yeah i was ignoring that part. the belt needed to be strong enough that it can take the pounding of planes landing on it would be huge. I would also think the forces to stop the plane would be a huge factor on the people inside the plane.
Originally posted by: chrisms
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
no they wouldnt. think of the cost of such a thing. it is far cheaper to have a longer runway so they can takeoff.
More importantly, planes need to land. Good luck landing on a conveyor belt.
Originally posted by: chrisms
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
no they wouldnt. think of the cost of such a thing. it is far cheaper to have a longer runway so they can takeoff.
More importantly, planes need to land. Good luck landing on a conveyor belt.
Originally posted by: loic2003
Mythbhusters don't need to do the experiment because it's fvcking obvious. They also don't need to do the "if someone shoots my in the face with a crossbow, will it hurt?" experiment.
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: chrisms
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
no they wouldnt. think of the cost of such a thing. it is far cheaper to have a longer runway so they can takeoff.
More importantly, planes need to land. Good luck landing on a conveyor belt.
Doesn't matter. It's just as easy. Now once you account for friction/stiffness in the wheels, I think the initial impact will hurt like a b!tch and might rip the wheels off, but if you ignore that kinda friction in the axles, which is what we do when we assume the plane can take off, the landing should be exactly the same...
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: chrisms
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
no they wouldnt. think of the cost of such a thing. it is far cheaper to have a longer runway so they can takeoff.
More importantly, planes need to land. Good luck landing on a conveyor belt.
Doesn't matter. It's just as easy. Now once you account for friction/stiffness in the wheels, I think the initial impact will hurt like a b!tch and might rip the wheels off, but if you ignore that kinda friction in the axles, which is what we do when we assume the plane can take off, the landing should be exactly the same...
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: chrisms
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
no they wouldnt. think of the cost of such a thing. it is far cheaper to have a longer runway so they can takeoff.
More importantly, planes need to land. Good luck landing on a conveyor belt.
Doesn't matter. It's just as easy. Now once you account for friction/stiffness in the wheels, I think the initial impact will hurt like a b!tch and might rip the wheels off, but if you ignore that kinda friction in the axles, which is what we do when we assume the plane can take off, the landing should be exactly the same...
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: chrisms
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
no they wouldnt. think of the cost of such a thing. it is far cheaper to have a longer runway so they can takeoff.
More importantly, planes need to land. Good luck landing on a conveyor belt.
Doesn't matter. It's just as easy. Now once you account for friction/stiffness in the wheels, I think the initial impact will hurt like a b!tch and might rip the wheels off, but if you ignore that kinda friction in the axles, which is what we do when we assume the plane can take off, the landing should be exactly the same...
If you want to see impact you should see the slow motion films of an aircraft landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier or even better watch one land from the catwalk on the flight deck.
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
The thing that still isn't 100% clear to me is what effect the magical conveyor would have.
For instance, if it had the same effective function as a wheel chock, keeping the wheels from moving forward, the plane would not move, even though the thrust was not being applied through the wheels.
Your description seems to violate the conditions of the original proposal; for your scenario to be correct, the wheels would have to turn faster than the conveyor, which violates the stipulated condition of the problem.
Are you saying the conditions proposed are impossible, or that your scenario could take place within the scenario presented ?
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
Originally posted by: freebee
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
A plane going 100 mph (indicated) on a treadmill means the treadmill is going 100 mph. However, you've conveniently ignored the fact that the wheels are travelling in reverse at 200 mph, allowing the aircraft to take off.
Remember its true airspeed, not wheel speed like a car.
Originally posted by: freebee
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
A plane going 100 mph (indicated) on a treadmill means the treadmill is going 100 mph. However, you've conveniently ignored the fact that the wheels are travelling in reverse at 200 mph, allowing the aircraft to take off.
Remember its true airspeed, not wheel speed like a car.
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: freebee
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
A plane going 100 mph (indicated) on a treadmill means the treadmill is going 100 mph. However, you've conveniently ignored the fact that the wheels are travelling in reverse at 200 mph, allowing the aircraft to take off.
Remember its true airspeed, not wheel speed like a car.
I didnt ignore anything. I know wheel speed has nothing to do with it. so tell me where the airspeed comes from? the plane is NOT MOVING. its the same as sitting at the hold line doing a full power check with the brakes on just before take off. the plane is not moving, there is no airspeed and there is no take off.
Yes i do fly small planes from time to time.
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: freebee
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
A plane going 100 mph (indicated) on a treadmill means the treadmill is going 100 mph. However, you've conveniently ignored the fact that the wheels are travelling in reverse at 200 mph, allowing the aircraft to take off.
Remember its true airspeed, not wheel speed like a car.
but the condition is the treadmill moves at the speed of the wheels, not the speed of the plane. So in you description the treadmill would be going 200 mph, not 100 mph.
and the condition of the plane is not that it's moving at 100 mph airspeed, it is at rest..
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
hmm the thing is that it really does not matter what the wheels or treadmill are doing.
the plane generates its foreword mementom from teh engines not the wheels. so no matter if the treadmill is going at any speed the thrust is going to move it.
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
hmm the thing is that it really does not matter what the wheels or treadmill are doing.
the plane generates its foreword mementom from teh engines not the wheels. so no matter if the treadmill is going at any speed the thrust is going to move it.
what about my wheels chocks analogy ? Wheel chocks prevent the plane from moving, even though the thrust is not applied through the wheels.
Why is the force exerted by wheel chocks any different than the force exerted by an imaginary treadmill, that completely counteracts any forward motion of the wheels ?
Seems to me the only difference is in the case of wheel chocks, the wheels and chocks are stationary relative to each other, and in the treadmill case, the wheels and treadmills would be moving infinitely fast in opposite directions relative to each other.
The net effect in either case would be zero movement of the plane, relative to the air, wouldn't it ?
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
hmm the thing is that it really does not matter what the wheels or treadmill are doing.
the plane generates its foreword mementom from teh engines not the wheels. so no matter if the treadmill is going at any speed the thrust is going to move it.
what about my wheels chocks analogy ? Wheel chocks prevent the plane from moving, even though the thrust is not applied through the wheels.
Why is the force exerted by wheel chocks any different than the force exerted by an imaginary treadmill, that completely counteracts any forward motion of the wheels ?
Seems to me the only difference is in the case of wheel chocks, the wheels and chocks are stationary relative to each other, and in the treadmill case, the wheels and treadmills would be moving infinitely fast in opposite directions relative to each other.
The net effect in either case would be zero movement of the plane, relative to the air, wouldn't it ?
You're either flamebaiting or stupid.Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
hmm the thing is that it really does not matter what the wheels or treadmill are doing.
the plane generates its foreword mementom from teh engines not the wheels. so no matter if the treadmill is going at any speed the thrust is going to move it.
what about my wheels chocks analogy ? Wheel chocks prevent the plane from moving, even though the thrust is not applied through the wheels.
Why is the force exerted by wheel chocks any different than the force exerted by an imaginary treadmill, that completely counteracts any forward motion of the wheels ?
Seems to me the only difference is in the case of wheel chocks, the wheels and chocks are stationary relative to each other, and in the treadmill case, the wheels and treadmills would be moving infinitely fast in opposite directions relative to each other.
The net effect in either case would be zero movement of the plane, relative to the air, wouldn't it ?
Originally posted by: Linflas
Then you should know that propellers are nothing more than rotating wings that are creating lift in the horizontal dimension pulling the plane forward. The wheels have zip to do with anything. In a perfectly frictionless environment you could run the treadmill at whatever speed you wanted and the plane would not move but the moment you pitch the prop to provide thrust the plane will pull itself forward.
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: freebee
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
you forget the thrust is to pull/push the A/C through space to create wind over the wings which will gives you lift. A plane on a treadmill going 100 miles an hour with the treadmill going 100 MPH against it would not create wind and would not create lift. the plane is staying in one spot and will not take off.
A plane going 100 mph (indicated) on a treadmill means the treadmill is going 100 mph. However, you've conveniently ignored the fact that the wheels are travelling in reverse at 200 mph, allowing the aircraft to take off.
Remember its true airspeed, not wheel speed like a car.
I didnt ignore anything. I know wheel speed has nothing to do with it. so tell me where the airspeed comes from? the plane is NOT MOVING. its the same as sitting at the hold line doing a full power check with the brakes on just before take off. the plane is not moving, there is no airspeed and there is no take off.
Yes i do fly small planes from time to time.
Then you should know that propellers are nothing more than rotating wings that are creating lift in the horizontal dimension pulling the plane forward. The wheels have zip to do with anything. In a perfectly frictionless environment you could run the treadmill at whatever speed you wanted and the plane would not move but the moment you pitch the prop to provide thrust the plane will pull itself forward.