I have an experiment for anyone who didn't think the plane will take off

yea, what howie said haha ok, that makes sense then if theres nothing keeping it at a standstill

Honestly Tevenor, is this a joke or do you still think the plane won’t take off?

I feel like this is a left over April Fools joke that I am not in on.

Try this for the people that think it won’t take off.

Take a treadmill and turn it on, put it on an incline so the track is going in an upward direction. Now place a matchbox car on the treadmill and let it go. What happens to the matchbox car? It rolls down the treadmill onto the floor, no matter what speed the treadmill is going.

Therefore, the gravity is the “thrust” and the wheels are independent of the the thrust.

awesome, i won’t make fun of you… THAT has gotta be one of the best/easiest explanations to date. gravity is acceleration… again people, this is assuming minimal friction losses. If the matchbox car had a rusty paperclip axle… it would shoot off the treadmill, accelerated by the conveyor…but it doesn’t.

c’mon…who’s next? who will be the next person to say the plane will not take off?

You do know I was saying the plane takes off right? Your wording makes me wonder :slight_smile:

I still like the jet engine car on the dyno way to think of it. Will the car stay on the dyno?

edited my wording. but yes, I am with you.

I just wanted to use the word “rusty” in my post because it makes me think of “rusty pennies” and “rusty trombones”

Its not tid to the runway, its tied to the treadmill so that the plane pulls the treadmill backwards as it moves forward . like the old table cloth trick

How about this?

How do you get a kite in the air? You run forward ( provide thrust ) so that air flows over the kite to produce lift. Now what if you are running on a treadmill? Does the kite take off or not?

Lets take a step back for a second:

If the original question is “A plane is standing on a runway that can move and the plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Will the plane take off?”

Then I think there is some confusion about what the conveyor does. If the goal is to match the speed of the plane, then it must match the acceleration and therfore no it will not take flight because ultimate air speed is 0 if the acceleration forces are matched 1:1 by the conveyor. But if the conveyor is nothing more than a friction based ( real world ) moveable object with no way to match speed other than through direct physics, then yes it will take flight because *Eventually ( and god knows when ) the acceleration by force of the plane will overcome the ability of the treadmill to match. Which is what Laufengas was saying.

I am now done with this. I have already spent to much time as it is.

No, but that equates the plane to being driven by the wheels. There is no power given to the wheels, they are simply a medium intended to reduce the friction between the plane and the ground.

Take your example of being on a tread mill, put on roller skates (low friction medium) and strap a rocket to your back (hypothetically of course). When the rocket creates thrust, will you continue to be stationary???

Wings dont provide the thrust. They only create lift with air movement over them. A jet engine, on the other hand… creates a reaction, which in effect creates an equal and opposite reaction in the opposite direction. Wings just sit there. They are shaped so that the air movement creates a lower pressure on one side, so that with enough air SPEED going THROUGH them, the want to go up, because the pressure downwards is now lesser, hence, why a plane can fly.

You have to be moving, or you’re not gonna go anywhere. And by movement, I mean airflow, not just the tires spinning so that the speedometer on the plane says “100 MPH”

This is the most rediculous post EVER to happen on the internet. You people dont understand aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering very well, nor the basic principals of physics very well. Geez! LOL

The only thing that diagram is showing is that the wheels are going to be spinning faster and faster. Go Dyno Queen airplane! YAY!


You are so cute when you use your leet photoshop skeelz.

How about this: The plane will take off if the conveyor cannot impart enough drag/friction/ etc to keep the plane in place as defined by 0 relative speed and assuming that even with this overcoming the acceleration can be maintined to get the appropriate absolute speed in relation to the air. If it can, then it won’t go anywhere and the plane won’t take off. Now we can argue about wether or not the conveyor ( as definied by the original problem ) really can do this or not. But I won’t be involved. I am done.

Lots of different points are being argued.

Lots of people are right.

But the overall picture - the plane actually does take off…

I think the original question was misworded… or very very worded fucked up.

err… engarish

Exactly.

Thanks, i read “MS Paint for Dummies” a couple years back, i suprised myself too. I did had stick figures drawn…but it wasn’t nearly as convincing.

this post about sums it up:

and you are the most retarded person to sit behind a computer.

why the hell do you think the wheels would spin on the dyno? THEY WOULDN’T. Since when does a jet engine put power to the wheels?

Stick with the photoshopping. I am sure the stick figures you “did had” aren’t as good as that. :smiley:

At some earlier discussion someone tried to argue the point if the treadmill could go fast enough it could create enough drag through the mostly frictionless wheels to counteract the thrust. Sure, I’ll give you the fact that if the treadmill was moving 1 billion mph it could probably create enough friction on the wheels to counter the thrust from the prop/jet. However, nowhere in the question does it say the treadmill will go a million times faster than the plane. It will only MATCH the speed. 100 MPH plane = 100 mph treadmill.

I said the book was for “Dummies” not brilliant people. btw, if you think my grammer mistake overshadows your 15+ posts of misconception posts and horrible analogies, it doesn’t. :smiley: