had a car with free rolling wheels and a small jet engine mounted on the trunk, the car wouldnt have any trouble driving in a straight line, either.

as far as this op, he clearly states there is no airflow over the wing. the wings have to move in relation to the air, so if the plane is stationary, where does the airflow over the wings to provide lift come from? the wings do not move forward.

Do you think that the wings and vertical stabilitizers have absolutely no effect until the aircraft takes off or yes?

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: alien42
here is an analogy from me:

put your car on a dyno and drive as fast as you can with a balsa wood toy plane out the window. when you let go of the plane it will fall straight down because there is no airflow.

Ok, one more post.
Tie an F15 down on that Dyno. Spool up to full afterburner thrust. How many HP does your dyno read?

0 nada none zilch.
No horsepower at the wheels. But yet an F15 can clearly takeoff.

Why?
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T USE THE WHEELS TO ACCELERATE.

of course the wheels arent used to accelerate but the entire issue here is airflow on the wing to produce thrust and the wheels have nothing to do with it. the F15 can not take off without airflow over the wings.

And what makes you think there is no airflow over the wings. There is nothing keeping the plane stationary.

in the original post the conveyor belt is keeping the plane stationary

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

You might want to be careful with what you say. I'm sure you'd feel ridiculous if you realized you were wrong after all that.

The belt does not care what the source of propulsion is, a car would behave the same way on that belt. The belt just senses rotation of the wheels and compensates for this, regardless of what force is rotating them. If the wheel cannot rotate faster than the belt is moving backwards, the wheel would effectively be stationary to the world around it. Because the plane is attached to it's wheels, the plane would likewise remain in the same spot.

A loss of traction would be required for the plane to take off.

 

[Number1]

Plane stopped = wheel speed 0 = treadmill speed 0

Plane MOVING at 5 MPH = treadmill 5 MPH backward = wheel speed 10MPH.

Notice the emphasis on the word MOVING. The plane IS moving forward; therefore it is generating air flow around the wing. Once it is moving fast enough it will take off.

 

[maziwanka]

wow. the discussion in this thread (and the previous one) needs to end. everyone is sticking to their guns and there needs to be some kind of live demo for there to be proof one way or the other...

(i believe the plane won't take off - im not sure what the argument about the wheels not accelerating the plane is about; the fact (?) is that there is no air flow over the wings in this situation)...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: alien42
here is an analogy from me:

put your car on a dyno and drive as fast as you can with a balsa wood toy plane out the window. when you let go of the plane it will fall straight down because there is no airflow.

Ok, one more post.
Tie an F15 down on that Dyno. Spool up to full afterburner thrust. How many HP does your dyno read?

0 nada none zilch.
No horsepower at the wheels. But yet an F15 can clearly takeoff.

Why?
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T USE THE WHEELS TO ACCELERATE.

of course the wheels arent used to accelerate but the entire issue here is airflow on the wing to produce thrust and the wheels have nothing to do with it. the F15 can not take off without airflow over the wings.

And what makes you think there is no airflow over the wings. There is nothing keeping the plane stationary.

in the original post the conveyor belt is keeping the plane stationary

No it doesn't, read it again. It says the conveyor belt rotates at the same speed as the wheels in the opposite direction. What makes you think that will keep the plane stationary?

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

You might want to be careful with what you say. I'm sure you'd feel ridiculous if you realized you were wrong after all that.

The belt does not care what the source of propulsion is, a car would behave the same way on that belt. The belt just senses rotation of the wheels and compensates for this, regardless of what force is rotating them. If the wheel cannot rotate faster than the belt is moving backwards, the wheel would effectively be stationary to the world around it. Because the plane is attached to it's wheels, the plane would likewise remain in the same spot.

A loss of traction would be required for the plane to take off.

THINK!!!!

Assume the wheels offer 0 friction... The wheels will just spin at some insane speed (airspeed of plane plus speed of conveyor), but the plane will move forward.

Since the wheels offer zero friction the wheels will just continue to roll at an increasing speed until the plane took off.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

i would think that would have to do with a car having the power from the engines converted directly to the wheels. on a plane the wheels arent powered and roll freely. i would guess that if you had a car with free rolling wheels and a small jet engine mounted on the trunk, the car wouldnt have any trouble driving in a straight line, either.

as far as this op, he clearly states there is no airflow over the wing. the wings have to move in relation to the air, so if the plane is stationary, where does the airflow over the wings to provide lift come from? the wings do not move forward.

You answered your own question. The wheels roll freely, hence the plane can take off, no matter how fast this conveyor is moving.

yes, but the wheels provide motion relative to the ground, moving the plane and wings through the air. the conveyor belt negates that motion, and the plane doesnt move forward, so where does the airflow required for the wings to lift come from?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: maziwanka
wow. the discussion in this thread (and the previous one) needs to end. everyone is sticking to their guns and there needs to be some kind of live demo for there to be proof one way or the other...

Actually, if you read the other thread most of the people who were wrong ended up changing their mind when it was explained to them. There is no need for a live demo, just an understanding of physics.

(i believe the plane won't take off - im not sure what the argument about the wheels not accelerating the plane is about; the fact (?) is that there is no air flow over the wings in this situation)...

That is not a fact, that is an assumption.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Number1
Plane stopped = wheel speed 0 = treadmill speed 0

Plane MOVING at 5 MPH = treadmill 5 MPH backward = wheel speed 10MPH.

Notice the emphasis on the word MOVING. The plane IS moving forward; therefore it is generating air flow around the wing. Once it is moving fast enough it will take off.

5mph one way negated by 5mph the other way means the plane is not moving

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

You might want to be careful with what you say. I'm sure you'd feel ridiculous if you realized you were wrong after all that.

The belt does not care what the source of propulsion is, a car would behave the same way on that belt. The belt just senses rotation of the wheels and compensates for this, regardless of what force is rotating them. If the wheel cannot rotate faster than the belt is moving backwards, the wheel would effectively be stationary to the world around it. Because the plane is attached to it's wheels, the plane would likewise remain in the same spot.

A loss of traction would be required for the plane to take off.

The reason I won't feel ridiculous is because I am 100% correct.

Imagine this. Bush pilots airplanes right on sleds, not wheels. Sleds do not rotate, and are in effect "stationary." Guess what, these planes still take off.

The only thing wheels do for an airplane is provide an interface to the ground so the plane is not rubbing its belly (simplified for takeoff only, and I know thats not the only purpose when it comes to landing, but we are talking takeoff).

As long as the wheels are not literally clamped to the ground, it doesnt matter how fast the ground is moving, the wheels will just turn at incredible speeds while the plane moves through the air.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

You might want to be careful with what you say. I'm sure you'd feel ridiculous if you realized you were wrong after all that.

The belt does not care what the source of propulsion is, a car would behave the same way on that belt. The belt just senses rotation of the wheels and compensates for this, regardless of what force is rotating them. If the wheel cannot rotate faster than the belt is moving backwards, the wheel would effectively be stationary to the world around it. Because the plane is attached to it's wheels, the plane would likewise remain in the same spot.

A loss of traction would be required for the plane to take off.

THINK!!!!

Assume the wheels offer 0 friction... The wheels will just spin at some insane speed (airspeed of plane plus speed of conveyor), but the plane will move forward.

hahaha. i love when you have ppl calling other ppl in the thread "fvcking morons," when they in fact have totally misinterpreted the situation. this is the definition of "PWNED"

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: PowerMacG5

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
You freaks who somehow convinced yourself it would take off need to go back and read the OP. The conveyor is moving backwards while the plane rolls forward, COMPLETELY NEGATING any forward progress the plane would make. The conveyor would speed up to match the increasing thrust of the plane and thus the motion of the plane would be imperceptible and airspeed would = 0. Basically, the plane is static in airspace and the ground is moving beneath it... that is all.

This thread is not for arguing whether a plane could take off on a conveyor belt, PERIOD. Naturally a plane would eventually accellerate enought to achieve airspeed (if the conveyor stayed at a constant pace) it would just take longer to launch.

Ok, you are an idiot. The plane does not use it's wheels for motion.

Assuming the plane has get engines:
It uses the jet engines. The jets do not give a fvck what the ground is doing. With a plane, you have to realize there are basically two roads. The ground and the air. Your car is moving using the ground, the plane the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. If you still feel you are correct, think of it this way. A car cannot drive well on the ice, but a plane can take off perfectly fine, traveling in a perfectly straight line.

If you don't believe me, then you are a fvcking moron who will get no where in life because he doesn't understand a basic thing. I am sick of all these morons here not understanding basic physics.

i would think that would have to do with a car having the power from the engines converted directly to the wheels. on a plane the wheels arent powered and roll freely. i would guess that if you had a car with free rolling wheels and a small jet engine mounted on the trunk, the car wouldnt have any trouble driving in a straight line, either.

as far as this op, he clearly states there is no airflow over the wing. the wings have to move in relation to the air, so if the plane is stationary, where does the airflow over the wings to provide lift come from? the wings do not move forward.

You answered your own question. The wheels roll freely, hence the plane can take off, no matter how fast this conveyor is moving.

yes, but the wheels provide motion relative to the ground, moving the plane and wings through the air. the conveyor belt negates that motion, and the plane doesnt move forward, so where does the airflow required for the wings to lift come from?

The airplane does not rely on motion relative to ground. It relies on motion relative to the air. The jets push on the air, not the ground. Therefore, I could do whatever I want to the ground, and if the jet sticks to its guns directing itself with the jet thrust in one direction, it will take off.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Number1
Plane stopped = wheel speed 0 = treadmill speed 0

Plane MOVING at 5 MPH = treadmill 5 MPH backward = wheel speed 10MPH.

Notice the emphasis on the word MOVING. The plane IS moving forward; therefore it is generating air flow around the wing. Once it is moving fast enough it will take off.

5mph one way negated by 5mph the other way means the plane is not moving

Where did the speed go? The only way to have the treadmill moving is to have the plane move forward.