Will the plane take off? v. Mythbusters!!! (VIDEO on Page 38)

[Clegger]

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[DemonEyez]

planes need lift.... correct? lift requires air movement correct? and a stationary object spinning its wheels and revving is engine is not generating either correct.... there its all quite simple in my head lol regardless if i'm right or not... to me thats basically about it

if the car wwas on a treadmill it would go no where. again as the power generated by the motor is applied through the wheels. on a airplane its not, the turbines create the thrust 100% independent from the wheels which is the only point of contact to the treadmill and normally free moving. Unless the pilot has the brakes on the airplane applied.

[ThaABomb]

Even though the wheels can rotate independently of the airplane's motion, there is friction involved that causes the airplane to move backwards. If you don't believe me, put a toy car on a moving treadmill and see if it rolls off.

[Ruiner]

As an aerospace engineering student, here's my two cents:


As has been said before, no power is supplied to the wheels of an aircraft, it is propelled by either a propeller or a jet. The conveyor belt supplies a force backwards. If that is the only outside force involved, the plane will be stationary relative to the conveyor belt and will be moving backwards through the air. If the aircraft's propulsion supplies a force in the forward direction, the backward speed of the conveyor belt can be cancelled out with the forward speed of the aircraft. In this case, the conveyor belt will be moving past the airplane at takeoff speed but the speed of the air over the wings will be 0, which means the lift will be 0, so the plane will not take off.

I weep for your education. When the plane applies the throttle, it WILL move forward. The treadmill will ONLY make the wheels spin faster. What, did you think that we were talking about the plan just sitting there without any power? Remember: the treadmill MATCHES the speed of the plane.

With that said, you are creating a logical paradox. I don't understand how people can come to a conclusion that is a logical paradox. If you think the plane won't take off you realize that you are stuck in a logical impossibility. If you think it won't take off you also think that the plane won't move. If the plane wont move, neither does the treadmill. So how would that work when the plane starts it's engines? it moves and then the treadmill moves and the plane stops? but then the treadmill stops and the plane starts moving again and so on.. it's a paradox, it can not be true.

[Ruiner]

Even though the wheels can rotate independently of the airplane's motion, there is friction involved that causes the airplane to move backwards. If you don't believe me, put a toy car on a moving treadmill and see if it rolls off.

True, but can the plane's engines OVERCOME that small bit of friction?

[Ruiner]

From a mod on their site:

"Adam? Jamie? Dan? Someone step up and tell us what happened tonight."

Dear all,

As wbarnhill called out, I thought I should step in to what is rapidly becoming a hornet's nest. I will try to calm things down but I don't hold out much hope!

First up, for those concerned that this story has been cancelled, don't worry, planes on a conveyer belt has been filmed, is spectacular, and will be part of what us Mythbusters refer to as 'episode 97'. Currently that is due to air on January 30th.

Secondly, for those very aggrieved fans feeling "duped" into watching tonight's show, I can only apologise. I'm not sure why the listings / internet advertised that tonight's show contained POCB. I will endeavour to find out an answer but for those conspiracy theorists amongst you, I can assure you that it will have just been an honest mistake. At one point
several months ago, POCB was going to be part of Airplane Hour. Somewhere, someone has mistakenly posted the wrong listing. It will have been a genuine mistake but nonetheless it was a mistake which is unacceptable. As said I will try to find out what went wrong and hope that you will see fit to forgive the team at Discovery.

Thanks in advance,

Dan

[speedminded]

From a mod on their site:

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...&postcount=557

[speedminded]

Even though the wheels can rotate independently of the airplane's motion, there is friction involved that causes the airplane to move backwards. If you don't believe me, put a toy car on a moving treadmill and see if it rolls off.

Take that same car and duct tape a bottle rocket to it's roof with the fuse facing towards the rear of the treadmill...what do you think will happen when it ignites?

[Echonova]

As an aerospace engineering student, here's my two cents:


As has been said before, no power is supplied to the wheels of an aircraft, it is propelled by either a propeller or a jet. The conveyor belt supplies a force backwards. If that is the only outside force involved, the plane will be stationary relative to the conveyor belt and will be moving backwards through the air. If the aircraft's propulsion supplies a force in the forward direction, the backward speed of the conveyor belt can be cancelled out with the forward speed of the aircraft. In this case, the conveyor belt will be moving past the airplane at takeoff speed but the speed of the air over the wings will be 0, which means the lift will be 0, so the plane will not take off.

I am smarter than an aerospace engineer.

[IDCoconut]

This **** is still going on?! LOL

As for the aerospace student, think again. Use your head for a second. The ONLY WAY the plane will not take off is if there is a HEADWIND matching the plane's speed in relation to its thrust.

As far as the ground friction, that friction is nothing to 450kN of thrust coming from a 777. Get over yourself.

I am smarter than an aerospace engineer.

Nuh uh. He said he's a student in an aerospace engineering study @ at school, in which if he maintains his belief on this subject, he should STRONGLY re-consider his major.

[speedminded]

As an aerospace engineering student, here's my two cents:


As has been said before, no power is supplied to the wheels of an aircraft, it is propelled by either a propeller or a jet. The conveyor belt supplies a force backwards. If that is the only outside force involved, the plane will be stationary relative to the conveyor belt and will be moving backwards through the air. If the aircraft's propulsion supplies a force in the forward direction, the backward speed of the conveyor belt can be cancelled out with the forward speed of the aircraft. In this case, the conveyor belt will be moving past the airplane at takeoff speed but the speed of the air over the wings will be 0, which means the lift will be 0, so the plane will not take off.

*sigh*

Repeat the original question, “If a plane is traveling at takeoff speed on a conveyor belt, and the belt is matching that speed in the opposite direction, can the plane take off?”

Let’s break this sentence down, “If a plane is TRAVELING at takeoff speed...” /Freeze/ What do you suppose traveling at takeoff speed implies? As an aerospace engineering student, how is a planes speed determined? What specific equipment measures said speed of plane?
.
.
.
.
.
Does it have anything to do with the ground or what’s beneath it? *Hint* It’s an airspeed indicator, a pitot tube on the exterior of the plane that measure ram air pressure. Case in point, an airplanes speed has nothing to do with its wheels, nothing at all. You can get all technical and start discussing indicated airspeed vs. calibrated airspeed vs. equivalent airspeed but you don’t have to think that far into it….If the plane was truly standing still and not progressing forward, as in traveling 0mph, then the conveyor would be going what speed? ….0mph.
.
.
.
.
.
With that said, if the plane is moving forward at 100mph then the conveyor belt is moving backwards at 100mph. The only difference between a plane on a runway and a plane on a conveyor belt going the opposite direction is the speed in which the wheels rotate. The 100mph speed of plane + 100mph speed of conveyor belt = speed of wheels to be 200mph….the plane IS STILL TRAVELING FORWARD at 100mph. Whichs means there are 100mph winds moving above and below it's wings and lift will be created when the plane reaches whatever it's required take off speed is.

[ThaABomb]

Personally, I don't think the question is stated very clearly. The question that I THINK is being posed is essentially the same as this question:

Does a car with a spoiler produce downforce when it is on a dyno?

The answer is still no. In both cases, the wheels are spinning but the vehicle is not moving forward relative to the ground or the air. In the airplane case, the the conveyor belt moves backwards beneath the airplane, and because of the forward force applied to the aircraft by its engine, its wheels rotate to match the speed of the conveyor belt, but the plane doesn't move relative to the ground or the air. In the car case, the force of the cars wheels on the dyno rollers accelerate the rollers, so that the speed of the wheels and the speed of the rollers is the same, but the car does not move relative to the ground or the air. In both cases, there is no air flow over the wing/spoiler, so no lift/downforce is produced.

[speedminded]

Personally, I don't think the question is stated very clearly. The question that I THINK is being posed is essentially the same as this question:

Does a car with a spoiler produce downforce when it is on a dyno?

The answer is still no. In both cases, the wheels are spinning but the vehicle is not moving forward relative to the ground or the air. In the airplane case, the the conveyor belt moves backwards beneath the airplane, and because of the forward force applied to the aircraft by its engine, its wheels rotate to match the speed of the conveyor belt, but the plane doesn't move relative to the ground or the air. In the car case, the force of the cars wheels on the dyno rollers accelerate the rollers, so that the speed of the wheels and the speed of the rollers is the same, but the car does not move relative to the ground or the air. In both cases, there is no air flow over the wing/spoiler, so no lift/downforce is produced.

You're digging yourself deeper in a hole and clearly shows you have no concept for even basic physics.

1) If the plane is not traveling forward then the conveyor is NOT moving.

2) What is preventing the airplane from propelling itself forward???

3) QUIT FUCKING THINKING ABOUT A GODDAMN CAR, CARS ARE NOT PLANES AND PLANES ARE NOT CARS...THERE IS NO RELATION IN THE WAY THEY TRAVEL OR PROPEL THEMSELVES WHAT SO EVER.

[Echonova]

Personally, I don't think the question is stated very clearly. The question that I THINK is being posed is essentially the same as this question:

Does a car with a spoiler produce downforce when it is on a dyno?

The answer is still no. In both cases, the wheels are spinning but the vehicle is not moving forward relative to the ground or the air. In the airplane case, the the conveyor belt moves backwards beneath the airplane, and because of the forward force applied to the aircraft by its engine, its wheels rotate to match the speed of the conveyor belt, but the plane doesn't move relative to the ground or the air. In the car case, the force of the cars wheels on the dyno rollers accelerate the rollers, so that the speed of the wheels and the speed of the rollers is the same, but the car does not move relative to the ground or the air. In both cases, there is no air flow over the wing/spoiler, so no lift/downforce is produced.

Let me break it down in a way you can understand it. With pretty moving pictures...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopV...eature=related

[ThaABomb]

First of all, the GROWN MAN in that video was unable to sucessfully pronounce the word "simplified". Second of all, that video did not address the question at all. The question addresses an airplane's ability to take off from a moving treadmill when the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill are the same. That video addresses an airplane's ability to move forward on a treadmill that is moving backwards.

Here we go, from the beginning:

An infinitely long treadmill is at rest on the ground. The treadmill's belt (the part that moves) is stationary. An airplane is at rest on the belt. The belt begins to move backwards. It accelerates to 100 MPH. The airplane is producing no thrust. At this point, it is stationary relative to the belt, and moving backwards at 100 MPH relative to both the ground and the air. The airplane throttles up to match the speed of the belt. It is now moving forward at 100 MPH relative to the belt, which is moving backwards at 100 MPH relative to the ground and the air. The speed of the airplane relative to the ground and the air is the sum of its speed relative to the belt and the speed of the belt relative to the ground.

100 MPH forward (airplane relative to belt) + 100 MPH backward (belt relative to both ground and air) = 0 MPH (airplane relative to ground/air)

If the speed of the airplane through the air is 0, no lift is produced, so the airplane will not take off.


I'm sorry if this comes off as arrogant or cocky. That was never my intention. I was just trying to contribute to an interesting discussion.

[chrisdavis]

First of all, the GROWN MAN in that video was unable to sucessfully pronounce the word "simplified". Second of all, that video did not address the question at all. The question addresses an airplane's ability to take off from a moving treadmill when the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill are the same. That video addresses an airplane's ability to move forward on a treadmill that is moving backwards.

Here we go, from the beginning:

An infinitely long treadmill is at rest on the ground. The treadmill's belt (the part that moves) is stationary. An airplane is at rest on the belt. The belt begins to move backwards. It accelerates to 100 MPH. The airplane is producing no thrust. At this point, it is stationary relative to the belt, and moving backwards at 100 MPH relative to both the ground and the air. The airplane throttles up to match the speed of the belt. It is now moving forward at 100 MPH relative to the belt, which is moving backwards at 100 MPH relative to the ground and the air. The speed of the airplane relative to the ground and the air is the sum of its speed relative to the belt and the speed of the belt relative to the ground.

100 MPH forward (airplane relative to belt) + 100 MPH backward (belt relative to both ground and air) = 0 MPH (airplane relative to ground/air)

If the speed of the airplane through the air is 0, no lift is produced, so the airplane will not take off.


I'm sorry if this comes off as arrogant or cocky. That was never my intention. I was just trying to contribute to an interesting discussion.

The problem with your theory is that you are equating the wheels of the plane with the production of forward momentun instead of the turbines.


If a plane was suspended in the air and the engines were running full throttle do you think the plane would just hang there or would it try to fly forward?

[IDCoconut]

^ding ding ding.

[Ruiner]

For those that say that the plane doesn't move...

Remember: the treadmill MATCHES the speed of the plane.

With that said, you are creating a logical paradox. I don't understand how people can come to a conclusion that is a logical paradox. If you think the plane won't take off you realize that you are stuck in a logical impossibility. If you think it won't take off you also think that the plane won't move. If the plane wont move, neither does the treadmill. So how would that work when the plane starts it's engines? it moves and then the treadmill moves and the plane stops? but then the treadmill stops and the plane starts moving again and so on.. it's a paradox, it can not be true.

[Master Shake]

The problem with your theory is that you are equating the wheels of the plane with the production of forward momentun instead of the turbines.


If a plane was suspended in the air and the engines were running full throttle do you think the plane would just hang there or would it try to fly forward?

you gotta think, with the platform moving backwards, it will cause some air movement. if the plane starts to accelerate, matching the speed of the platform, it will be stationary, but there will be some movement over the wings to where it could be enough to lift it up. and plan has turbines, it going to cause the plane to be pushed from the back/sides.

i think it will lift off and be stationary in the air shortly off the ground till the turbines give it enough speed to move forward.

the earth is spinning in circles a lot faster than a plane can move, and we still lift off every day.

[Ruiner]

you gotta think, with the platform moving backwards, it will cause some air movement. if the plane starts to accelerate, matching the speed of the platform, it will be stationary, but there will be some movement over the wings to where it could be enough to lift it up. and plan has turbines, it going to cause the plane to be pushed from the back/sides.

i think it will lift off and be stationary in the air shortly off the ground till the turbines give it enough speed to move forward.

the earth is spinning in circles a lot faster than a plane can move, and we still lift off every day.

What the ****? No!

The treadmill creates movement of air over the wings? Ahahahahah

[speedminded]

First of all, the GROWN MAN in that video was unable to sucessfully pronounce the word "simplified". Second of all, that video did not address the question at all. The question addresses an airplane's ability to take off from a moving treadmill when the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill are the same. That video addresses an airplane's ability to move forward on a treadmill that is moving backwards.

Here we go, from the beginning:

An infinitely long treadmill is at rest on the ground. The treadmill's belt (the part that moves) is stationary. An airplane is at rest on the belt. The belt begins to move backwards. It accelerates to 100 MPH. The airplane is producing no thrust. At this point, it is stationary relative to the belt, and moving backwards at 100 MPH relative to both the ground and the air. The airplane throttles up to match the speed of the belt. It is now moving forward at 100 MPH relative to the belt, which is moving backwards at 100 MPH relative to the ground and the air. The speed of the airplane relative to the ground and the air is the sum of its speed relative to the belt and the speed of the belt relative to the ground.

100 MPH forward (airplane relative to belt) + 100 MPH backward (belt relative to both ground and air) = 0 MPH (airplane relative to ground/air)

If the speed of the airplane through the air is 0, no lift is produced, so the airplane will not take off.


I'm sorry if this comes off as arrogant or cocky. That was never my intention. I was just trying to contribute to an interesting discussion.

You are something else! Is this a joke? This seriously can't be going through your head with even the most elementary basics of physics. I sure hope your parents don't pay for your school!

Did you read my previous post on how a aircraft reads its speed, as in indicated airspeed? It has NOTHING to do with the ground, it's wheels, or anything else that may be beneath it! IT IS A I R S P E E D!

If a planes indicated speed is 5 mph then wind is going over it's wings at 5 mph (as long as there is no tailwind) let's a little table:

Aircraft Speed : Speed of air passing over it's wings [table show with zero (0) tailwind]
5 mph plane speed = 5 mph wind passing wings
10 mph plane speed = 10 mph wind passing wings
20 mph plane speed = 20 mph wind passing wings
30 mph plane speed = 30 mph wind passing wings
40 mph plane speed = 40 mph wind passing wings
50 mph plane speed = 50 mph wind passing wings
60 mph plane speed = 60 mph wind passing wings
70 mph plane speed = 70 mph wind passing wings
80 mph plane speed = 80 mph wind passing wings
90 mph plane speed = 90 mph wind passing wings
100 mph plane speed = 100 mph wind passing wings
110 mph plane speed = 110 mph wind passing wings
120 mph plane speed = 120 mph wind passing wings
130 mph plane speed = 130 mph wind passing wings
140 mph plane speed = 140 mph wind passing wings
150 mph plane speed = 150 mph wind passing wings
160 mph plane speed = 160 mph wind passing wings
170 mph plane speed : 170 mph wind passing wings
180 mph plane speed : 180 mph wind passing wings
190 mph plane speed : 190 mph wind passing wings
200 mph plane speed : 200 mph wind passing wings
210 mph plane speed = 210 mph wind passing wings
220 mph plane speed = 220 mph wind passing wings
230 mph plane speed = 230 mph wind passing wings
240 mph plane speed = 240 mph wind passing wings
250 mph plane speed = 250 mph wind passing wings
260 mph plane speed = 260 mph wind passing wings
270 mph plane speed : 270 mph wind passing wings
280 mph plane speed : 280 mph wind passing wings
290 mph plane speed : 290 mph wind passing wings
300 mph plane speed : 300 mph wind passing wings

Have you figured out the trend yet or should I keep going? (note: this chart is shown with zero tail wind, otherwise subtract the speed of the tail wind from the second number)

So again...if the plane is traveling forward at 100mph and the conveyor belt is matching its speed and rotating backwards towards the plane at 100mph, THEN THE PLANE IS STILL MOVING FORWARD AT 100 MPH, the wheels will just be rotating at 200mph.

[Echonova]

First of all, the GROWN MAN in that video was unable to sucessfully pronounce the word "simplified". Second of all, that video did not address the question at all. The question addresses an airplane's ability to take off from a moving treadmill when the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill are the same. That video addresses an airplane's ability to move forward on a treadmill that is moving backwards.

Here we go, from the beginning:

An infinitely long treadmill is at rest on the ground. The treadmill's belt (the part that moves) is stationary. An airplane is at rest on the belt. The belt begins to move backwards. It accelerates to 100 MPH. The airplane is producing no thrust. At this point, it is stationary relative to the belt, and moving backwards at 100 MPH relative to both the ground and the air. The airplane throttles up to match the speed of the belt. It is now moving forward at 100 MPH relative to the belt, which is moving backwards at 100 MPH relative to the ground and the air. The speed of the airplane relative to the ground and the air is the sum of its speed relative to the belt and the speed of the belt relative to the ground.

100 MPH forward (airplane relative to belt) + 100 MPH backward (belt relative to both ground and air) = 0 MPH (airplane relative to ground/air)

If the speed of the airplane through the air is 0, no lift is produced, so the airplane will not take off.


I'm sorry if this comes off as arrogant or cocky. That was never my intention. I was just trying to contribute to an interesting discussion.

Cocky? That's what whoreslounge is for...lol. The purpose of the video was to show that with the treadmill, even running at a speed greater than which the plane could match(the air hog can't match 10mph). Still went forward at the same speed than when the treadmill was turned off. Since the plane still moved forward, why can we not surmise that given enough room it would indeed reach take-off velocity? It is a interesting discussion.

[IDCoconut]

... why can we not surmise that given enough room it would indeed reach take-off velocity?

That's the problem, it won't reach the take off velocity because there's an elephant in the way.

[ThaABomb]

Alright, I think there are several different interpretations of this question floating around, and that is where all the confusion is coming from. If the plane is moving relative to the belt, but is stationary relative to the air, it will not take off (which is the point that I have been attempting to argue, though now it seems like I missed the point of the question). If an airplane is on a belt that is moving backwards, it can overcome the rearward speed of the belt to achieve takeoff speed (relative to the air), and in that case, will take off. However, in the latter case, the airplane isn't "matching" the speed of the belt, which is why I didn't think this was the scenario the question was asking about. The stated the the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill were "matching", which I understood to mean that the plane was not moving through the air. Apparently I misunderstood the question. My apologies.

[Deke]

Alright, I think there are several different interpretations of this question floating around, and that is where all the confusion is coming from. If the plane is moving relative to the belt, but is stationary relative to the air, it will not take off (which is the point that I have been attempting to argue, though now it seems like I missed the point of the question). If an airplane is on a belt that is moving backwards, it can overcome the rearward speed of the belt to achieve takeoff speed (relative to the air), and in that case, will take off. However, in the latter case, the airplane isn't "matching" the speed of the belt, which is why I didn't think this was the scenario the question was asking about. The stated the the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill were "matching", which I understood to mean that the plane was not moving through the air. Apparently I misunderstood the question. My apologies.

Well said. The original question was stated rather ambiguosly. The fact of the matter is, if the wheels are free spinning, and there is any push from propellors/jets it will move forward. This however makes it impossible for the treadmill to match the speed of the wheels. The only way this question would be feasible, and thus proved false, is if the take-off of the plane was driven by the wheels, which we all know isn't the case.

Hence, my extreme hatred of this question

[DirtyMechanic]

Alright, I think there are several different interpretations of this question floating around, and that is where all the confusion is coming from. If the plane is moving relative to the belt, but is stationary relative to the air, it will not take off (which is the point that I have been attempting to argue, though now it seems like I missed the point of the question). If an airplane is on a belt that is moving backwards, it can overcome the rearward speed of the belt to achieve takeoff speed (relative to the air), and in that case, will take off. However, in the latter case, the airplane isn't "matching" the speed of the belt, which is why I didn't think this was the scenario the question was asking about. The stated the the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill were "matching", which I understood to mean that the plane was not moving through the air. Apparently I misunderstood the question. My apologies.

what a way to back pedal and not sound like a moron..... Nope you still are.

[speedminded]

Alright, I think there are several different interpretations of this question floating around, and that is where all the confusion is coming from. If the plane is moving relative to the belt, but is stationary relative to the air, it will not take off (which is the point that I have been attempting to argue, though now it seems like I missed the point of the question). If an airplane is on a belt that is moving backwards, it can overcome the rearward speed of the belt to achieve takeoff speed (relative to the air), and in that case, will take off. However, in the latter case, the airplane isn't "matching" the speed of the belt, which is why I didn't think this was the scenario the question was asking about. The stated the the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill were "matching", which I understood to mean that the plane was not moving through the air. Apparently I misunderstood the question. My apologies.

No matter how they are worded it's all the same question with the exact same concept..."can a plane take off on a conveyor belt that's moving in the opposite direction (towards it)". Does it matter that the speed is matched... nope. Would it even matter if the conveyor was moving 10 times the speed of the plane, nope. It has nothing to do with the way it was worded, you just automatically assumed it was not moving because it is on a "treadmill/conveyor" and 99.99% of the population can only relate to cars on a dyno or a person on a treadmill.

Well said. The original question was stated rather ambiguosly. The fact of the matter is, if the wheels are free spinning, and there is any push from propellors/jets it will move forward. This however makes it impossible for the treadmill to match the speed of the wheels. The only way this question would be feasible, and thus proved false, is if the take-off of the plane was driven by the wheels, which we all know isn't the case.

Hence, my extreme hatred of this question

Nobody says anything EVER about the speed of the wheels. Why hate the question because you relate speed to wheels?

[Ruiner]

Alright, I think there are several different interpretations of this question floating around, and that is where all the confusion is coming from. If the plane is moving relative to the belt, but is stationary relative to the air, it will not take off (which is the point that I have been attempting to argue, though now it seems like I missed the point of the question). If an airplane is on a belt that is moving backwards, it can overcome the rearward speed of the belt to achieve takeoff speed (relative to the air), and in that case, will take off. However, in the latter case, the airplane isn't "matching" the speed of the belt, which is why I didn't think this was the scenario the question was asking about. The stated the the speed of the airplane and the speed of the treadmill were "matching", which I understood to mean that the plane was not moving through the air. Apparently I misunderstood the question. My apologies.

The speed of the plane = its speed through the air. Planes measure their speed via air speed, not wheel speed.

Important: the treadmill matches the speed of the plane

If the plane is not moving relative to the air, it has no speed (in simple terms - let's not talk about headwinds). Thus, if the plane has no speed (no airspeed), neither does the treadmill.

You are creating a logic paradox by saying that the plane is stationary while the treadmill is moving at some speed that is keeping it stationary. The treadmill MATCHES th speed of the plane. If the plane isn't moving, neither is the treadmill.

[Deke]

Nobody says anything EVER about the speed of the wheels. Why hate the question because you relate speed to wheels?

I was simply stating what I believe throws everyone off on this question.

And maybe it wasn't the exact original question posed on IA, but I've heard it elsewhere where the wheel speed is what the treadmill speed is based on.

[Psycho]

As an aerospace engineering student, here's my two cents:

As an aѕѕhole, here's my two cents:

Find a new career path.

[Psycho]

We need to make this interesting. The episode is supposed to air on Jan. 30th. Who ever is wrong should get banned for a week.

[DirtyMechanic]

And maybe it wasn't the exact original question posed on IA, but I've heard it elsewhere where the wheel speed is what the treadmill speed is based on.

Then you might as well say it was a car and not a plane.

[Ruiner]

Here is Adam's explanation for why the plane on a treadmill myth did not air during the "airplane hour" special:

http://dsc.discovery.com/video/?play...eId=1347908538

[speedminded]

Here is Adam's explanation for why the plane on a treadmill myth did not air during the "airplane hour" special:

http://dsc.discovery.com/video/?play...eId=1347908538

lol, oh well.

[DaX]

Here is Adam's explanation for why the plane on a treadmill myth did not air during the "airplane hour" special:

http://dsc.discovery.com/video/?play...eId=1347908538

Thanks for posting.

[MaRk2k]

WILl iT TaKE OfF!?

[MaRk2k]

This is probably the best question ever asked on the internet.

[speedminded]

This is probably the best question ever asked on the internet.

It's a debate older than religion itself! haha

[MaRk2k]

It's a debate older than religion itself! haha

lol

[MaRk2k]

WILL IT TAKE OFF YES OR ****ING NO THIS **** IS PISSING ME OFF!