Stupid physics question

[old.user4556]

They serve absolutely no helpful purpose besides making you look like a condescending asshole.

Look mate, you're new and I don't like you already. This has been an interesting thread right up until your tone became that of a fucking cock and it's you that serves no helpful purpose with your pseudo-superior tone.

 

[caLLous]

The thread was interesting until about a third of the way through (saying page numbers is useless because different people have different 'posts per page' settings), where it disintegrated into a repetitive mess.

 

[Wij]

Look let's wrap it up.

Does anyone still think that a fairly normal plane with the brakes off will not take off ?

 

[old.user4556]

Maybes aye, maybes naw.

 

[Scouse]

To the no camp.

Can a water plane (ie one with floating ski's) take off in a river upstream?

Yes if it produces enough forward propulsion. If not it'll float merrily down stream...?

 

[Scouse]

Sorry for another post but this also needs to be ridiculed directly:
So you suggest that we'd sit in the seats in the airplane and push the seats in front of us to move the airplane forwards? Even the flintstones knew better than that.

Never said anything of the sort. You're too angry to argue objectively.

Either way. I came to the thread late, made a quick post, have considered it and yes, the plane could take off.

But ridicule away if it'll stop that vein in your head from bursting over your monitor

 

[Xgkkp]

Never said anything of the sort. You're too angry to argue objectively.

Either way. I came to the thread late, made a quick post, have considered it and yes, the plane could take off.

But ridicule away if it'll stop that vein in your head from bursting over your monitor

You said that there could be no external forces. Therefore only internal ones remain.....

I was angry and annoyed

 

[Mofo8]

I very wary of dipping my oar into this long-winded topic, but here goes.

The aircraft would not take off (unless it was a VTOL thingie like a Harrier or something). To take off requires a certain speed of air over the wings. If the belt continually matches the supposed speed of the plane, then there will be no airflow. With absolutely no wind at all, we'd require the plane to trundle forwards to get airflow. No trundling.... no airflow.

Imagine an aircraft that takes off at a speed of 60mph. Now imagine it trying to take off with a 40mph tailwind. It won't happen, as the air is flowing over the wings at only 20mph. With the opposite, a 40mph headwind, it would be able to take off with an indicated speed of only 20mph though.

There's too many complications in this thread though. The wheels would have to be magic wheels... aircraft wheels aren't designed to cope with speeds such as those being discussed.

 

[Calaen]

I very wary of dipping my oar into this long-winded topic, but here goes.

The aircraft would not take off (unless it was a VTOL thingie like a Harrier or something). To take off requires a certain speed of air over the wings. If the belt continually matches the supposed speed of the plane, then there will be no airflow.

Imagine an aircraft that takes off at a speed of 60mph. Now imagine it trying to take off with a 40mph tailwind. It won't happen, as the air is flowing over the wings at only 20mph. With the opposite, a 40mph headwind, it would be able to take off with an indicated speed of only 20mph though.

There's too many complications in this thread though. The wheels would have to be magic wheels... aircraft wheels aren't designed to cope with speeds such as those being discussed.

They conveyor belt is not going to be pushing the plane backwards though, it is only going to make the wheels turn faster in the direction they are already turning, The power to move forward is generated by the fuck off engines not the wheels. The best example yet is the one with the water plane read it.

 

[Clown]

Nerd Rage
Nerd Rage

 

[Mofo8]

A question for the yes camp. How would this theoretical situation look to an observer standing in line with the plane at the side of the runway? Would he hear the engines spool up and see the plane's wheels begin to spin faster and faster (while the aircraft stays still in relation to him)? Then what? At some magical amount of thrust the aircraft would just jump into the air and fly off? Bollocks. If the surface beneath the aircraft changes it's speed to match that generated by the plane, then it will NEVER move forward. If it never moves forward and there's no wind, then it will NEVER have any air flowing over (and under) the wings. No wind over the lifting surfaces equals no lift.

I realise that aircraft wheels do not operate like automobile wheels, but neither do most aircraft propulsion units (whether prop or jet or whatever) provide lift. They push or pull the airframe through the air. Lift comes from the wings. No air over the wings - no flight.

The waterplane arguement doesn't work for me. The floats basically act like boat hulls once the plane reaches a certain speed through the water. Nothing at all to do with a theoretical plane with magic wheels on a magic surface as discussed throughout most of the thread.

Who the f**k started this anyway? It's annoying as f**k!

 

[Tilda]

It would look like a normal take off, except the wheels would be moving faster.
The jets as you say, dont provide lift, but thrust.
So the engines thrust and pull the plane forwards through the air, no matter what happens to the wheels. So you get air flowing over the wings, and thus takeoff.

 

[Wij]

A question for the yes camp. How would this theoretical situation look to an observer standing in line with the plane at the side of the runway? Would he hear the engines spool up and see the plane's wheels begin to spin faster and faster (while the aircraft stays still in relation to him)? Then what? At some magical amount of thrust the aircraft would just jump into the air and fly off? Bollocks. If the surface beneath the aircraft changes it's speed to match that generated by the plane, then it will NEVER move forward. If it never moves forward and there's no wind, then it will NEVER have any air flowing over (and under) the wings. No wind over the lifting surfaces equals no lift.

I realise that aircraft wheels do not operate like automobile wheels, but neither do most aircraft propulsion units (whether prop or jet or whatever) provide lift. They push or pull the airframe through the air. Lift comes from the wings. No air over the wings - no flight.

The waterplane arguement doesn't work for me. The floats basically act like boat hulls once the plane reaches a certain speed through the water. Nothing at all to do with a theoretical plane with magic wheels on a magic surface as discussed throughout most of the thread.

Who the f**k started this anyway? It's annoying as f**k!

This has all been answered before...

 

[Bodhi]

Tbh, if you still think the plane's gonna take off you're a bit of a spaz too caught up in theoretical physics to know what would happen in the real world. I see one of three scenarios.........

1) The wheels will probably break causing the plane to crash to the runway and not go anywhere, causing it not to take off.

2) French Air Traffic Control will get annoyed at all the U.S designed travellators and go on strike, causing it not to take off.

3) The travellator's actually got the wrong kind of snow on it, causing it to break. It'll then be dug up leaving us with no runway, causing the plane not to take off.

Can we go back to talking about poo now please all this physics shit is deeply dull.

 

[Maljonic]

Has anyone tested it with a model yet?

 

[Ch3tan]

WHY IS THIS FUCKING THREAD NOT CLOSED YET.

MAGIC AIRPLANE WHEELS. HUGE FUCKING CONVEYER BELTS WITH MAGIC SPEEDS.

ANGRY FUCKING NERDS.

just CTF.. so tempting.

 

[Chilly]

agree with ch3t. this has gone on long enough.

 

[Maljonic]

I haven't read the whole thread myself, just the first couple of pages and the last couple - it doesn't seem all that bad. Was there lots of hair pulling in the middle?

 

[Clown]

I said this on page 2.

 

[Talyn]

There are 8 weasels on a conveyor belt, and some food at the end of it. Do the weasel get to the food if the conveyor is controled by an evil genius who also owns sharks with laser beams on thier heads?

 

[ECA]

That depends if the "pieces of food" are attached to someones nuts or not

 

[WPKenny]

Please, PLEASE made it stop!

Lou's convinced the plane won't take off and I can't seem to get her to understand the principles of friction and external forces acting upon a body are the important aspects of this problem.

Either lock the thread of provide proof either way. You can debate all you like but if someone's brain refuses to think that way no matter if they're Einstein of not, then it's not going to be possible to change it.

 

[Jupitus]

I said it takes off hence it would take off.

Proof.

 

[WPKenny]

Me and Lou just had a massive discussion about this.

I tried to explain it like this...

Imagine you're holiding a toy plane, running along the giant conveyor holding the plane above it.

You're running at, let's say, 30mph (fast, I know). Therefore the belt below the plane is spinning at 30mph in the opposite direction. The relative speed of the plane to the belt is 60mph. Now tell me what would happen if you lowered the plane onto the run way while still running along at 30mph and still holding the plane in your hand. Would the plane be jerked out of your hand as it magically stuck to the run way? Or would the wheel simply spin stupidly fast as you continued to run along the run way with the plane in your hands?

Now if you agree that the wheels spin, then the only thing you need to get over is that there's no difference between the forces your hand is exerting on the plane and the thrust from the engines of the plane.

 

[Damini]

And I tried to respond that he was wrong, and doing my head in.

 

[Tilda]

The little sparrow singing in a tree, can behold the inventions of mankind, electicity, planes, cars. However, that does not mean he can understand them.

 

[Tom]

I have proof, so be quiet.

 

[Danya]

I very wary of dipping my oar into this long-winded topic, but here goes.

The aircraft would not take off (unless it was a VTOL thingie like a Harrier or something). To take off requires a certain speed of air over the wings. If the belt continually matches the supposed speed of the plane, then there will be no airflow. With absolutely no wind at all, we'd require the plane to trundle forwards to get airflow. No trundling.... no airflow.

Imagine an aircraft that takes off at a speed of 60mph. Now imagine it trying to take off with a 40mph tailwind. It won't happen, as the air is flowing over the wings at only 20mph. With the opposite, a 40mph headwind, it would be able to take off with an indicated speed of only 20mph though.

There's too many complications in this thread though. The wheels would have to be magic wheels... aircraft wheels aren't designed to cope with speeds such as those being discussed.

Conveyor belts don't generate tailwinds.

 

[dysfunction]

I have proof, so be quiet.

lol thats brillaint...

 

[UrganNagru]

"You're running at, let's say, 30mph (fast, I know). Therefore the belt below the plane is spinning at 30mph in the opposite direction. The relative speed of the plane to the belt is 60mph. Now tell me what would happen if you lowered the plane onto the run way while still running along at 30mph and still holding the plane in your hand. Would the plane be jerked out of your hand as it magically stuck to the run way? Or would the wheel simply spin stupidly fast as you continued to run along the run way with the plane in your hands?

Now if you agree that the wheels spin, then the only thing you need to get over is that there's no difference between the forces your hand is exerting on the plane and the thrust from the engines of the plane."

Not sure how to do quote tags, but using your anology although the plane would keep running once it touches the belt there would still be no air flow running over the wings as neither you or the plane are making any distance relative to a point off the belt.

Shouldn't of really replied as people seem to want this thread to die, but I'll throw my two pence in anyway. Personally i don't think the plane will take off as the movement of the conveyer would counteract any external force on the plane, ie if the velocity of a point on the planes wheel was moving at 30ms^-1 the conveyer would be moving a 30ms^-1 in the opposite direction keeping the plane in equillibrium and hence no air movement over the wings. And although several have argued that because the wheels are driven this doesn't matter, I'd of thought it would as for the plane to move smoothly the wheels must spin, yet for the plane to move it would have to move faster than its wheels (as they're going at the same speed as the conveyer).
Not quite sure of what the Yes crowd are getting at but it seems to be along the lines that the conveyer speed has no effect upon the speed of the plane being as the wheels aren't driven.