Can the airplane take off?

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?



AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??


Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

The treadmill's accleration would be alot greater then the accleration due to gravity. Because the treadmill is only acting thru torque on a very small part of the airplane.

Explain.

It doesnt matter, his explanation is wrong. by his interpretation the torque would increase to infinity and the plane would be thrown backwards at infinity miles an hour in 0 seconds. its pure bullsh!t that the torque would match anything. the treadmill will never stop accelerating because it can never match the speed of the airplane relative to its own surface.

No the control system would balance the torque from the wheels and the force from the plane so that it doesn't move.

I think I'm getting close to proving all you fools wrong. So you agree that the treadmill can apply a force to the wheels? Ok now just added the control sustem which will balance the force from the treadmill with the force from the engine and the plane will not move.

haha "getting close to proving all you fools wrong". I really got a LOL out of that one. It's so fun to feed the trolls because every once in a while they do/say such funny things or perform some neat little monkey trick in exchange for the morsel.

But anyway..

The treadmill applies force to the wheel of course via friction. The wheel does not apply the same force to the landing gear unless you apply the parking brake...that's what ball bearings are intended to prevent.

So given a free rolling wheel how does the rotation translate into enough force to make a plane hover in mid air?

If I take the same wheel separate from a plane or treadmill and just spin it real fast does it hover in mid air?

Everyone has of course seen the whole inertia trick where a spinning wheel (like a gyroscope) will *resist* motion but I've never seen a gyroscope or airplane wheel magically just start floating up in the air and then off into the distance.

Are you SURE you don't work as an animator for Warner Brothers? I swore I've seen Wyle E Coyote run real fast so it lets him hover in mid air after he left the cliff edge.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?



AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??


Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

The treadmill's accleration would be alot greater then the accleration due to gravity. Because the treadmill is only acting thru torque on a very small part of the airplane.

Explain.

It doesnt matter, his explanation is wrong. by his interpretation the torque would increase to infinity and the plane would be thrown backwards at infinity miles an hour in 0 seconds. its pure bullsh!t that the torque would match anything. the treadmill will never stop accelerating because it can never match the speed of the airplane relative to its own surface.

No the control system would balance the torque from the wheels and the force from the plane so that it doesn't move.

I think I'm getting close to proving all you fools wrong. So you agree that the treadmill can apply a force to the wheels? Ok now just added the control sustem which will balance the force from the treadmill with the force from the engine and the plane will not move.

There is no "control system". All there is is "The treadmill matches the speed of the airplane in reverse". The treadmill can never match that speed according to your interpretation, therefore acceleration will never be constant and the plane will move either forwards or backwards. No matter what the plane cannot remain still.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?



AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??


Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

The treadmill's accleration would be alot greater then the accleration due to gravity. Because the treadmill is only acting thru torque on a very small part of the airplane.

Explain.

It doesnt matter, his explanation is wrong. by his interpretation the torque would increase to infinity and the plane would be thrown backwards at infinity miles an hour in 0 seconds. its pure bullsh!t that the torque would match anything. the treadmill will never stop accelerating because it can never match the speed of the airplane relative to its own surface.

No the control system would balance the torque from the wheels and the force from the plane so that it doesn't move.

I think I'm getting close to proving all you fools wrong. So you agree that the treadmill can apply a force to the wheels? Ok now just added the control sustem which will balance the force from the treadmill with the force from the engine and the plane will not move.

There is no "control system". All there is is "The treadmill matches the speed of the airplane in reverse". The treadmill can never match that speed according to your interpretation, therefore acceleration will never be constant and the plane will move either forwards or backwards. No matter what the plane cannot remain still.

Sure there, is what do you think makes the speed of the treadmill match the speed of the plane, it is the control system.

I don't know where your getting the idea that the treadmill can never match the speed. It will match anyspeed that is what the question states.

 

[smack Down]

[/quote]haha "getting close to proving all you fools wrong". I really got a LOL out of that one. It's so fun to feed the trolls because every once in a while they do/say such funny things or perform some neat little monkey trick in exchange for the morsel.

But anyway..

The treadmill applies force to the wheel of course via friction. The wheel does not apply the same force to the landing gear unless you apply the parking brake...that's what ball bearings are intended to prevent.

So given a free rolling wheel how does the rotation translate into enough force to make a plane hover in mid air?

If I take the same wheel separate from a plane or treadmill and just spin it real fast does it hover in mid air?

Everyone has of course seen the whole inertia trick where a spinning wheel (like a gyroscope) will *resist* motion but I've never seen a gyroscope or airplane wheel magically just start floating up in the air and then off into the distance.

Are you SURE you don't work as an animator for Warner Brothers? I swore I've seen Wyle E Coyote run real fast so it lets him hover in mid air after he left the cliff edge.
[/quote]

Just as the plane moving forward imparts a force on the wheel causing it turn. The wheel turning imparts a force on the plane causing it to move backwards.

 

[randay]

You are the best troll I have ever seen. Hats off to you.

What have we learned? People cannot help but point out anothers utter stupidity, it must be coded into our genes or something. You're good, but I still do not see what the whole point of this relentless trolling is. I hope you got your jollies.

There are two possible answers to this question.

1. if speed is defined as the airplanes speed relative to the ground.
A: The airplane takes off.

2. if speed is defined as the airplanes speed relative to the belt.
A: This is a trick question, the only time the belt can match the airplanes speed is when speed = 0. In this scenario, neither the airplane nor the belt move. The plane does not take off.

that is all.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: randay
You are the best troll I have ever seen. Hats off to you.

What have we learned? People cannot help but point out anothers utter stupidity, it must be coded into our genes or something. You're good, but I still do not see what the whole point of this relentless trolling is. I hope you got your jollies.

There are two possible answers to this question.

1. if speed is defined as the airplanes speed relative to the ground.
A: The airplane takes off.

2. if speed is defined as the airplanes speed relative to the belt.
A: This is a trick question, the only time the belt can match the airplanes speed is when speed = 0. In this scenario, neither the airplane nor the belt move. The plane does not take off.

that is all.

First of all I'm not trolling. Second of all I'm right. Thrid where do you get the idea that only way to match speeds is the for everything to be stoped.

Why can't the plan be going 1 mph relitive to the belt and the belt going backwards at 1 mph? The planes ground speed would then be 0 and it doesn't take off.

 

[randay]

Oh you son of a bitch, you almost had me fooled! nope sorry, Im on to you!

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: randay
You are the best troll I have ever seen. Hats off to you.

What have we learned? People cannot help but point out anothers utter stupidity, it must be coded into our genes or something. You're good, but I still do not see what the whole point of this relentless trolling is. I hope you got your jollies.

There are two possible answers to this question.

1. if speed is defined as the airplanes speed relative to the ground.
A: The airplane takes off.

2. if speed is defined as the airplanes speed relative to the belt.
A: This is a trick question, the only time the belt can match the airplanes speed is when speed = 0. In this scenario, neither the airplane nor the belt move. The plane does not take off.

that is all.

First of all I'm not trolling. Second of all I'm right. Thrid where do you get the idea that only way to match speeds is the for everything to be stoped.

Why can't the plan be going 1 mph relitive to the belt and the belt going backwards at 1 mph? The planes ground speed would then be 0 and it doesn't take off.

For the nine-hundred and ninety-ninth time...

what does the engines push on?
the air.

if one object exerts a force on another, then one must move a relative distance away from it.
Therefore if the engines are on, the plane must move foreward with respect to the air.

If the plane moves forward with respect to the air, it cannot have a ground speed of zero, because the air and ground are in the same reference point.


stop being a moron.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Just as the plane moving forward imparts a force on the wheel causing it turn. The wheel turning imparts a force on the plane causing it to move backwards.

It is true that it's theoretically possible to keep the plane on the ground via storing up the forces of the engines and treadmill as angular momentum in the wheels. However, it requires several factors. First, the wheels and bearings must be indestructable at any speed. Second, the threadmill must be capable of an insanely high acceleration and top speed. Finally, the wheels must have a no-slip condition, because if a real-world treadmill were to accelerate at the rate required to keep the plane on the ground, it would greatly exceed the available traction of the wheels, causing them to skid.

Given all those conditions, you CAN keep the plane on the ground. I did the calculations in the other thread...the treadmill ends up spinning insanely (but not relativistically) fast at the end, and you've got twice the total energy content of the fuel wrapped up in the angular momentum term, but the plane is stationary.

But it's not very realistic.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: randay
You are the best troll I have ever seen. Hats off to you.

What have we learned? People cannot help but point out anothers utter stupidity, it must be coded into our genes or something. You're good, but I still do not see what the whole point of this relentless trolling is. I hope you got your jollies.

There are two possible answers to this question.

1. if speed is defined as the airplanes speed relative to the ground.
A: The airplane takes off.

2. if speed is defined as the airplanes speed relative to the belt.
A: This is a trick question, the only time the belt can match the airplanes speed is when speed = 0. In this scenario, neither the airplane nor the belt move. The plane does not take off.

that is all.

First of all I'm not trolling. Second of all I'm right. Thrid where do you get the idea that only way to match speeds is the for everything to be stoped.

Why can't the plan be going 1 mph relitive to the belt and the belt going backwards at 1 mph? The planes ground speed would then be 0 and it doesn't take off.

For the nine-hundred and ninety-ninth time...

what does the engines push on?
the air.

if one object exerts a force on another, then one must move a relative distance away from it.
Therefore if the engines are on, the plane must move foreward with respect to the air.

If the plane moves forward with respect to the air, it cannot have a ground speed of zero, because the air and ground are in the same reference point.


stop being a moron.

Not if the total force on the object is zero.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Yes.

Yes.

During WWII, planes sitting on the aircarft carrier had the ability to take off if the ship starting moving at full speed in to a headwind. As long as the air passing over the top of the wing is moving fast enough to create pressure that is lower on the top than the bottom. It would be no differant than attaching a model plane to the roof of a car and driving at full speed untill it took off.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Shaftatplanetquake
It would depend upon the airplane.

F35 aircraft is capable of hovering in place, so that one would not be affected.

Forward motion is not was causes the airplane to be able to "take off". Thrust is what causes this.

Not thrust, but lift. How do you get lift from a motionless plane?

If you face an airplane in to a strong steady (both in directionaly and velocity) 135-150mph headwind, it could hover over the same spot on the ground.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Smilin
So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?

AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??

Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

The hardest I've laughed in over a month.. my chest hurts from laughing.

 

[catellus]

The whole problem here is the way the question is phrased. It invites an
interpretation that asserts an invariant that's not really possible.

the question (from the OP) says:
------------------------------------------------
when the airplane moves forward, the conveyor matches its speed in reverse
------------------------------------------------

Most of us are taking that to mean conveyor speed is equal and opposite
airspeed. (same as groundspeed, since there is no wind).

To be fair, try to state a similar question, but using a generic vehicle, either
a car or a plane. You can call the speed of the vehicle relative to the
conveyor belt's surface the "surfacespeed". Can you phrase it so one gets the
right answer for each kind of vehicle?
---------------

Attempting to get a scenario we can all agree on, I'll propose one that
makes the conveyor even more powerful than the plane.
Let's put some numbers on it:

aiplane maximum airspeed = 100 mph
airplane takeoff speed = 75 mph
conveyor speed = -150 mph constant

Let's say there are stops on the ground that prevent the plane from falling
backwards off the end of the conveyor. They don't prevent the plane from moving
forward. And the windspeed is zero.

So we set the plane on the belt against the stops, spin the belt up to -150 mph,
then start the plane's engine and apply full throttle. What happens?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: catellus
The whole problem here is the way the question is phrased. It invites an
interpretation that asserts an invariant that's not really possible.

the question (from the OP) says:
------------------------------------------------
when the airplane moves forward, the conveyor matches its speed in reverse
------------------------------------------------

Most of us are taking that to mean conveyor speed is equal and opposite
airspeed. (same as groundspeed, since there is no wind).

To be fair, try to state a similar question, but using a generic vehicle, either
a car or a plane. You can call the speed of the vehicle relative to the
conveyor belt's surface the "surfacespeed". Can you phrase it so one gets the
right answer for each kind of vehicle?
---------------

Attempting to get a scenario we can all agree on, I'll propose one that
makes the conveyor even more powerful than the plane.
Let's put some numbers on it:

aiplane maximum airspeed = 100 mph
airplane takeoff speed = 75 mph
conveyor speed = -150 mph constant

Let's say there are stops on the ground that prevent the plane from falling
backwards off the end of the conveyor. They don't prevent the plane from moving
forward. And the windspeed is zero.

So we set the plane on the belt against the stops, spin the belt up to -150 mph,
then start the plane's engine and apply full throttle. What happens?

And, hopefully, tomorrow I have the video of what happens. Replace airplane with me. Replace wheels with rollerblades. Hmmmm... how do I do a jet engine?? CO2 tank!

 

[BrownTown]

don't hurt yourself dude.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
don't hurt yourself dude.

at least if you do make sure you get it on tape

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: catellus
So we set the plane on the belt against the stops, spin the belt up to -150 mph,
then start the plane's engine and apply full throttle. What happens?

It still takes off.

The only way to keep the plane from taking off is to use a conveyor which spins fast enough for wheel friction to counteract the force of the engines, or a conveyor which accelerates fast enough to hold the plane back via the angular momentum term. Either of these scenarios require a no-slip condition, indestructible wheels, and a conveyor whose performance far exceeds anything we're able to build today.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: catellus
So we set the plane on the belt against the stops, spin the belt up to -150 mph,
then start the plane's engine and apply full throttle. What happens?

It still takes off.

The only way to keep the plane from taking off is to use a conveyor which spins fast enough for wheel friction to counteract the force of the engines, or a conveyor which accelerates fast enough to hold the plane back via the angular momentum term. Either of these scenarios require a no-slip condition, indestructible wheels, and a conveyor whose performance far exceeds anything we're able to build today.

Or it requires a really poorly designed aircraft. IE it has very heavy and large wheels.

The fact that it can't be done doesn't really matter.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Or it requires a really poorly designed aircraft. IE it has very heavy and large wheels.

The fact that it can't be done doesn't really matter.

yeah, a poorly designed aircraft that cant get off the ground under normal conditions, basically an aircraft that doesnt fly anyway. lol. like one with no wings haha.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin
haha "getting close to proving all you fools wrong". I really got a LOL out of that one. It's so fun to feed the trolls because every once in a while they do/say such funny things or perform some neat little monkey trick in exchange for the morsel.

But anyway..

The treadmill applies force to the wheel of course via friction. The wheel does not apply the same force to the landing gear unless you apply the parking brake...that's what ball bearings are intended to prevent.

So given a free rolling wheel how does the rotation translate into enough force to make a plane hover in mid air?

If I take the same wheel separate from a plane or treadmill and just spin it real fast does it hover in mid air?

Everyone has of course seen the whole inertia trick where a spinning wheel (like a gyroscope) will *resist* motion but I've never seen a gyroscope or airplane wheel magically just start floating up in the air and then off into the distance.

Are you SURE you don't work as an animator for Warner Brothers? I swore I've seen Wyle E Coyote run real fast so it lets him hover in mid air after he left the cliff edge.

Just as the plane moving forward imparts a force on the wheel causing it turn. The wheel turning imparts a force on the plane causing it to move backwards.

No. A plane moving forward will not cause it's wheels to magically turn. You need something else.

If I hold a kids tricycle wheel in my hand by the axel does it spin? No. If I walk around does it spin? No.

See? something is missing.

I have to lean down and let it roll on the ground. Then when I walk around it will spin.

What if I go into some factory/distribution warehouse and stand next to a moving conveyor. I can reach over and let the wheel touch the conveyor. If the conveyor is moving does it spin? Sure!

Does the spinning wheel then impart any force on me? A tiny bit, yes. Enough to yank me backwards at the speed of the moving conveyor (like is magically happening with your plane). Of course not. That's retarded.



Now bring this back to the original idea...

If I'm standing still next to the conveyor as it moves, holding the tricycle wheel on the conveyor the wheel will be spinning. Does any of this prevent me from walking forward? No. it would just make the wheel spin faster. What if I wanted to run? Any problem with that? No...it would just make the wheel spin faster.

If the conveyor runs at 100mph and I run the other way at 100mph (wow!) what's the big deal? The tiny little bearings of the tricycle wheel are probably getting hot I would guess...not an issue for an aircraft wheel. If I had wings sticking out the sides of my ass with a 100mph stall speed I would lift off. So what. Other than a human running at 100mph what is the problem here??? Nothing.


How does this translate to the plane/treadmill problem?
Simple. Replace me running alongside the conveyor holding the tricycle wheel with a jet engine hanging balanced on either side of the tricycle wheel. The whole assembly would move forward (faster than I could run) and the little wheel would spin damn fast. (damn fast = speed of conveyor PLUS speed of moving jet engines).


Are you really so retarded that you don't get this?

People here are calling you a troll. I disagree. I think you're either:
1. Retarded.
2. Have dragged this on so long that your loss of face by admitting you are wrong has caused your subconcious to lean forward and smack your consciousness so silly that it now behaves retarded.

 

[maluckey]

Here's one for you. We used to own a old Piper tr-pacer. Because of the low power and lower still airspeed, at times we would fly backwards relative to the ground, depending on the wind. We quickly learned to cross-tack like a sail boat to avoid flying directly into high winds.

Speed is relative to the airflow over the wings. At a certain speed/velocity of air across the leading edge of he wings, the aircraft produces more lift that the static weight of the aircraft, regardless of altitude or direction relative to the ground, or treadmill...it is in flight relative to the surface below it.

In the above scenario, the wheels would be madly spinning at twice my takeoff speed and would not like it one bit, but provided my aircraft had enough thrust to overcome the drag from the wheel bearings (freewheeling of course) and wheels spinning at almost 160 MPH, the plane would take off without a hitch (though the wheels would need to be looked at afterwards).

Conversely, if an aircraft carrier was going 160 knots in the direction of flight of a jet aircraft, the aircraft could "hover" over the deck and fly until someone tied it to the deck!!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Does the spinning wheel then impart any force on me? A tiny bit, yes. Enough to yank me backwards at the speed of the moving conveyor (like is magically happening with your plane). Of course not. That's retarded.

Of courses your retard. No one is saying you would go backwards at the speed of the treadmill and no one is say you can't move faster then a treadmill.

I'm saying that if you read the question such that the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface the plane will not move that is all.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Here's one for you. We used to own a old Piper tr-pacer. Because of the low power and lower still airspeed, at times we would fly backwards relative to the ground, depending on the wind. We quickly learned to cross-tack like a sail boat to avoid flying directly into high winds.

Speed is relative to the airflow over the wings. At a certain speed/velocity of air across the leading edge of he wings, the aircraft produces more lift that the static weight of the aircraft, regardless of altitude or direction relative to the ground, or treadmill...it is in flight relative to the surface below it.

In the above scenario, the wheels would be madly spinning at twice my takeoff speed and would not like it one bit, but provided my aircraft had enough thrust to overcome the drag from the wheel bearings (freewheeling of course) and wheels spinning at almost 160 MPH, the plane would take off without a hitch (though the wheels would need to be looked at afterwards).

Conversely, if an aircraft carrier was going 160 knots in the direction of flight of a jet aircraft, the aircraft could "hover" over the deck and fly until someone tied it to the deck!!

What is your point, yes we all know planes take off based on wind speed that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: maluckey
Here's one for you. We used to own a old Piper tr-pacer. Because of the low power and lower still airspeed, at times we would fly backwards relative to the ground, depending on the wind. We quickly learned to cross-tack like a sail boat to avoid flying directly into high winds.

Speed is relative to the airflow over the wings. At a certain speed/velocity of air across the leading edge of he wings, the aircraft produces more lift that the static weight of the aircraft, regardless of altitude or direction relative to the ground, or treadmill...it is in flight relative to the surface below it.

In the above scenario, the wheels would be madly spinning at twice my takeoff speed and would not like it one bit, but provided my aircraft had enough thrust to overcome the drag from the wheel bearings (freewheeling of course) and wheels spinning at almost 160 MPH, the plane would take off without a hitch (though the wheels would need to be looked at afterwards).

Conversely, if an aircraft carrier was going 160 knots in the direction of flight of a jet aircraft, the aircraft could "hover" over the deck and fly until someone tied it to the deck!!

What is your point, yes we all know planes take off based on wind speed that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Everyone keeps rephrasing it with the hope to penetrate the collapsium lined skull of yours. Obviously another failed attempt.