PDA

View Full Version : For all you smartie pants' or engineers



tcook33
12-13-2005, 07:06 AM
On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?

Freak
12-13-2005, 07:13 AM
The premise of the question is wrong. The plane uses the air not the ground.

HOSS
12-13-2005, 07:17 AM
Freak is correct. But to answer the question,,,,no. There will never be enough lift created by airflow on the wings. Now a rocket yes. Thrust is a must. :cool:

Forkin' Crazy
12-13-2005, 07:19 AM
The premise of the question is wrong. The plane uses the air not the ground.
It is called "relative wind". On the other hand, the wheels of the plane would be spinning twice as fast as on a normal take off. :cool:

tcook33
12-13-2005, 07:22 AM
The premise of the question is wrong. The plane uses the air not the ground.
There is nothing wrong with the question.....there IS an answer.

havaduner
12-13-2005, 07:32 AM
It doesnt matter how fast the conveyor spins the wheels. The plane needs to achieve enough ground speed to achieve lift, then it becomes airspeed. If the plane moves forward fast enough, it will lift.

HOSS
12-13-2005, 07:37 AM
NO again. Only reaso I say a rocket is for the plain simple reason that a conveyor will never keep up with thrust. But on paper even a rocket wouldn`t fly. The conveyor would counter any thrust and forward movement resulting in ,,,well,,,nothing but burning fuel.

bigblockbill
12-13-2005, 07:44 AM
Wait... you guys are all thinking car talk. The plane WILL take off. The conveyor will be spinning the wheels twice as fast as normal, but the thrust will propel the plane through the air just fine. A car with the wheels being the driving force will just sit there and not move.

tcook33
12-13-2005, 07:49 AM
Wait... you guys are all thinking car talk. The plane WILL take off. The conveyor will be spinning the wheels twice as fast as normal, but the thrust will propel the plane through the air just fine. A car with the wheels being the driving force will just sit there and not move.
Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. An airplane is driven by the jets in the air, not wheel driven. The conveyor has zero to do with what's going on in the AIR. The wheels will spin twice as fast and will take off just fine (assuming the bearings can handle the rotations).

bigblockbill
12-13-2005, 07:55 AM
Thats a good one... already got a couple people here at work with it.

Freak
12-13-2005, 08:05 AM
Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. An airplane is driven by the jets in the air, not wheel driven. The conveyor has zero to do with what's going on in the AIR. The wheels will spin twice as fast and will take off just fine (assuming the bearings can handle the rotations).
I understand it will take off but like I said the question is wrong.

tcook33
12-13-2005, 08:19 AM
What air? If the plane is heading in one direction and the conveyor in another at the same speed how is the plane moving anywhere to create air speed?
Beacuse the wheels have zero to do with the planes air speed. The wheels are just a support for the air frame.
Think about it like this. Get on a tradmill with rollerblades on. Now grab the bars next to you and pull yourself forward. Even if the treadmill sped up to match your forward momentum speed, you would still move forward. The wheels would just spin twice as fast.
How about a submarine at the ocean floor. For conversations sake, lets just say a sub had wheels on it's bottom. The ocean floor has zero to do with the speed of the sub. The sub moves through the water.

tcook33
12-13-2005, 08:20 AM
I understand it will take off but like I said the question is wrong.
Why is the question wrong?

Cs19
12-13-2005, 09:14 AM
I think the plane should reach the same speed on the runway since the plane reaches its take off speed from the thrust of the props or jets.
The wheels will have double the amount of wheel speed so I'm thinking that could create a problem..Tire or bearing failure? Excessive drag from the wheel speed being doubled could keep the plane from hitting its take off speed? Tire failure?

Cs19
12-13-2005, 09:16 AM
The question is fine,maybe just worded a little weird.

tcook33
12-13-2005, 09:45 AM
The answer should create more debate than the question though.

DelawareDave
12-13-2005, 10:04 AM
The question is theoretical. The plane will take off regardless of ground speed, provided the engine's thrust overcomes the weight and drag, and gain sufficient airspeed. If you were to take a big enough fan, and blow air at the front of the plane fast enough, even if the plane were tied to prevent it moving backwards, it would still lift off the ground, due to airspeed. This is why airports are designed with the main runway facing the prevailing wind direction. Aircraft carriers also face into the wind, and increase their speed, during launch/recovery. This gives the aircraft an airspeed advantage.

ParkerSteve
12-13-2005, 10:22 AM
NO NO NO No airspeed No takeoff Remember takesoffs are optional...Landings are manditory steve

Jbb
12-13-2005, 10:24 AM
The question is theoretical. The plane will take off regardless of ground speed, provided the engine's thrust overcomes the weight and drag, and gain sufficient airspeed. If you were to take a big enough fan, and blow air at the front of the plane fast enough, even if the plane were tied to prevent it moving backwards, it would still lift off the ground, due to airspeed. This is why airports are designed with the main runway facing the prevailing wind direction. Aircraft carriers also face into the wind, and increase their speed, during launch/recovery. This gives the aircraft an airspeed advantage.
If the wing is symetrical.....it wont go anywhere without control input to the elevators.....flat bottom ...maybe....

HocusPocus
12-13-2005, 10:27 AM
the question didn't mention what type of plane it was.. :)
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Global/9/9A8E1047-CD6F-4A13-8B32-CD1B09FF8BF7/0/chp_harrier.jpg
this Harrier Jump Jet Plane wouldn't have a problem at all.

Tom Brown
12-13-2005, 10:28 AM
It is called "relative wind". On the other hand, the wheels of the plane would be spinning twice as fast as on a normal take off. :cool:
The spinner hubcaps on the landing gear will cause massive vorticies under the wings, reducing lift, and increasing the takeoff speed significantly.

lucky
12-13-2005, 10:31 AM
if a 747 was traveling at 30,000 feet with a full load of fuel and 120 passangers heading north / north west and a norther cold front caused the plane to crash on the exsact center of the us / canadian border both countries sent emergency crews to help -- which side of the border would they burry the survivors , canada or us ???

Jbb
12-13-2005, 10:31 AM
The spinner hubcaps on the landing gear will cause massive vorticies under the wings, reducing lift, and increasing the takeoff speed significantly.
Brown thinks ...relative wind is what comes out of his ass.....after a night of beer and burritos......at the Burrito hut...
Dont even ask him what he thinks relative humidity is..... :p

Tom Brown
12-13-2005, 10:31 AM
I always do a GUMP check before shitting.
My take off roll of preference is 2 ply Royale.

Moneypitt
12-13-2005, 10:34 AM
Why would you bury survivors?...................MP

Jbb
12-13-2005, 10:35 AM
I always do a GUMP check before shitting.
My take off roll of preference is 2 ply Royale.
Clear to land!...................... :yuk:

FHI-prez
12-13-2005, 10:37 AM
The question is theoretical. The plane will take off regardless of ground speed, provided the engine's thrust overcomes the weight and drag, and gain sufficient airspeed. If you were to take a big enough fan, and blow air at the front of the plane fast enough, even if the plane were tied to prevent it moving backwards, it would still lift off the ground, due to airspeed. This is why airports are designed with the main runway facing the prevailing wind direction. Aircraft carriers also face into the wind, and increase their speed, during launch/recovery. This gives the aircraft an airspeed advantage.
You are thinking about it too hard. The only difference in the proposed scenario is added drag of faster spinning landing gear. The wheels will turn twice as fast as they normally would, thats all, nothing more. There is no proposed change to aeordynamic theory, or air speed vs. ground speed. The plane would take off almost completely normal as long as the bearings and tires would hold up to spinning at twice it's gps speed. It might take it a second or two longer just because of the added drag of higher wheel rotation. The question is not theoretical, hypethetical yes. There is not a theory in question here.
Nick

Kachina26
12-13-2005, 10:39 AM
I always do a GUMP check before shitting.
My take off roll of preference is 2 ply Royale.
Gas check, Underware check, Magazine check, Poop check
Ok, ready to flush

Tom Brown
12-13-2005, 10:40 AM
The question is not theoretical, hypethetical yes. There is not a theory in question here.
Theory always applies.
Consider yourself demoted to vice prez.

Wet Dream
12-13-2005, 10:40 AM
I wonder how many people are going to try to answer this question not realizing that it has been answered on the first page. So much for your brainstorming ability.

Tom Brown
12-13-2005, 10:46 AM
I wonder what my flight instructor would say if I cited the fast moving conveyor at the local coal mine as a landing option. :idea:

tcook33
12-13-2005, 10:48 AM
You are thinking about it too hard. The only difference in the proposed scenario is added drag of faster spinning landing gear. The wheels will turn twice as fast as they normally would, thats all, nothing more. There is no proposed change to aeordynamic theory, or air speed vs. ground speed. The plane would take off almost completely normal as long as the bearings and tires would hold up to spinning at twice it's gps speed. It might take it a second or two longer just because of the added drag of higher wheel rotation. The question is not theoretical, hypethetical yes. There is not a theory in question here.
Nick
Exactly. The runway would be the same length. Not much changes except the speed of the tires spinning.

Biglue
12-13-2005, 11:00 AM
Alright some one call MYTHBUSTERS.

Jbb
12-13-2005, 11:02 AM
I wonder what my flight instructor would say if I cited the fast moving conveyor at the local coal mine as a landing option. :idea:
''He would say what you hear daily on these here boards......Brown ...you disgust me.....and stop playing with yourself.... :p

Tom Brown
12-13-2005, 11:05 AM
I try to meet him half way by always bringing things to a close before final.

Jbb
12-13-2005, 11:24 AM
I try to meet him half way by always bringing things to a close before final.
Coated windscreen means only one thing...Instrument approach..... :p

AltarGirl
12-13-2005, 11:25 AM
On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?
My head hurts! :confused: :confused:

Chase
12-13-2005, 11:37 AM
Just post a picture of yourself...that will make your head better.........

AltarGirl
12-13-2005, 11:39 AM
Just post a picture of yourself...that will make your head better.........
Gosh will it? :p :p

Chase
12-13-2005, 11:40 AM
Yes...
Yes it will...
And if I remember correctly, a picture of you is well worth the time for you to post it....

AltarGirl
12-13-2005, 11:43 AM
Yes...
Yes it will...
And if I remember correctly, a picture of you is well worth the time for you to post it....
Is that what you remember? :idea:
Ask Rev. Williams, I don't have any here & even if I did, I can't figure this whole posting pics thing out, I'm going to need a refresher class :cool:

Chase
12-13-2005, 11:44 AM
I am shy.... :rolleyes:

AltarGirl
12-13-2005, 11:46 AM
I am shy.... :rolleyes:
LOL! If I can figure this out, I will, only b/c you're right, it is worth the time :D :D

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 11:56 AM
I always do a GUMP check before shitting.
My take off roll of preference is 2 ply Royale.
Try using the Charlie GUMP check... don't want to forget the Cowl Flaps... :D

h2oski2fast
12-13-2005, 12:02 PM
Exactly. The runway would be the same length. Not much changes except the speed of the tires spinning.
You need to explain it better. The thrust is created against the atmosphere, not the ground, therefore would still achieve forwrd momentum. The forward drive is not created from the wheels on the plane.

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 12:07 PM
Alright some one call MYTHBUSTERS.
Anyone got a treadmill??? And we need one of those little rubber band powered balsa airplanes.
We can prove of disprove this right now... :D

Chase
12-13-2005, 12:08 PM
This one is so easy....it was explained in the first page....
Think of an aircraft carrier

JustMVG
12-13-2005, 12:23 PM
If there is no airflow over the the wings, how then would the plane be able to "take off"?

Chase
12-13-2005, 12:25 PM
AIRFLOW!!!...it has nothing to do with the ground...the plane would still have the airspeed to lift off...just that the speed in reference to the conveyer thingy would be twice as great...but that doesn't matter

Old Texan
12-13-2005, 12:26 PM
Check this out: The answer lies within
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191034-1.html

tcook33
12-13-2005, 12:27 PM
You need to explain it better. The thrust is created against the atmosphere, not the ground, therefore would still achieve forwrd momentum. The forward drive is not created from the wheels on the plane.
You need to read better. Go back and read post #9.....

JustMVG
12-13-2005, 12:32 PM
This one is so easy....it was explained in the first page....
Think of an aircraft carrier
An aircraft carrier moves through the water, into the wind, the catapault, propels the aircraft forward, therefore, helping to creat an Airflow over the wing to create lift, an aircraft sitting on a conveyor, may spin the wheels, but won't create the airflow for an aircraft to fly. Unless the conveyor was long enough to create the speed necessary to help create the lift, and if the wheels were not spinning, then flight would be possible. The treadmill/roller blade thing.

tcook33
12-13-2005, 12:35 PM
An aircraft carrier moves through the water, into the wind, the catapault, propels the aircraft forward, therefore, helping to creat an Airflow over the wing to create lift, an aircraft sitting on a conveyor, may spin the wheels, but won't create the airflow for an aircraft to fly. Unless the conveyor was long enough to create the speed necessary to help create the lift, and if the wheels were not spinning, then flight would be possible. The treadmill/roller blade thing.
An aircraft thrusting itself throught the air via propellor or jet WILL create airflow over the wings, regardless of what is happening on the ground....

Chase
12-13-2005, 12:37 PM
I understand the original question....so I am done posting here... :mad: :argue:

ROZ
12-13-2005, 12:43 PM
On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?
yes

Wet Dream
12-13-2005, 12:44 PM
Idiots :220v:

riverroyal
12-13-2005, 12:47 PM
yes
if its sitting still how does it get lift?Unless its a one of those military planes the can take off vertical,which uses thrust to rise....If a plane needs 150mph of speed to get wing lift,but theres a huricane blowing 150mph tail wind would it fly? Dont think so

lucky
12-13-2005, 12:48 PM
boy if that control system broke - would be a hoot to watch

FHI-prez
12-13-2005, 12:49 PM
Theory always applies.
Consider yourself demoted to vice prez.
You are too late, I got demoted YEARS ago. :p

FHI-prez
12-13-2005, 12:51 PM
boy if that control system broke - would be a hoot to watch
Not as funny as it would be if someone parked a truck on the conveyor belt up runway :skull:

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 12:54 PM
if its sitting still how does it get lift?Unless its a one of those military planes the can take off vertical,which uses thrust to rise....If a plane needs 150mph of speed to get wing lift,but theres a huricane blowing 150mph tail wind would it fly? Dont think so
Acutally it would... given a long enough area to reach 150 mph.
Airplanes are acted on, and are part of, the airmass around them. Speed over the ground has nothing to do with it... just airspeed.

Chase
12-13-2005, 12:55 PM
if its sitting still how does it get lift?Unless its a one of those military planes the can take off vertical,which uses thrust to rise....If a plane needs 150mph of speed to get wing lift,but theres a huricane blowing 150mph tail wind would it fly? Dont think so
It isn't sitting still...rememebr this conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction of the plane at exactly the same speed...if the plane wasn't moving neither would the conveyor belt.....soooo if you were standing on the ground...beside the conveyor belt, the plane would still be moving at whatever speed it needs to in order to acheive the WINDSPEED to obtain lift..in relation to you

riverroyal
12-13-2005, 12:59 PM
It isn't sitting still...rememebr this conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction of the plane at exactly the same speed...if the plane wasn't moving neither would the conveyor belt.....soooo if you were standing on the ground...beside the conveyor belt, the plane would still be moving at whatever speed it needs to in order to acheive the WINDSPEED to obtain lift..in relation to you
if the plane is moving at 100mph,the belt is moving a 100mph,so the plane isnt advancing forward,only moving on the belt correct?I could stand next to the plane,jets on,wheels spinning,its just standing still,,,correct?

Chase
12-13-2005, 01:01 PM
So if the plane is moving at 100mph it has a windspeed off 100 and a conveyer speed of 200....a little more throttle and he is airborn....

riverroyal
12-13-2005, 01:03 PM
So if the plane is moving at 100mph it has a windspeed off 100 and a conveyer speed of 200....a little more throttle and he is airborn....
the plane be going backwards then?The plane at 200 and the belt at 100 would make the plane advancing at 100 mph

Chase
12-13-2005, 01:04 PM
Phuk It!!!!

lucky
12-13-2005, 01:21 PM
arguing with any one on this site is like putting your ballz in a vice and turning it twice - You know it will cause you pain , but in the end you have bigger ballz
by the way - i say no also - If the belt is traveling the oppisite at the same rate as the plane ( no matter what the speed 0 no foward momentum would be achieved and you would only be relying on prop speed ( if it was a prop plane ) and the prop would not generate enough lift OVER THE WHOLE WING to create lift -- if it was a helicopter instead of a plane , my answer would be yes , but that's a whole nutter thread 1

Rexone
12-13-2005, 01:27 PM
It isn't sitting still...rememebr this conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction of the plane at exactly the same speed...if the plane wasn't moving neither would the conveyor belt.....soooo if you were standing on the ground...beside the conveyor belt, the plane would still be moving at whatever speed it needs to in order to acheive the WINDSPEED to obtain lift..in relation to you
It would be sitting still in relation to the air surrounding the plane though. And airflow over the wing is what creates lift. No lift, no liftoff. And it has nothing to do with ground or wheel speed, only airspeed over the wing.
Consider a power brake on a jet aircraft. If the question posed would create liftoff then a jet would take off from a powerbrake at full thrust (surrounding air is still, just like the conveyor example) which does not occur. Full thrust in itself does not create airflow over the control surfaces, only airflow horizontally out the engines.
Thrust on its own horizontally won't create lift. Thrust vertically (against gravity) as in the case of the Harrier will create lift. A Harrier only moves forward though when enough forward airspeed exists (by angling the jets forward to a degree) to create enough lift to support it in the absense of vertical thrust from the jets. Only then can the jets be aimed aft and not have the plane fall in the dirt.

ROZ
12-13-2005, 01:33 PM
I just farted and generated a little lift :D

Rexone
12-13-2005, 01:35 PM
I just farted and generated a little lift :D
Lifting paint off the wall is a different topic Roz

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 01:51 PM
Some more reading on the subject...
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191034-1.html
As the article states, this argument has been floating around (no pun intended) aviation circle is one form or another for years...

Rexone
12-13-2005, 01:52 PM
I reread post #9. Since the conveyor won't hold the plane back from moving through the air or affect airspeed the plane will takeoff. I should have read the question closer. In any case airspeed over the control surface is required for takeoff in the absence of vertical thrust.

DelawareDave
12-13-2005, 01:55 PM
You are thinking about it too hard. The only difference in the proposed scenario is added drag of faster spinning landing gear. The wheels will turn twice as fast as they normally would, thats all, nothing more. There is no proposed change to aeordynamic theory, or air speed vs. ground speed. The plane would take off almost completely normal as long as the bearings and tires would hold up to spinning at twice it's gps speed. It might take it a second or two longer just because of the added drag of higher wheel rotation. The question is not theoretical, hypethetical yes. There is not a theory in question here.
Nick
Interesting reply. "GPS speed" would have absolutely no bearing on this situation. GPS measures relative speed from point "A" to point "B" by calculating the time it takes to travel a specific distance, in a straight line, and displaying it as MPH. GPS does not take airspeed into account. Aircraft flight is only possible with sufficient airspeed. Airspeed and ground speed are 2 different things.
BTW- Since the original post referred to "smartie pants" types, please take note that if you are going to use "big words", such as HYPOTHETICAL, and AERODYNAMIC, you should at least spell them correctly. :rollside:

Old Texan
12-13-2005, 01:59 PM
Some more reading on the subject...
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191034-1.html
As the article states, this argument has been floating around (no pun intended) aviation circle is one form or another for years...
I refered to this back on post#50.
The momentum of the HB "Think Tank" is carrying them beyond the solution.
Amazing ain't it...... LOL :p :p

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 02:01 PM
I refered to this back on post#50.
The momentum of the HB "Think Tank" is carrying them beyond the solution.
Amazing ain't it...... LOL :p :p
Sorry about that, I missed it. Great minds think alike though, don't they... :D

Freak
12-13-2005, 02:02 PM
We can go on and on about this stuff.
If the plane needed 55mph to take off and that day it had a 30mph tail wind how fast would the plane need to be going to take off?
If the plane was traveling at 55mph and had a 55mph head wind would the plane be moving?

tcook33
12-13-2005, 02:04 PM
if its sitting still how does it get lift?Unless its a one of those military planes the can take off vertical,which uses thrust to rise....If a plane needs 150mph of speed to get wing lift,but theres a huricane blowing 150mph tail wind would it fly? Dont think so
Only if it turned around....or generated enough speed (300 mph) to counteract the 150 tailwind.

Old Texan
12-13-2005, 02:05 PM
Sorry about that, I missed it. Great minds think alike though, don't they... :D
We appear to be alone with the info though.... :p

Old Texan
12-13-2005, 02:07 PM
We can go on and on about this stuff.
If the plane needed 55mph to take off and that day it had a 30mph tail wind how fast would the plane need to be going to take off?
If the plane was traveling at 55mph and had a 55mph head wind would the plane be moving?
Hey I got an idea: Check the link on posts
50 and 71 :p

tcook33
12-13-2005, 02:10 PM
if the plane is moving at 100mph,the belt is moving a 100mph,so the plane isnt advancing forward,only moving on the belt correct?I could stand next to the plane,jets on,wheels spinning,its just standing still,,,correct?
If the plane is moving 100mph, then the plane is moving 100 mph. The belt would be moving 100mph in the opposite direction with the wheels turning at 200mph.

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 02:11 PM
We can go on and on about this stuff.
If the plane needed 55mph to take off and that day it had a 30mph tail wind how fast would the plane need to be going to take off?
55 mph indicated airspeed... or about 85 mph groundspeed
If the plane was traveling at 55mph and had a 55mph head wind would the plane be moving?
Yes, it would be traveling at 55 mph through the air... it's groundspeed would effectively be 0...

tcook33
12-13-2005, 02:12 PM
I reread post #9. Since the conveyor won't hold the plane back from moving through the air or affect airspeed the plane will takeoff. I should have read the question closer. In any case airspeed over the control surface is required for takeoff in the absence of vertical thrust.
Yes sir, this is correct.....

Rexone
12-13-2005, 02:12 PM
If a bear shit in the woods in a 20 mph wind blowing towards another bear and bear #2 was traveling at 20 mph against the wind, 40 miles away directly towards the location of bear #1, would the second bear smell it within an hour?

tcook33
12-13-2005, 02:15 PM
We can go on and on about this stuff.
If the plane needed 55mph to take off and that day it had a 30mph tail wind how fast would the plane need to be going to take off?
If the plane was traveling at 55mph and had a 55mph head wind would the plane be moving?
Ground speed = 85
Air speed = 55
Of course, you said it was traveling at 55mph. The force being generated would be far greater though.

tcook33
12-13-2005, 02:17 PM
If a bear shit in the woods in a 20 mph wind blowing towards another bear and bear #2 was traveling at 20 mph against the wind, 40 miles away directly towards the location of bear #1, would the second bear smell it within an hour?
I say yes. In exactly 1 hour.

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 02:21 PM
Of course, you said it was traveling at 55mph. The force being generated would be far greater though.
No it wouldn't. The force (thrust) needed to pull the airplane through the air at 55 mph is exactly the same no matter which direction the wind is blowing.

Chase
12-13-2005, 02:22 PM
What if the second bear had to stop for a krap..??

ROZ
12-13-2005, 02:24 PM
I say yes. In exactly 1 hour.
That depends on how long this smell lingers. Wait, there's a formula for that :D

Rexone
12-13-2005, 02:26 PM
I say yes. In exactly 1 hour.
So you feel a bear could smell a pile of shit it's 20 miles away from in a 20 mph wind... :)
Your bear should be employed in an airport :D

riverroyal
12-13-2005, 02:31 PM
has gone on all day,I missed as the world turns

tcook33
12-13-2005, 02:32 PM
No it wouldn't. The force (thrust) needed to pull the airplane through the air at 55 mph is exactly the same no matter which direction the wind is blowing.
Well, then the plane wouldn't be traveling. You said the plane is traveling at 55mph. If the plane is at 0 mph, then the plane isn't traveling.

tcook33
12-13-2005, 02:35 PM
So you feel a bear could smell a pile of shit it's 20 miles away from in a 20 mph wind... :)
Your bear should be employed in an airport :D
Now I'm confused.....

ROZ
12-13-2005, 02:36 PM
has gone on all day,I missed as the world turns
Tcook should feel lucky :rolleyes: :D

lucky
12-13-2005, 02:36 PM
If a bear shit in the woods in a 20 mph wind blowing towards another bear and bear #2 was traveling at 20 mph against the wind, 40 miles away directly towards the location of bear #1, would the second bear smell it within an hour?
a bear and a rabbit where sitting by a log taking a shiat , the bear asked if the rabbit if he had a problem with shit sticking to his fur --
rabbit NO
bear picked up the rabbit and wipped his ass :)

riverroyal
12-13-2005, 02:37 PM
Tcook should feel lucky :rolleyes: :D
Oscars?You mention shiat alot today

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 02:40 PM
Well, then the plane wouldn't be traveling. You said the plane is traveling at 55mph. If the plane is at 0 mph, then the plane isn't traveling.
No, you're confusing airspeed and groundspeed. The airplane operates in an airmass. If that airmass is moving, the airplane doesn't care, it's just plugging along at whatever airspeed that thrust and drag allow it to reach.
If the airplane is indicating 55 mph airspeed, and flying into a 55 mph headwind, it's still moving through the air at 55 mph. It's moving accross a point on the ground a 0 mph... so it's groundspeed would be 0.
Even though we arean't going anywhere in relation to the ground, we are still traveling though the air at 55 mph.

ROZ
12-13-2005, 02:42 PM
Oscars?You mention shiat alot today
Shait, today, ,,,, that was yesterday.. Chloe's (next to b of a on rancho santa fe) did me WRONG!
Today was 3 chicken sandwhiches, a large order of fries, and a diet 7up....

riverroyal
12-13-2005, 02:43 PM
Shait, today, ,,,, that was yesterday.. Chloe's (next to b of a on rancho santa fe) did me WRONG!
Today was 3 chicken sandwhiches, a large order of fries, and a diet 7up....
why a diet 7up?kinda seems silly.

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 02:44 PM
If a bear shit in the woods in a 20 mph wind blowing towards another bear and bear #2 was traveling at 20 mph against the wind, 40 miles away directly towards the location of bear #1, would the second bear smell it within an hour?
All I know is that bear shit doesn't stick to rabbit fur... :D

riverroyal
12-13-2005, 02:46 PM
All I know is that bear shit doesn't stick to rabbit fur... :D
without a thumb i doubt the bear could manuver the rabbit to his ass,also with a thumb the bear would be busy jerkin off

lucky
12-13-2005, 02:47 PM
why a diet 7up?kinda seems silly.
more cabonation when ya fart ya get better ground speed - to get to the crapper faster .. man you newbies need to learn about diner diving - and it gas travels faster than shiat ...

tcook33
12-13-2005, 02:48 PM
No, you're confusing airspeed and groundspeed. The airplane operates in an airmass. If that airmass is moving, the airplane doesn't care, it's just plugging along at whatever airspeed that thrust and drag allow it to reach.
If the airplane is indicating 55 mph airspeed, and flying into a 55 mph headwind, it's still moving through the air at 55 mph. It's moving accross a point on the ground a 0 mph... so it's groundspeed would be 0.
Even though we arean't going anywhere in relation to the ground, we are still traveling though the air at 55 mph.
So I misunderstood the question then. I understand how airspeed and groundspeed are different. I just interpreted the question as the plane was traveling...meaning, moving in relation to the ground. The question never said the plane was on the ground or in the air...... :D :D

ROZ
12-13-2005, 02:49 PM
why a diet 7up?kinda seems silly.
I stole it from the wife's stash and didn't want to spend more money ....

Captain Dan
12-13-2005, 02:49 PM
If a bear shit in the woods in a 20 mph wind blowing towards another bear and bear #2 was traveling at 20 mph against the wind, 40 miles away directly towards the location of bear #1, would the second bear smell it within an hour?
How close is bear #2 to this thread?

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 02:50 PM
So I misunderstood the question then. I understand how airspeed and groundspeed are different. I just interpreted the question as the plane was traveling...meaning, moving in relation to the ground. The question never said the plane was on the ground or in the air...... :D :D
Focking ambiguous questions...
OK... so we're in agreement... :argue: :argue: :mad: :D :D :D

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 02:52 PM
You wanna read something that will really fock with your mind???
Here:
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aerojava/airflylvl3.htm
Have fun. :D

riverroyal
12-13-2005, 03:00 PM
I stole it from the wife's stash and didn't want to spend more money ....
stop by,I have coors light,corona and fresca in the garage

lucky
12-13-2005, 03:02 PM
stop by,I have coors light,corona and fresca in the garage
i'm leaving on my rotaional run way right now - on may over :cool:

Woodster
12-13-2005, 03:24 PM
So I misunderstood the question then. I understand how airspeed and groundspeed are different. I just interpreted the question as the plane was traveling...meaning, moving in relation to the ground. The question never said the plane was on the ground or in the air...... :D :D
Hey tcook33..I guess we hit up the same websites :rollside: :)
http://www.motodrive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8270

FHI-prez
12-13-2005, 03:32 PM
Interesting reply. "GPS speed" would have absolutely no bearing on this situation. GPS measures relative speed from point "A" to point "B" by calculating the time it takes to travel a specific distance, in a straight line, and displaying it as MPH. GPS does not take airspeed into account. Aircraft flight is only possible with sufficient airspeed. Airspeed and ground speed are 2 different things.
BTW- Since the original post referred to "smartie pants" types, please take note that if you are going to use "big words", such as HYPOTHETICAL, and AERODYNAMIC, you should at least spell them correctly. :rollside:
touche`, spelling was never my forte :p But "GPS" speed is ground speed dopey. AND on a calm day such as it is in this scenario (did I spell that right? :) ) GPS speed and airspeed will be equal. I only used the term GPS speed, because I think some people were visualizing the wheels turning really freekin fast and assumed that was ground speed. So I was trying to offer a different perspective. Read my post again and ignore the spelling errors. :p

Froggystyle
12-13-2005, 03:48 PM
OK, maybe it is a poorly worded question, or I am not reading it right, but your forward movement would be zero, correct? Let's say, measured by a GPS. The plane is not driven forward by the wheels, it is driven forward by the propeller/jet etc... So, the conveyor would not move, as it isn't countering anything. The thrust would come from air movement, and has nothing to do with the ground. The plane could be suspended using "the force" for all it matters. Without actual forward movement of air going over the wings, no lift.
That being said, you would get a very small amount of lift from the propeller itself creating wind, but that would be negated by the fact that the prop wouldn't be turning if it was staying in the same spot.
Now, if your question was "if you had a windstorm with winds in excess of takeoff speed, but the plane was chained in place, would it generate lift without ground speed?" Then yes, it would. Heard of it happenning in fact. Planes can also fly backwards relative to ground speed in a strong enough wind. Piper cubs have it happen regularly in heavy winds. 50mph plane, 60 mile per hour wind, 10 miles per hour backwards if facing into it.
Lastly, if the point of the question was to encourage a bunch of people to waste their time coming up with reasons why it will or won't lift... karma is a bitch. ;)

Havasu Hangin'
12-13-2005, 03:52 PM
Lastly, if the point of the question was to encourage a bunch of people to waste their time...karma is a bitch. ;)
Click here (http://www.seethru.co.uk/zine/south_coast/helicopter_game.htm)

tcook33
12-13-2005, 03:55 PM
Hey tcook33..I guess we hit up the same websites :rollside: :)
http://www.motodrive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8270
haha. Whats your screen name over there?

Sleek-Jet
12-13-2005, 04:03 PM
OK, maybe it is a poorly worded question, or I am not reading it right, but your forward movement would be zero, correct? Let's say, measured by a GPS. The plane is not driven forward by the wheels, it is driven forward by the propeller/jet etc... So, the conveyor would not move, as it isn't countering anything. The thrust would come from air movement, and has nothing to do with the ground. The plane could be suspended using "the force" for all it matters. Without actual forward movement of air going over the wings, no lift.
That being said, you would get a very small amount of lift from the propeller itself creating wind, but that would be negated by the fact that the prop wouldn't be turning if it was staying in the same spot.
Now, if your question was "if you had a windstorm with winds in excess of takeoff speed, but the plane was chained in place, would it generate lift without ground speed?" Then yes, it would. Heard of it happenning in fact. Planes can also fly backwards relative to ground speed in a strong enough wind. Piper cubs have it happen regularly in heavy winds. 50mph plane, 60 mile per hour wind, 10 miles per hour backwards if facing into it.
Lastly, if the point of the question was to encourage a bunch of people to waste their time coming up with reasons why it will or won't lift... karma is a bitch. ;)
The question never states that the airplane would stay stationary... that is the caveat...

tcook33
12-13-2005, 04:06 PM
OK, maybe it is a poorly worded question, or I am not reading it right, but your forward movement would be zero, correct? Let's say, measured by a GPS. The plane is not driven forward by the wheels, it is driven forward by the propeller/jet etc... So, the conveyor would not move, as it isn't countering anything. The thrust would come from air movement, and has nothing to do with the ground. The plane could be suspended using "the force" for all it matters. Without actual forward movement of air going over the wings, no lift.
That being said, you would get a very small amount of lift from the propeller itself creating wind, but that would be negated by the fact that the prop wouldn't be turning if it was staying in the same spot.
Now, if your question was "if you had a windstorm with winds in excess of takeoff speed, but the plane was chained in place, would it generate lift without ground speed?" Then yes, it would. Heard of it happenning in fact. Planes can also fly backwards relative to ground speed in a strong enough wind. Piper cubs have it happen regularly in heavy winds. 50mph plane, 60 mile per hour wind, 10 miles per hour backwards if facing into it.
Lastly, if the point of the question was to encourage a bunch of people to waste their time coming up with reasons why it will or won't lift... karma is a bitch. ;)
Why wouldn't the conveyor belt move? In the original question, it says that the conveyor has a control system that tracks the planes speed, but in the opposite direction. So, if the jets start to thrust the plane forward, the belt will start to move the same speed as the plane, just in the opposite direction. So, if the plane is traveling at 15 mph (airspeed), this means the conveyor is moving at 15mph (groundspeed) in the opposite direction. Therefore spinning the wheels at 30 mph with no direct effect on the planes airspeed (except for the minimal drag from the wheel bearings).
The question was not intended for people to waste their time. It was something to break up the monotony(sp?) over here. That's all. I saw it over on Mototalk and it was a big hit, so I thought I'd share it with you guys. It seems as though everyone liked it.....

Woodster
12-13-2005, 04:10 PM
haha. Whats your screen name over there?
Scotty over there..Whats yours?? Ive been on that website for like 5 years now..Pretty cool peeps over there :)

tcook33
12-13-2005, 04:18 PM
Scotty over there..Whats yours?? Ive been on that website for like 5 years now..Pretty cool peeps over there :)
tcook303
Yeah, it's pretty cool over there.

Froggystyle
12-13-2005, 04:32 PM
Why wouldn't the conveyor belt move? In the original question, it says that the conveyor has a control system that tracks the planes speed, but in the opposite direction. So, if the jets start to thrust the plane forward, the belt will start to move the same speed as the plane, just in the opposite direction. So, if the plane is traveling at 15 mph (airspeed), this means the conveyor is moving at 15mph (groundspeed) in the opposite direction. Therefore spinning the wheels at 30 mph with no direct effect on the planes airspeed (except for the minimal drag from the wheel bearings).
The question was not intended for people to waste their time. It was something to break up the monotony(sp?) over here. That's all. I saw it over on Mototalk and it was a big hit, so I thought I'd share it with you guys. It seems as though everyone liked it.....
Except the wheels don't drive. There is no thrust applied to the wheels to get it to lift. The conveyor wouldn't do anything because they don't have a relevance to the equation.
Wait, I get it.
Stupid question then. You aren't saying that the plane wouldn't move, you are saying that the conveyor would counter any forward movement with a rearward movement equal to it. In that case, yes, the wheels would be moving at two time the forward velocity of the plane, or double takeoff speed.
Mechanical limitations of the wheel assembly aside, you would indeed take off after the airframe reached rotation speed.
Oh, and Jeff... you are going straight to hell for that link...

Brian
12-13-2005, 07:44 PM
Thank you, this thread has been very educational.
Just not about aerodynamics or the physics of flight!
:D

tcook33
12-13-2005, 07:48 PM
Except the wheels don't drive. There is no thrust applied to the wheels to get it to lift. The conveyor wouldn't do anything because they don't have a relevance to the equation.
Wait, I get it.
Stupid question then. You aren't saying that the plane wouldn't move, you are saying that the conveyor would counter any forward movement with a rearward movement equal to it. In that case, yes, the wheels would be moving at two time the forward velocity of the plane, or double takeoff speed.
Mechanical limitations of the wheel assembly aside, you would indeed take off after the airframe reached rotation speed.
Oh, and Jeff... you are going straight to hell for that link...
Didn't your Dad ever tell you that thereis no such thing as a stupid question?? :p :D

bordsmnj
12-13-2005, 08:01 PM
the plane will indeed take off and probably tear off some testing equipment in the process. where's myth busters at when you need them.

Rexone
12-13-2005, 09:37 PM
Didn't your Dad ever tell you that thereis no such thing as a stupid question?? :p :D
Don't encourage him :D

Cs19
12-13-2005, 09:48 PM
the airspeed vs. ground speed comparisons are a trip, I never realized that.
How is airspeed determined in aircrafts?

Froggystyle
12-13-2005, 10:12 PM
the airspeed vs. ground speed comparisons are a trip, I never realized that.
How is airspeed determined in aircrafts?
Pressure differential between the impact air coming in a pitot tube measured against ambient pressure.
That is before GPS though...

Havasu Hangin'
11-02-2006, 06:26 PM
Hmmmmm...

boatsnblondes
11-02-2006, 06:45 PM
Wrong, all of you, under the law of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", the plane SHOULD move forward on it's wheels, they only react to the forward thrust. Match the rotation of the treadmill to the forward motion of the plane, and it would indeed stand still, even at full throttle...the treadmill negates any ability of the wheels have to play out the forward motion of the thrust.....

tcook33
11-02-2006, 07:10 PM
Wrong, all of you, under the law of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", the plane SHOULD move forward on it's wheels, they only react to the forward thrust. Match the rotation of the treadmill to the forward motion of the plane, and it would indeed stand still, even at full throttle...the treadmill negates any ability of the wheels have to play out the forward motion of the thrust.....
Ur nuts brother.....think again...

Tom Brown
11-02-2006, 07:21 PM
Check this thread out. (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131882)
Why not turn a circular argument into a figure of 8? :D

boatsnblondes
11-03-2006, 02:38 AM
Ur nuts brother.....think again...
No, u think again...if the treadmill is turning fast enough, how is the plane supposed to move forward??? If there is no air flowing over the wings surfaces, how in the world do you think it's gonna do anything, by osmosis??

HM
11-03-2006, 04:02 AM
No, u think again...if the treadmill is turning fast enough, how is the plane supposed to move forward??? If there is no air flowing over the wings surfaces, how in the world do you think it's gonna do anything, by osmosis??
The argument is actually centering around point reference for the measurement of speed.
With a plane, the speed that is important is air speed, which has nothing to do with the treadmill. Therefore, in order to attain airspeed, the plane must move forward. So if the plane is moving forward at 100 mph (air speed), then the conveyor will be moving the opposite speed at 100 MPH. The speed the converyor belt measures against the plane itself is 200 MPH. If the plane never achieves any airspeed, then the conveyor has no reason to move.
Now, if reference of speed is the plane vs. the conveyor, then the plane will never take off as it will never achieve any air speed. While this scenario is nearly impossible in the real world, it is very possible in the world of theories.
So, everyone is right. But, the people that said the plane would take off are more right as the airspeed is the proper point of reference.

Rexone
11-03-2006, 04:28 AM
I'm somewhat disappointed this earlier thread didn't do nearly as well as the current one. :(

tcook33
11-03-2006, 06:21 AM
No, u think again...if the treadmill is turning fast enough, how is the plane supposed to move forward??? If there is no air flowing over the wings surfaces, how in the world do you think it's gonna do anything, by osmosis??
I've thought plenty and have come up with the right answer....thanks.
Think about it like this. Get on a tradmill with rollerblades on. Now grab the bars next to you and pull yourself forward. Even if the treadmill sped up to match your forward momentum speed, you would still move forward. The wheels would just spin twice as fast.
How about a submarine at the ocean floor. For conversations sake, lets just say a sub had wheels on it's bottom. The ocean floor has zero to do with the speed of the sub. The sub moves through the water.
Got it yet.....

Sleek-Jet
11-03-2006, 06:25 AM
I'm somewhat disappointed this earlier thread didn't do nearly as well as the current one. :(
There has been no "Jordy" factor at work here.
Which begs the question.
If I started a thread, and Jordy would instantly post the exact opposite of what I or anyone else posted, how long would the thread last??? :idea:

ZBODaytona
11-03-2006, 06:57 AM
is this a trick question

boatsnblondes
11-03-2006, 03:06 PM
If you can match the forward thrust of the engines with the speed of the treadmill, the plane will stand still. As it begins to move forward, the treadmill would need to counter that by rotating faster in the opposite direction. As the plane inched forward, the speed would need to be adjusted..but at some point, the engines reach a point where they are not able to propel the plane faster, match that number with the treadmill, and it would be quite a show...and the opposite would be true...as the egine wind down, you would need to mach that also...else the plane go backwards...

tcook33
11-03-2006, 04:34 PM
If you can match the forward thrust of the engines with the speed of the treadmill, the plane will stand still. As it begins to move forward, the treadmill would need to counter that by rotating faster in the opposite direction. As the plane inched forward, the speed would need to be adjusted..but at some point, the engines reach a point where they are not able to propel the plane faster, match that number with the treadmill, and it would be quite a show...and the opposite would be true...as the egine wind down, you would need to mach that also...else the plane go backwards...
HAHAHA! This is great. Do you guys even read? :cry:
I'm beginning to think that everyone is joking here.... :)

deltaAce
11-03-2006, 04:48 PM
Repeating what has already been said effectivly by others,
I believe some are relating the speed of the conveyor to the speed of the plane to cancell each other to zero. I believe this exercise requires one to guage the speed of these two objects from a fixed position of observation, say 50 ft. away & observe that the conveyor will go backwards as the planes thrust propells it forward, in relation to the fixed point. The contact of the conveyor to the planes tires (yes for Gods sake, the plane has wheels) will not diminish the 50,000#s of thrust from propelling the plane forward. :boxed:

boatsnblondes
11-03-2006, 04:58 PM
Only one way to find out...anyone got a conveyer belt and a 777???? :p
One thing though...the only way the plane has of transfering the 50,000 pounds of thrust is through the wheels...negate that, and how are you supposed to move???
Also, think about this...railroads have test beds for measuring HP for locomotives..they essentially put them on rollers...there is nothing out there with more adhesion than a train locomotive....and I mean nothing. If you can put a sd90 in run 8 on a test bed and not have it move..what in the world make you think you can not do it to a 777??? Sheesh..opposite reactions..think boys...

tcook33
11-03-2006, 06:10 PM
Only one way to find out...anyone got a conveyer belt and a 777???? :p
One thing though...the only way the plane has of transfering the 50,000 pounds of thrust is through the wheels...negate that, and how are you supposed to move???
Also, think about this...railroads have test beds for measuring HP for locomotives..they essentially put them on rollers...there is nothing out there with more adhesion than a train locomotive....and I mean nothing. If you can put a sd90 in run 8 on a test bed and not have it move..what in the world make you think you can not do it to a 777??? Sheesh..opposite reactions..think boys...
I gotta say bud.....YOU'RE A PIECE OF WORK!
LOCOMOTIVES ARE WHEEL DRIVEN.
AIRPLANES ARE AIR DRIVEN.
BIG DIFFERENCE. APPLES AND ORANGES.
PAY ATTENTION AND READ A LITTLE MORE.
YOU WILL PROBABLY LEARN SOMETHING.

AirtimeLavey
11-03-2006, 06:20 PM
Only one way to find out...anyone got a conveyer belt and a 777???? :p
One thing though...the only way the plane has of transfering the 50,000 pounds of thrust is through the wheels...negate that, and how are you supposed to move???
Also, think about this...railroads have test beds for measuring HP for locomotives..they essentially put them on rollers...there is nothing out there with more adhesion than a train locomotive....and I mean nothing. If you can put a sd90 in run 8 on a test bed and not have it move..what in the world make you think you can not do it to a 777??? Sheesh..opposite reactions..think boys...
So, you're saying that it's the wheels that actually drive the plane forward? Jet engines apply or to use your words, "transfer" thrust through the wheels? What happens when the landing gear is raised? :2purples:
This is radically different from any airplane I have ever heard of. But then again, I've never seen a train fly either, and I would say treadmill or not, you won't get that puppy (the train) in sustained flight. :idea:
Just a little bit more thinking on your part, and we'll all be safer. :idea: :rollside:

mickeyfinn
11-03-2006, 07:59 PM
The treadmill is a total red herring. Everyone is thinking with the idea of a vehicle where the wheels are driven, not so with an airplane. If the airplanes forward speed is 100mph and the conveyor moves in the opposite direction 100 mph the plane continues to move forward at the same speed, but the wheels turn 200mph (minus any parasitic drag from the bearings). You still have ground speed and lift and the plane will fly. The easiest demonstration is to take a toy car, hold it by the top and put it on a conveyor belt. slowly walk forward, turn the belt on going the opposite direction. the car still moves forward without you exerting more force,the wheels just turn faster. This is because you are applying force to the car, not driving the wheels. This question has been around for a few years now.

MikeF
11-03-2006, 09:29 PM
THE PLANE WILL NOT LEAVE THE GROUND! :crossx:

AirtimeLavey
11-04-2006, 12:01 AM
THE PLANE WILL NOT LEAVE THE GROUND! :crossx:
Yeah, but the train's already left the station... :220v:

boatsnblondes
11-04-2006, 12:02 AM
And what I am saying, guys, is that there IS a point out there somewhere, where you can turn the wheels SO FAST they have no ability to move the plane forward. How fast does the treadmill have to turn? You tell me. I understand the wheels are free rolling. DUH. But if you turn the damn thing fast enough, 500, 750, 1000 mph? the wheels can not move forward. The plane can not move...

AirtimeLavey
11-04-2006, 12:07 AM
And what I am saying, guys, is that there IS a point out there somewhere, where you can turn the wheels SO FAST they have no ability to move the plane forward. How fast does the treadmill have to turn? You tell me. I understand the wheels are free rolling. DUH. But if you turn the damn thing fast enough, 500, 750, 1000 mph? the wheels can not move forward. The plane can not move...
Again, it's not the wheels that move an airplane. They only support the weight of it while on the ground. It's the engine thrust that moves the plane, and the treadmill has nothing to do with that.

Tom Brown
11-04-2006, 12:10 AM
Again, it's not the wheels that move an airplane.
In the case boatsnblondes just described, the rolling resistance of the wheels would cause the plane to remain stationary.

HCS
11-04-2006, 12:18 AM
In the case boatsnblondes just described, the rolling resistance of the wheels would cause the plane to remain stationary.
No shit Sherlock! :D

AirtimeLavey
11-04-2006, 12:29 AM
In the case boatsnblondes just described, the rolling resistance of the wheels would cause the plane to remain stationary.
I think it's the rolling resistance that keeps this thread stationary on this page, but that's about it. I think we need more thrust... :boxed:

boatsnblondes
11-04-2006, 05:14 PM
I talked to a college professor friend of my wifes today, and he asked a buddy of his who is a physics prof at CSU Stanisluas over here, and YES, there is a point where the two forces meet, when they do, the plane will not move no matter WHAT the engines are doing. Nuff said..this thread is getting a little like the Jordy thread, but with out the babe shots..any thread without a babe shot is a waste of time. <manlaw>

tcook33
11-04-2006, 05:17 PM
I talked to a college professor friend of my wifes today, and he asked a buddy of his who is a physics prof at CSU Stanisluas over here, and YES, there is a point where the two forces meet, when they do, the plane will not move no matter WHAT the engines are doing. Nuff said..this thread is getting a little like the Jordy thread, but with out the babe shots..any thread without a babe shot is a waste of time. <manlaw>
Interesting....... :idea:

ratso
11-04-2006, 05:20 PM
I talked to a college professor friend of my wifes today, and he asked a buddy of his who is a physics prof at CSU Stanisluas over here, and YES, there is a point where the two forces meet, when they do, the plane will not move no matter WHAT the engines are doing. Nuff said..this thread is getting a little like the Jordy thread, but with out the babe shots..any thread without a babe shot is a waste of time. <manlaw>
To all the doubters and haters... nanny nanny boo boo... :D

boatsnblondes
11-04-2006, 05:28 PM
Again, it's not the wheels that move an airplane. They only support the weight of it while on the ground. It's the engine thrust that moves the plane, and the treadmill has nothing to do with that.
The wheels do two things, they transfer the weight of the palne to the ground, and they allow the plane to react to the forward thrust of the engines through the equal and opposite theory of physics. Another word for wheel is??? That's right Tom, "continuous plane". A neverending flat surface. Sigh. Put it this way. Take the wheels off, what happenes? Nothing...gouges in the runway. Taking away the wheels' ability to transfer the forward thrust of the engines into groundspeed cancels out the airflow to the airfoil <wing>, cancelling out any hope of getting off the ground. Now, a more important question, this one for Tom. If you are in a bar, and your buddy sets down a cold fresh beer in front of you, and you down it while he's not looking, did you really drink it?

LUVNLIFE
11-04-2006, 05:32 PM
That is exactly what I just said in the poll thread. Thanks for the backup. Bitch ain't gonna fly. Now I'm gonna have to think on the beer thing :rollside:

Hal
11-04-2006, 07:36 PM
I talked to a college professor friend of my wifes today, and he asked a buddy of his who is a physics prof at CSU Stanisluas over here, and YES, there is a point where the two forces meet, when they do, the plane will not move no matter WHAT the engines are doing. Nuff said..this thread is getting a little like the Jordy thread, but with out the babe shots..any thread without a babe shot is a waste of time. <manlaw>
I gotta call BS on that one..

hoolign
11-04-2006, 07:47 PM
Interesting....... :idea:
that's what I tought! I didn't think the teacher shortage was that bad
:rolleyes:

mike37
11-04-2006, 09:20 PM
not even going to read all the post but the answer is yes

Moneypitt
11-05-2006, 10:02 AM
If you can match the forward thrust of the engines with the speed of the treadmill, the plane will stand still. As it begins to move forward, the treadmill would need to counter that by rotating faster in the opposite direction. As the plane inched forward, the speed would need to be adjusted..but at some point, the engines reach a point where they are not able to propel the plane faster, match that number with the treadmill, and it would be quite a show...and the opposite would be true...as the egine wind down, you would need to mach that also...else the plane go backwards...
I guess what they say about blonds is true...........
They have more FUN.......
Wheels just turn........plane flies...........MP

Tom Brown
11-05-2006, 10:55 AM
One thing though...the only way the plane has of transfering the 50,000 pounds of thrust is through the wheels...
You must have removed a post. I recall you posting specifically about rolling resistance and that at some point, if the treadmill could spin fast enough, it would be possible to make the treadmill go fast enough to counter the thrust of the plane. This is correct.
This business about transferring 50K lbs of thrust through the wheels, however, is good for a laugh. :)
Take a look at the landing gear of an aircraft. They aren't built to withstand 50K lbs of force in that direction.

mike37
11-05-2006, 12:19 PM
the answer is still yes it will fly