[quote=“Fry,post:380,topic:37377"”]
Yeah I think he’s using plane speed relative to ground and conveyer speed relative to the plane. Though you are then comparing apples to crackers and the numbers become meaningless. :bloated:
[/quote]
that’s what i was saying…he said that it’s irrelevant, yet trying to justify the numbers (the wrong ones) to make them relevant.
[quote=“Final GTS,post:373,topic:37377"”]
However, they need to specify that the conveyer is going backwards at TWICE the speed of the plane. (plane speed -plane speed = dead stall, plane couldnt even move
[/quote]
:cringe: Actually it looks like he just doesn’t get it. Conveyer speed is totally irrelavent, but he’s arguing that it is relavent. :picard: I thought he had it…
[quote=“Fry,post:382,topic:37377"”]
:cringe: Actually it looks like he just doesn’t get it. Conveyer speed is totally irrelavent, but he’s arguing that it is relavent. :picard: I thought he had it…
[/quote]
the contradiction i was pointing out…but you apparently didn’t understand it right.
I love that even the people that think they clearly get it, are continuing to prove that they are still morons.
Just leave it alone people, its a yes or no question to all of you.
:picard:
pancakes.
Did any of you actually READ the paragraph under what I wrote? I said right in it that the only thing I am arguing is the WORDING. I know full well the concept of what is happening here, and I said in plain english that the conveyor was irrellevent anyway.
I think it is pretty apparent that none of you read into the wording as much as I did, which is why I am trying to explain that it could have been worded differently- and more people may understand it.
[quote=“Fry,post:382,topic:37377"”]
:cringe: Actually it looks like he just doesn’t get it. Conveyer speed is totally irrelavent, but he’s arguing that it is relavent. :picard: I thought he had it…
[/quote]
:cringe: that you can not see what I am actually trying to say.
If the “take-off speed” is determined by the plane vs. the conveyor, which it COULD be interpreted as, and why many dont get it, it changes the entire concept! Obviously this is not what they actually mean as it is plane vs. ground, and the conveyor is irrellevent, but I am arguing the poor wording helps to make the picture a bit fuzzy.
how the fuck can the “take-off speed” be relative to the conveyor?
I am curious as to this explanation
[quote=“Final GTS,post:373,topic:37377"”]
As I said, if the plane if moving forward on the conveyer at takeoff speed relative to the ground, the speed of the conveyor and wheels (-2x plane speed) is meaningless… though you better not be twitchy on the controls!
[/quote]
You state that the speed of the conveyer and wheels is -2x. This further demonstrates that you either can’t explain things well or don’t quite get it, as they are 2 different speeds.
If the plane is moving forward at velocity x, then as per the only real definition possible the conveyer is moving backwards at the speed of -x. This makes the tangential velocity of the wheels x–x = 2x.
As for the wording, I explained it clear as day on the previous page.
[quote=“Final GTS,post:387,topic:37377"”]
If the “take-off speed” is determined by the plane vs. the conveyor, which it COULD be interpreted as, and why many dont get it, it changes the entire concept!
[/quote]
No it cannot be interpereted that way. You can’t base plane speed on conveyer speed, as conveyer speed is based on plane speed. It doesn’t change the entire concept, it creates a non-real situation via an infinite loop of logic. I explained that on the previous page.
<–Advanced Control Systems Engineer, Praxair Inc.
Don’t fuck with me on control logic.
Not really any ambiguity there. Plane = x. Conveyer = -x. :gotme:
but what does it mean by take off speed… take off air speed… or take off… wheel speed which wouldn’t be a take off speed at all… since the wheel speed means nothing…
So I come to the conclusion that an airplane at take off airspeed will not take off at all it will crash and burn regardless if it meets the requirement to lift off the ground safely… the conveyor belt will pull the plane directly back to the earth killing everyone in the plane
if its just on a conveyor without no added wind. I think it a NO Flight…You would have to create the same enviroment as a moving plane…the wind agianst wings for it to have enough air to lift it self up…is like the plane is at a dead stop…you will have to have it in a enviroment with a minimal wind velocity that plane needs to reach to take off. the plan being on a conveyor doesnt create any wind velocity underneath the wings for lift off…
someone might of discussed this but that just what i think.
who cares about the plane, more pics of the redhead please
I thought it interesting as they did the big rig myths last night, and one of which was driving a car into a trailer at speed. To test it, they used an R/C car on a treadmill… 
Since this thread is still going here is something to ponder…
Would the tread mill actually help the plane take off by moving the air over the wings of the plane?:biglaugh:
If you have ever been up close to tread mill you know they move air.
Once the plane left the moving air zone would it drop due to less lift?:lol:
This thread is so dumb.
[quote=“AWDrifter,post:398,topic:37377"”]
Since this thread is still going here is something to ponder…
Would the tread mill actually help the plane take off by moving the air over the wings of the plane?:biglaugh:
If you have ever been up close to tread mill you know they move air.
Once the plane left the moving air zone would it drop due to less lift?:lol:
This thread is so dumb.
[/quote]
NO WAY!!! wheel speed would counteract that wind force!!
400