Plane on a treadmill poll...

[man]

Holy shit, why is this still going? People really don't get this? Just answer yes and move on. Also, you should plan to take a physics course sometime in your lives. You'll look back at this thread and realize the error of your ways.

[Fast Shadow]

The plane will take off as long as the treadmill as as long as a traditional runway and as long as the plane's wheels don't fall off, since they'll be spinning twice as fast as normal.

If you want proof of this concept go to an airport with one of those flat, conveyor belt walkways in the terminal, like Charlotte. Stand on solid ground next to the walkway and bring a rolling suitcase. Put the suitcase on the rolling walkway in the opposite direction that you're walking, and pull the suitcase along with you. The suitcase will roll right along with you as you walk, but the wheels will be spinning twice as fast. It's the exact same principle - the wheels are not driving the plane, the engines are. The wheels are not driving your suitcase, your body is.

[Deke]

Yeah, ok I originally voted no but then I read the question closer. If the treadmill matched the speed of the plane's wheels, then no it would not take off. However, since the question states that the treadmill matches the speed of the plane and the wheels are free rolling, yes, it would definitely take off.

Oh, and wow this thread is old.

[Fast Shadow]

Opposite direction will prevent it from moving. Same direction will increase it's speed.

It scares the piss out of me that someone who doesn't understand the most basic princples of physics is allowed to own a 600rwhp car.

[speedminded]

The plane will take off as long as the treadmill as as long as a traditional runway and as long as the plane's wheels don't fall off, since they'll be spinning twice as fast as normal.

If you want proof of this concept go to an airport with one of those flat, conveyor belt walkways in the terminal, like Charlotte. Stand on solid ground next to the walkway and bring a rolling suitcase. Put the suitcase on the rolling walkway in the opposite direction that you're walking, and pull the suitcase along with you. The suitcase will roll right along with you as you walk, but the wheels will be spinning twice as fast. It's the exact same principle - the wheels are not driving the plane, the engines are. The wheels are not driving your suitcase, your body is.Very good :goodjob: Exactly what i quoted before...



This is somewhat of a "trick" question. Not because it is phrased in a
deliberately tricky way, but because people tend to have trouble
thinking about the operation of other vehicles apart from cars which
they know so well.

The heart of the confusion is simply these two important facts:
* cars propel themselves by pushing against the ground via friction
* airplanes propel themselves by pushing against the air
If you can let go of how cars operate and think about what an airplane
does, you'll be able to see the problem clearly.

One good way of tackling this problem is to find a good analogy. But
the analogy must be a valid one else you'll just get more confused.
For example, someone posted the analogy of running on a treadmill. Why
is that a bad analogy? Because one runs by pushing against the ground
via friction between their shoe and the ground. This is how a car
propels itself! It is not how an airplane propels itself, by pushing
against the air. Bad analogy.

Let's use this analogy. Instead of looking at the airplane, let's back
up and go into the airport. Suppose you're walking down to your gate
and pulling your carry-on bag behind you. It's a nice new bag with low
friction wheels. No problem! Up ahead you see one of those moving
walkways. You don't see anyone coming, so you decide to do a little
experiment. You go over to the walkway that is moving TOWARDS you and
place your bag on it. Meanwhile, you step off to the side of the
walkway, and still holding on to the handle of your bag, you continue
to walk along. In fact, you intentionally walk along at the same speed
that the moving walkway is going, just in the opposite direction.
Question: does the bag move or does it remain stationary as you keep
walking? Obviously it moves with you. So why does your bag move
forward when you are walking at the same speed of the conveyor going
in the opposite direction?

The answer to that question is also the answer to the
airplane-conveyor question. To complete the analogy, the pull of your
arm is analogous to the force of the airplane engines. The bag's
wheels are analogous to the airplane tires. Do the nice low-friction
wheels on your bag on the conveyor pull against you anymore than they
do when you're just pulling your bag along normally? No, they don't.
They are free-wheeling, after all. Meanwhile, you're pulling the bag
with the same force in both cases. So in both cases, the bag keeps
moving forward. Likewise with the airplane, the pull of the engines
doesn't change nor does the force on the airplane imparted by the
tires change no matter what the ground is doing underneath the tires.
You have the same force imbalance in either case, and since Force =
mass x accceleration, you have the same acceleration. Remember, we are
talking airplane engines which push against the AIR, not the ground.
The acceleration is with respect to the AIR, thus the airplane
develops a speed relative to the air and can eventually take off...

John Strong
Ph.D., biochemical engineering
M.S., chemical engineering
B.S., mechanical engineering

[Fast Shadow]

For the record I had a hard time figuring this out at first, too. I had trouble with the concept of the wheels not driving the plane until I did the suitcase/airport thing. And yes, I actually did it. I was in Charlotte a few weeks ago for something else and saw one of those walkways in the airport, LOL.

The one thing I DIDN'T do, even when I was confused by the concept, was argue and get in fights with people who know a thing or two about physics. echo419 is a fucking retard who should be banned for a lot of reasons, profound stupidity being one of them. His insulting of a guy who served for 8 years in the Air Force being another reason why.

[{X}Echo419]

For the record I had a hard time figuring this out at first, too. I had trouble with the concept of the wheels not driving the plane until I did the suitcase/airport thing. And yes, I actually did it. I was in Charlotte a few weeks ago for something else and saw one of those walkways in the airport, LOL.

The one thing I DIDN'T do, even when I was confused by the concept, was argue and get in fights with people who know a thing or two about physics. echo419 is a fucking retard who should be banned for a lot of reasons, profound stupidity being one of them. His insulting of a guy who served for 8 years in the Air Force being another reason why.

a. I was NOT in the Airforce
b. gawd damn you can't get over shit can you? jesus get a puppy or something
c. I'd crush you son ask anybody on here that's met me.
d. it's the INTERNET let it go
e. what am I doing here there probally 1 of 1,000,0000,000,000 versions of CSI on :tongue1:

[BuBBa DRiFT]

now that you guys explain it, i was overthinking, so basically, even if its on a treadmill, the plane requires the same amount of work to take off, regardless of the treadmill speed?

[ISAtlanta300]

now that you guys explain it, i was overthinking, so basically, even if its on a treadmill, the plane requires the same amount of work to take off, regardless of the treadmill speed?

Yes. No matter what the treadmill is doing down there, there is no stress on the engine.

To understand that, in a black hole situation, yes the starship won't move, since the gravitational pull is on the entire aircraft, engine and all. The starship won't escape the black hole, but also won't fall in (as long as he keeps his thrusters on, and has fuel)

In this example the resistance is on the wheels alone (from the spinning treadmill), not on the engines. It will take off like nothing happened. Only the wheels will be spinning faster than normal.

[Ruiner]

Thank goodness some of ya'll are coming around. I'm proud that you see the light (the correct one). Yes, the plane will take off and some of you have explained it rather well.

The "rolling a suitcase with wheels in the airport walkway" was rather brilliant. :)

[Kyle]

Thank goodness some of ya'll are coming around. I'm proud that you see the light (the correct one). Yes, the plane will take off and some of you have explained it rather well.

The "rolling a suitcase with wheels in the airport walkway" was rather brilliant. :)
I was wondering what you would say when you saw that this had started up again. But yeah it seems people are coming around, the percentages have changed a bit in the past few hours.

[Echonova]

I was wondering what you would say when you saw that this had started up again. But yeah it seems people are coming around, the percentages have changed a bit in the past few hours.The smart people almost outnumber the dumb. Yea!!!!

[Fast Shadow]

I think the problem most people have (including me, initially) is that they imagine the plane would be able to take off from a very short treadmill, which isn't the case. The treadmill would need to be as long as a regular paved runway. But the thing I had the most trouble with is getting it through my head that the plane's engine drives it through the air, there is no power being delivered through the wheels. I'm such a car guy that it made that concept pretty tough to get ahold of at first.

[Ruiner]

I think the problem most people have (including me, initially) is that they imagine the plane would be able to take off from a very short treadmill, which isn't the case. The treadmill would need to be as long as a regular paved runway. But the thing I had the most trouble with is getting it through my head that the plane's engine drives it through the air, there is no power being delivered through the wheels. I'm such a car guy that it made that concept pretty tough to get ahold of at first.

I thought that I made that clear when I initially posted the question... :???:


Suppose a plane is on a runway that acts as a conveyer belt. The conveyor belt is as long as a typical runway. The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction at the same speed as the plane. The wheels of the plane are free-rolling. Will the plane be able to take off?

[_Christian_]

it's rather astonishing to see how many people have trouble grasping such a simple concept

[BKgen®]

now that you guys explain it, i was overthinking, so basically, even if its on a treadmill, the plane requires the same amount of work to take off, regardless of the treadmill speed?

x2 :doh:

[EclipsEvo8]

I fly a real Boeing 757/767, not microsoft, no the plane on the treadmill would not fly.

[BKgen®]

it doesn't matter.

the only way that plane's going anywhere is if Jack Bauer says it can.

[EclipsEvo8]

Jack Bauer is my hero, and Bruce Willis, lol. Looking forward to the next season of, "24", lol.

[DemonEyez]

I fly a real Boeing 757/767, not microsoft, no the plane on the treadmill would not fly.

whats ur name?

cus i sure as hell wouldnt want a dumbass as my pilot when i fly somewhere.

[RISKYB]

good question, you almost got me

[Kelly]

I ALMOST got excited because I thought we were gonna let this thread die...

But alas...

[Kyle]

I ALMOST got excited because I thought we were gonna let this thread die...

But alas...
I almost got excited because I hadnt seen you post in a while, so I was happy, but alas.

[Echonova]

I fly a real Boeing 757/767, not microsoft, no the plane on the treadmill would not fly.Have to ever flown a plane on a treadmill?

[Kyle]

Have to ever flown a plane on a treadmill?
Lol. I dont want someone like him flying me if he doesnt understand this.

[yudalicious]

the wording of the question is ambiguous enough where it could be both. assuming the belt and wheels generate negligible friction, then yes it will take off.

[Ruiner]

the wording of the question is ambiguous enough where it could be both. assuming the belt and wheels generate negligible friction, then yes it will take off.

How could it be both? You just explain why it would take off. Explain to me, given the question, how it wouldn't take off?

[yudalicious]

How could it be both? You just explain why it would take off. Explain to me, given the question, how it wouldn't take off?

At first I imagined that with enough friction, it wouldnt. But after reading it seems like I'm wrong. It'd take off regardless, assuming we have amazing wheel bearings haha.

[Ruiner]

At first I imagined that with enough friction, it wouldnt. But after reading it seems like I'm wrong. It'd take off regardless, assuming we have amazing wheel bearings haha.

In the grand scheme of things, the friction created by the wheel bearings even in a real world scenario, would be minute in comparison. An airplane's/jet's engines could easily overcome that small amount of friction.

[Jecht]

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/9329/119318918298rd6.gif
Bump

[IDCoconut]

The ***** will take off dammit.

[Jecht]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3529/119319165223rc2.jpg

[IDCoconut]

some of you bitches can't grasp the concept of an external force.


put some damn rollerblades on and strap a jetpack on your back. turn the threadmill on to full speed while you go WOT on your jetpack. Where do you think you will end up? You'll be choking on the treadmills controls while the jetpack is feeling up your ass.

[Jecht]

Surprise!!1!

[joecoolfreak]

So will it take off?

[redrumracer]

yes/thread and lock please

[speedminded]

I so almost bumped this this week but got distracted while searching for it lolol!

Can't lock it because the poll has more idiots than not in it!

[joecoolfreak]

=-) I have already seen a no vote today

[EJ25RUN]

yes/thread and lock please
lol at your vote. :haha:

[redrumracer]

lol at your vote. :haha:
lololol shhhhhhhh :ninja: :ninja:

[tdurr]

lol this was dug up again? oh boy.. the question is flawed btw.

[speedminded]

lol this was dug up again? oh boy.. the question is flawed btw.What is flawed about the question?

"Suppose a plane is on a runway that acts as a conveyer belt. The conveyor belt is as long as a typical runway. The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction at the same speed as the plane. The wheels of the plane are free-rolling. Will the plane be able to take off?"

It looks perfectly clear to me?

[3.5altman]

I picked no but now that i think about it the answer is yes. An airplane would take off due to the thrust of the airplane engines acts on the air, not on the ground.

[BanginJimmy]

I actually read a couple pages of responses. I cant believe how dense some people are. They simply cannot get over the fact that the wheels on a plane are not powered and are free spinning.

[BB1_Luda]

LoL @ dumb people.


You know Mythbusters did this exact myth a month or 2 ago.
look that shit up.

The plane took off when it was on the treadmill.




OWNED


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

[BABY J]

....

[speedminded]

LoL @ dumb people.


You know Mythbusters did this exact myth a month or 2 ago.
look that shit up.

The plane took off when it was on the treadmill.lol, this and another thread was created well before the original airing of the show and I organized an IA meet for it lol!

[Ruiner]

I picked no but now that i think about it the answer is yes. An airplane would take off due to the thrust of the airplane engines acts on the air, not on the ground.

That is 100% correct.

[BABY J]

I'm changing my answer... shit won't take off.

[Ruiner]

LoL @ dumb people.


You know Mythbusters did this exact myth a month or 2 ago.
look that shit up.

The plane took off when it was on the treadmill.




OWNED


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

You mean a year and a half ago? It was shown on tv, if I recall correctly, Jan 30th, 2008.

[Atlblkz06]

Wow only 49% of IA is stupid lol...

[ShooterMcGavin]

was resurrection of this shit really necessary? at this point all it proves is that we have more dumbasses here on IA...

[SPOOLIN]

lol today is old thread day.

of course the plane will lift off LOL

[MINI]

FUCK I MEANT YES

[speedminded]

You mean a year and a half ago? It was shown on tv, if I recall correctly, Jan 30th, 2008.yeah, after everybody got shafted by them hyping it up then not airing it on the date everything said they were!!

[speedminded]

and yet another mentality challenged member just voted no lol! *sigh* free spinning wheels people...f r e e s p i n n i n g w h e e l s.

[man]

The answer is no. if the planes wheels are going 200mph and the treadmill is going 200mph in the other direction it will stay still, thus not being able to generate lift due to the lack of air flowing around the wings...

[SPOOLIN]

The answer is no. if the planes wheels are going 200mph and the treadmill is going 200mph in the other direction it will stay still, thus not being able to generate lift due to the lack of air flowing around the wings...

LULZ you are a retard.

maybe this dead thread was a good come back :crazy:

[man]

LULZ you are a retard.

maybe this dead thread was a good come back :crazy:

Isn't the answer obvious?

[speedminded]

The answer is no. if the planes wheels are going 200mph and the treadmill is going 200mph in the other direction it will stay still, thus not being able to generate lift due to the lack of air flowing around the wings...The planes wheels could be spinning at 800mph and the plane would still take off just like it was on a non-moving runway.


How do you suppose these planes without wheels take off?

http://www.usainvestments.lt/galery/__photo10/ba/7_1.jpg


The contact area where an airplane meets earth has nothing to do with the forward motion of a plane other than a VERY small amount of friction. Airplanes are propelled by air movement, not what is in contact with the ground.

[ISAtlanta300]

The answer is no. if the planes wheels are going 200mph and the treadmill is going 200mph in the other direction it will stay still, thus not being able to generate lift due to the lack of air flowing around the wings...

The question you need to ask yourself is 'why would the wheels be spinning at 200mph?'

That will help give you the answer.

It will take off.

[Ran]

WTF 2006?

[SPOOLIN]

LOL!!!

I love the example of the water plane!!

[ISAtlanta300]

I'll make it even easier for you.

Same plane and treadmill.

Take an ax, chop the wheels off, and put oil and butter on the plane's belly mixed with some secret KY lubricant that prevents friction heat (Lab tested in Amsterdam on Hookers), to make the belly extra slippery allowing it to just 'glide'.

Will the plane take off?

There's your answer right there.

[speedminded]

LOL!!!

I love the example of the water plane!!I was saddened to see even some pilots arguing with such a basic concept. Airplanes are not powered by the wheels, no matter how fast the conveyor is spinning the airplane will still propel itself forward and lift off just like any runway or airstrip.

[man]

The water plane one is easy...

It won't take off, see. That the pilot is sitting on there pissed because he thought it would fly

[Ran]

The water plane one is easy...

It won't take off, see. That the pilot is sitting on there pissed because he thought it would fly:lmao:

[speedminded]

The water plane one is easy...

It won't take off, see. That the pilot is sitting on there pissed because he thought it would flylol! Touché...almost.


Now if this was on a conveyor belt the plane would not budge...and neither would the truck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWyTHQRIK8

[man]

btw, check what I voted 3 years ago....
























:ninja:

[_Christian_]

I forgot about this thread. LOL @ everyone who said "NO." :taun:

I was saddened to see even some pilots arguing with such a basic concept. Airplanes are not powered by the wheels, no matter how fast the conveyor is spinning the airplane will still propel itself forward and lift off just like any runway or airstrip.
x2. That's what got to me. Even the pilot on the Mythbusters episode was skeptical. It's crazy that people can know how to fly a plane, but don't fully understand how it works. :screwy:

[man]

x2. That's what got to me. Even the pilot on the Mythbusters episode was skeptical. It's crazy that people can know how to fly a plane, but don't fully understand how it works. :screwy:

Why is that surprising? People drive cars/boats/tractors/etc. without knowing everything about them.

[_Christian_]

Why is that surprising? People drive cars/boats/tractors/etc. without knowing everything about them.
Yeah, because aspiring pilots just wait in line for an hour and take it around the block to get their certification. :rolleyes:

[man]

Yeah, because aspiring pilots just wait in line for an hour and take it around the block to get their certification. :rolleyes:

No, you're right. They all have to have PHDs in aerospace engineering...

A pilots license is easier to get than you apparently think.

[SPOOLIN]

yes its easy but not nearly as easy as a license to drive across land.

[man]

yes its easy but not nearly as easy as a license to drive across land.

That's not the point i was making... But you are right

[_Christian_]

No, you're right. They all have to have PHDs in aerospace engineering...

A pilots license is easier to get than you apparently think.
The point is, the average pilot knows a lot more about aviation than the average driver does driving. Almost everyone has their driver's license. The majority of pilots, even with only their VFR, are at least enthusiasts. I'm not saying learning how to fly is hard, but harder than understanding basic physics. Your analogy was off.

[man]

The point is, the average pilot knows a lot more about aviation than the average driver does driving. Almost everyone has their driver's license. The majority of pilots, even with only their VFR, are at least enthusiasts. I'm not saying learning how to fly is hard, but harder than understanding basic physics. Your analogy was off.

I dont think if was off too far. I know pilots that have no clue how airplanes even generate lift.

[BABY J]

^^ I'm gonna call bullshit. I've been flying since I was 17 years old in CAP... and also for 8 years in the military. I find this HIGHLY unbelievable.

[man]

Alright, new question for debate. How do planes generate lift?


I'm gonna call bullshit. I've been flying since I was 17 years old in CAP... and also for 8 years in the military. I find this HIGHLY unbelievable.

Why is that difficult to believe? Because you know how they work and you are a pilot? That doesn't mean every pilot knows.

[redrumracer]

Yeah, because aspiring pilots just wait in line for an hour and take it around the block to get their certification. :rolleyes:
lol try like 4 hours per certification

i know the sarcasm

[redrumracer]

Alright, new question for debate. How do planes generate lift?



Why is that difficult to believe? Because you know how they work and you are a pilot? That doesn't mean every pilot knows.
air flow over the wings.

[BanginJimmy]

Any of you pilots out there need any sheetmetal tools? Or need some sheetmetal work done?

I have a full toolbox to sell off and I could use the cash if you need any work done.

[IDCoconut]

What I find funny is Pilots saying "no". LOL.

Anyone can put the time and money to learn how to fly and actually fly...but not everyone can design a plane and know how it works.

49% of you need to shut the fuck up and go pick up a Dynamics book.

[redrumracer]

Any of you pilots out there need any sheetmetal tools? Or need some sheetmetal work done?

I have a full toolbox to sell off and I could use the cash if you need any work done.
i dont, i dont have that kind of money to actually own a plane.

[speedminded]

Any of you pilots out there need any sheetmetal tools? Or need some sheetmetal work done?

I have a full toolbox to sell off and I could use the cash if you need any work done.What do you have?

[BABY J]

i dont, i dont have that kind of money to actually own a plane.

Owning a plane isn't the hard part - insurance/storage/maintenace is.

[BanginJimmy]

What do you have?


Just about anything for sheetmetal repair. From Clecos, to countersink cages, to rivet sets and bucking bars. Honestly, the only high use tools I dont have are close quarters 90* and 45* drills.

[Ruiner]

air flow over the wings.

*sorta*, but not really the physics behind it in its entirety.

It's based on Bernoulli's principle if you want to know the scientific answer. Basically, a wing has a "long side" and a "short side" of sorts. The top part of the wing is longer (it is curved) while the bottom part is flat.

As the wind moves over the top and the bottom, the wind moving over the top goes faster than the wind moving over the bottom of the wing. That creates lift (if you really want to simplify it).

[Ruiner]

What I find funny is Pilots saying "no". LOL.

Anyone can put the time and money to learn how to fly and actually fly...but not everyone can design a plane and know how it works.

49% of you need to shut the fuck up and go pick up a Dynamics book.

Given the education level of the majority of IA, the responses don't surprise me.

[ShooterMcGavin]

Given the education level of the majority of IA, the responses don't surprise me.
qft, and this is coming from a uga grad ;) :tongue1:

[EJ25RUN]

*sorta*, but not really the physics behind it in its entirety.

It's based on Bernoulli's principle if you want to know the scientific answer. Basically, a wing has a "long side" and a "short side" of sorts. The top part of the wing is longer (it is curved) while the bottom part is flat.

As the wind moves over the top and the bottom, the wind moving over the top goes faster than the wind moving over the bottom of the wing. That creates lift (if you really want to simplify it).
Or why convertible soft tops bulge up at speed.

[Ruiner]

qft, and this is coming from a uga grad ;) :tongue1:

Well, graduating with honors helped. ;)

Either cum laude or magna cum laude (trying to remember my GPA). Bah.

[_Christian_]

*sorta*, but not really the physics behind it in its entirety.

It's based on Bernoulli's principle if you want to know the scientific answer. Basically, a wing has a "long side" and a "short side" of sorts. The top part of the wing is longer (it is curved) while the bottom part is flat.

As the wind moves over the top and the bottom, the wind moving over the top goes faster than the wind moving over the bottom of the wing. That creates lift (if you really want to simplify it).
Yup yup, molecules on both the top and bottom take the same amount of time to travel the distance of the wing, even though the distance on top is greater. Therefore the ones on top have to be spaced farther apart, and move faster, thus creating lower pressure on the top of the wing. I'm sure you know this, but I'm just adding a little extra info for the slower half of IA.

Or why convertible soft tops bulge up at speed.
Perfect example.

[man]

*sorta*, but not really the physics behind it in its entirety.

It's based on Bernoulli's principle if you want to know the scientific answer. Basically, a wing has a "long side" and a "short side" of sorts. The top part of the wing is longer (it is curved) while the bottom part is flat.

As the wind moves over the top and the bottom, the wind moving over the top goes faster than the wind moving over the bottom of the wing. That creates lift (if you really want to simplify it).

This is incorrect, but it is a common misconception. A planes wings can have a short and long side but wings may also be symmetrical. The trailing edge of the wing is the main requirement for flight.

Learned this in Aerospace Engineering a GaTech, for those that want to question.

[03CobraAV8R]

I've heard some pilots at the airport debating this topic, I was surprised, how could anyone, especially a fellow aviator, think that the plane won't take off?!

This is incorrect, but it is a common misconception. A planes wings can have a short and long side but wings may also be symmetrical. The trailing edge of the wing is the main requirement for flight.
Well the angle of attack is the main thing required to produce lift - without angle of attack there isn't any lift. The angle of attack is defined as the angle between the chord line of the wing and the relative wind. That's what accelerates the air over the top of the wing as a result of circulation, the curve of the wing is mainly to delay flow separation (stall) at high angles of attack. So an asymetrically curved wing has a higher maximum coefficient of lift compared with a symetrical wing.

Yup yup, molecules on both the top and bottom take the same amount of time to travel the distance of the wing, even though the distance on top is greater. Therefore the ones on top have to be spaced farther apart, and move faster, thus creating lower pressure on the top of the wing. I'm sure you know this, but I'm just adding a little extra info for the slower half of IA.
That's called the equal transit time theory and it's not correct at all - it's unfortunate that such misinformation is presented in so many textbooks and aviation books. The molecules on the top of the wing reach the trailing edge of the wing before the molecules on the bottom, they never meet up again - without this there would be no force exerted on the air by the wing.

Good page for anyone interested in the mechanics of flight - http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html

How a wing produces lift is quite a bit more involved than just the simple Bournelli explanation - that's part of it, but there's also Newton's action/reaction and Kutta Zukhovsky's circulation. Off-topic for this debate, but it's interesting.

[joecoolfreak]

It's about that time again...

[speedminded]

It's about that time again...LOL! I almost bumped this last week after a couple of us were talking about it.

[joecoolfreak]

LOL! I almost bumped this last week after a couple of us were talking about it.

That's about what you said last time I bumped it. =-p

[efman]

i'm not going to lie i must be dumb because i do not know the answer

[S2KJD]

has the answer been revealed yet? im not reading 43 pages...

[S2KJD]

Once again, I don't want an explanation. I already know the answer.

43 pages later...:D

[speedminded]

43 pages later...:DDid you notice the date? The answer will always be YES, the plane WILL take off. Unfortunately people continue to vote "no" even though it has been proven to be "yes". Come on, use your brain peoples lol!

[BABY J]

Shit won't take off.

[Homer Simpson]

it will take off.

the plane is not powered at the wheels, so the threadmill will not have any effect whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KsdMuhYJPw

[blaknoize]

hmm... although the answer is yes, the question didnt clarify if the thread-mill was a heavy earth magnet that generated a magnetic field that prevented the plane from taking off.

[Bajjani]

hmm... although the answer is yes, the question didnt clarify if the thread-mill was a heavy earth magnet that generated a magnetic field that prevented the plane from taking off.

Plane = not take off!

[ISAtlanta300]

Shit won't take off.

Lollers.... instigator.....

[Bajjani]

I refuse to read this thread but here is my theory

First off, fuck stupid people thinking it is powered by the wheels. The question states that if it is on a treadmill that can match the speed of the wheels will it TAKE OFF, not move. The answer is no. The cause for lift is the air across the wings (pressure vs velocity) we all agree on this. In this scenario the only thing generating airflow is the engine. The engine will not generate enough air flow on a plane standing still to take off.

Think of it like this. If you could force a plane to be stuck horizontally in one spot and it could only move vertically, could the air flow from the engines push enough air against the entire wing to generate lift (and cause the plane to rise). No

Who the fuck cares if it is powered by the wheels, the bottom line is if its on a treadmill the plane is stuck horizontally, there in lies the issue of lacking lift. Period.

[grizz311]

I refuse to read this thread but here is my theory

First off, fuck stupid people thinking it is powered by the wheels. The question states that if it is on a treadmill that can match the speed of the wheels will it TAKE OFF, not move. The answer is no. The cause for lift is the air across the wings (pressure vs velocity) we all agree on this. In this scenario the only thing generating airflow is the engine. The engine will not generate enough air flow on a plane standing still to take off.

Think of it like this. If you could force a plane to be stuck horizontally in one spot and it could only move vertically, could the air flow from the engines push enough air against the entire wing to generate lift (and cause the plane to rise). No

Who the fuck cares if it is powered by the wheels, the bottom line is if its on a treadmill the plane is stuck horizontally, there in lies the issue of lacking lift. Period.

At a certain point the wheels on the plane will overcome friction and the only thing left in the equation would be thrust. Therefore the thrust from the engine would push the plane forward across the treadmill, and in fact not be stationary.

[Bajjani]

At a certain point the wheels on the plane will overcome friction and the only thing left in the equation would be thrust. Therefore the thrust from the engine would push the plane forward across the treadmill, and in fact not be stationary.

I understand the logic of both sides but I think how the question is worded lies the problem, and in the situation stated by the question it would not. But no I understand both aspects and I've seen the tests and everything to prove it will but I assure you, I understand lol.

[grizz311]

I understand the logic of both sides but I think how the question is worded lies the problem, and in the situation stated by the question it would not. But no I understand both aspects and I've seen the tests and everything to prove it will but I assure you, I understand lol.

haha definitely. The entire puzzle/question is worded horribly. It makes it seem like the plane can not move forward, and has to be stationary, which simply isn't the case.

[Bajjani]

haha definitely. The entire puzzle/question is worded horribly. It makes it seem like the plane can not move forward, and has to be stationary, which simply isn't the case.

Agreed.

[joecoolfreak]

No, actually neither of you "get" it yet. There is no physical way that they plane could stay stationary. The plane will move forward and therefore it will always take off regardless of wording. For simplification, can a plane take off if it has NO wheels? (PS...might want to go back a couple of pages and just look at the pictures for that one)

Let's look at the original question:


Suppose a plane is on a runway that acts as a conveyer belt. The conveyor belt is as long as a typical runway. The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction at the same speed as the plane. The wheels of the plane are free-rolling. Will the plane be able to take off?

Where did y'all get that the plane is stationary out of that? Even better, explain how it could physical stay in the same spot given the specifics outlined in the question?

[Bajjani]

No, actually neither of you "get" it yet. There is no physical way that they plane could stay stationary. The plane will move forward and therefore it will always take off regardless of wording. For simplification, can a plane take off if it has NO wheels? (PS...might want to go back a couple of pages and just look at the pictures for that one)

Let's look at the original question:



Where did y'all get that the plane is stationary out of that? Even better, explain how it could physical stay in the same spot given the specifics outlined in the question?

You're an idiot. Its a hypothetical question in an environment that doesn't necessarily exist. And this is not the only way the question has been worded, this is a question that people asked and debated over for a long time. Please don't tell me what I do and do not "get". Ass.

[joecoolfreak]

Lol...it has even been tested in real life. You managed not to answer any of my questions. The "theory" is quite simple. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to remain stationary and if you still think it is, you are the one who has something to learn here. It has been debated and there is zero evidence that I am wrong here. They even proved it on mythbusters on TV. Again, you just don't "get" it ;-)

[Atlblkz06]

This thread is still alive? I refuse to believe that people can be stupid enough to argue this lol...

[Bajjani]

Lol...it has even been tested in real life. You managed not to answer any of my questions. The "theory" is quite simple. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to remain stationary and if you still think it is, you are the one who has something to learn here. It has been debated and there is zero evidence that I am wrong here. They even proved it on mythbusters on TV. Again, you just don't "get" it ;-)

Please, let me say this again, I "get" it just fine. I understand that the engine pushes the plane the wheels are there to keep it off the ground. The wheels are pushed from the force of the engine pulling air and moving the plane itself. I understand it completely. Please, again, do not assume you know what I do and don't get.

[joecoolfreak]

I am not assuming anything, but if it makes things easier for you, I will just use your exact words to make my point.


The question states that if it is on a treadmill that can match the speed of the wheels will it TAKE OFF, not move.

Let's stop there for a minute and review. The question does state that it is on a treadmill and the treadmill can match the speed of the wheels. So you are correct so far.


The answer is no.

Ooops, and you were doing so well. Wrong answer. The correct answer is yes, the plane will take off. I didn't have to assume anything, you are WRONG. The question didn't say anything about the plane staying still. In fact, it is quite impossible for the plane to do so since the wheels are free wheeling which of course was mentioned in the original question.


The cause for lift is the air across the wings (pressure vs velocity) we all agree on this. In this scenario the only thing generating airflow is the engine. The engine will not generate enough air flow on a plane standing still to take off.

So you do understand how a plane works, but you are still stuck on the plane standing still WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE and was never mentioned in the original question.


Think of it like this. If you could force a plane to be stuck horizontally in one spot and it could only move vertically, could the air flow from the engines push enough air against the entire wing to generate lift (and cause the plane to rise). No

Where in the world is your odd tangent going? Where did you get the idea that the plane was stationary? If it wasn't from the original question, where do you get these silly ideas?


Who the fuck cares if it is powered by the wheels, the bottom line is if its on a treadmill the plane is stuck horizontally, there in lies the issue of lacking lift. Period.

Which of course is still impossible and never asked in the question.

Thanks for playing and please come again =-)

[Bajjani]

I am not assuming anything, but if it makes things easier for you, I will just use your exact words to make my point.



Let's stop there for a minute and review. The question does state that it is on a treadmill and the treadmill can match the speed of the wheels. So you are correct so far.



Ooops, and you were doing so well. Wrong answer. The correct answer is yes, the plane will take off. I didn't have to assume anything, you are WRONG. The question didn't say anything about the plane staying still. In fact, it is quite impossible for the plane to do so since the wheels are free wheeling which of course was mentioned in the original question.



So you do understand how a plane works, but you are still stuck on the plane standing still WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE and was never mentioned in the original question.



Where in the world is your odd tangent going? Where did you get the idea that the plane was stationary? If it wasn't from the original question, where do you get these silly ideas?



Which of course is still impossible and never asked in the question.

Thanks for playing and please come again =-)

Well, let me explain what I was trying to explain in my post, since I thought this was obvious. I read multiple "theories" that because the engine was pushing air, or propeller, that enough air in the end would move across the wings and fast enough velocities to cause lift. This is in fact not true. What this test proves is that the engine in fact moves horizontally in the air and the wheels serve no purpose other than removing some resistance.

Like I said, I understand it just fine.

[man]

OMG back from the dead, lol.

The answer is and always has been YES.

/thread

[joecoolfreak]

Well, let me explain what I was trying to explain in my post, since I thought this was obvious. I read multiple "theories" that because the engine was pushing air, or propeller, that enough air in the end would move across the wings and fast enough velocities to cause lift. This is in fact not true. What this test proves is that the engine in fact moves horizontally in the air and the wheels serve no purpose other than removing some resistance.

Like I said, I understand it just fine.

Well, since all of that thought process was made up in your head and not stated in the thread, it was not obvious. Your very first words were that you had not read the thread, so you didn't get those "multiple theories" from this thread and it certainly didn't come from the question, so I apologize for taking what you said at face value and not making up conversations in my head to rationally explain it. The question is designed to force people to realize that not everything is propelled by wheels or by what is attached to the surface they are resting on, which is exactly why 17 people have voted no since yesterday even though there is clearly only one answer and has been proven so many times in this thread I can't count.

[Bajjani]

Well, since all of that thought process was made up in your head and not stated in the thread, it was not obvious. Your very first words were that you had not read the thread, so you didn't get those "multiple theories" from this thread and it certainly didn't come from the question, so I apologize for taking what you said at face value and not making up conversations in my head to rationally explain it. The question is designed to force people to realize that not everything is propelled by wheels or by what is attached to the surface they are resting on, which is exactly why 17 people have voted no since yesterday even though there is clearly only one answer and has been proven so many times in this thread I can't count.

The thread was 43 pages. I did not read 43 pages. Therefore, I did not read the thread.

[grizz311]

wow joe.. someone piss in your coffee? get off his nuts

[BanginJimmy]

This is a VERY basic question and the plane will take off every time. The treadmill will simply increase the speed of the wheels, which has zero effect on forward velocity. If the wheels truly are frictionless, the plane will take off in the same space that it would on a concrete runway.

[ava_Z32]

This is a VERY basic question and the plane will take off every time. The treadmill will simply increase the speed of the wheels, which has zero effect on forward velocity. If the wheels truly are frictionless, the plane will take off in the same space that it would on a concrete runway.

agreed

[Kevykev]

I was on a plane yesterday.

[speedminded]

ZOMG WTF people keep voting no?!!!! :TRIPLEFACEPALM:

[PatrickH]

I'm impressed. A lot of the time I see this problem stated incorrectly which causes a lot of useless debate (ie., belt matches speed of plane as opposed to matching the wheels). Also of note is the fact that more people are getting it right here than did over at the lotus forums. :D

[S2KJD]

Did you notice the date? The answer will always be YES, the plane WILL take off. Unfortunately people continue to vote "no" even though it has been proven to be "yes". Come on, use your brain peoples lol!


lol ooopppsss mybad! well the "no's" are only 4 off from the "yes'" now lol :lmfao: