Plane on a treadmill poll...

[Para]

Because the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction, it would be the same as a plane normally landing/taking off, therefore it would take off

BUT

if the question had stated that the belt moved in the same direction as the plane, therefore counteracting any forward motion, no the plane wouldn't have taken off

its about semantics people, read the fucking problem

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

[redrumracer]

heres another example. when your running on a treadmill indoors with no fans or anything blowing on you do you feel the wind blowing against your skin...........no. its not about the speed of the tires, its about the wing passing through the air that generates lift.

[speedminded]

The plane will not take off. The plane needs lift which is generated by the air moving faster on the top of the wings than it is under the wing. With the air not moving over the wings, no lift will be created therefore the plane cannot lift off the ground. This is of course all negated if you are talking about a Harrier which uses thrust and not lift.

*sigh* You're just thinking too hard about it.

A plane is propelled by it's engine, not it's wheels, therefore it's nothing like someone running on a treadmill or car on a dyno. There is nothing preventing the plane from propelling itself forward.

[Para]

*sigh* You're just thinking too hard about it.

A plane is propelled by it's engine, not it's wheels, therefore it's nothing like someone running on a treadmill or car on a dyno. There is nothing preventing the plane from propelling itself forward.

I understand that the wheels do not propel the plane.

The OP posted stated that the conveyor belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed as the plane.

The plane will never have forward motion if the conveyor belt continues to move at the same speed as the plane in the opposite direction.

[speedminded]

I understand that the wheels do not propel the plane.

The OP posted stated that the conveyor belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed as the plane.

The plane will never have forward motion if the conveyor belt continues to move at the same speed as the plane in the opposite direction.

Doesn't matter if the conveyor belt is still or moving forward or backwards at 5 mph or 500 mph.

Imagine a skate board on a treadmill, you can prevent it from moving backwards with just a finger right? Speed up the treadmill and it wouldn't take any more effort of that one finger to hold it in place right? No matter how fast that threadmill is moving couldn't you still push the skateboard of the front of the treadmill?

[DemonEyez]

they just dont get it man.. its very simple.. they want to over analyze..

just give up.. there will always be smart people.. and the not so smart.

[Para]

Doesn't matter if the conveyor belt is still or moving forward or backwards at 5 mph or 500 mph.

Imagine a skate board on a treadmill, you can prevent it from moving backwards with just a finger right? Speed up the treadmill and it wouldn't take any more effort of that one finger to hold it in place right? No matter how fast that threadmill is moving couldn't you still push the skateboard of the front of the treadmill?

If you pushed the skateboard forward, the treadmill would not be moving at the same speed. If you pushed it forward, the skateboard would be moving faster than the treadmill in the opposite direction. That goes against what the OP said, therefore it can't happen.

[AznTraitor]

You sound like a cat owner.

and you're the guy who takes cleaning a car way too far.....were you trying to make a point?


It's funny how you can call yourself "smart" because you say a plane can take off on a treadmill....what college did you attend? what was your major? are you a member of MENSA?

what proof do you have? have you done this experiment all on your own? have you done it multiple times to make sure all factors are covered and that it wasn't a fluke? You tards who keep saying "yes" and that you are sooo "smart" are the biggest dumbass's there are....

People who are 100% smarter than you internet "genius's" like NASA scientists who study, and calculate, over and over and over to the point there is no room for error, things still go wrong in the "real" world...on paper it might look good....but real world is where things are proven

so I guess you all should just sit there and feel like you have some sense of intelligence...but in reality you are a bunch of tards on an import website who have no degrees in physics, aerospace engineering, aeronautical engineering, or even have the money and resource to conduct this research.....just because this question has been kicked around the internet 1billion times and you read other peoples responses and posts you are now some proclaimed genius...go jump off a bridge.....that's a laugh....the import tuner kids are all now genius's

[speedminded]

and you're the guy who takes cleaning a car way too far.....were you trying to make a point?


It's funny how you can call yourself "smart" because you say a plane can take off on a treadmill....what college did you attend? what was your major? are you a member of MENSA?

what proof do you have? have you done this experiment all on your own? have you done it multiple times to make sure all factors are covered and that it wasn't a fluke? You tards who keep saying "yes" and that you are sooo "smart" are the biggest dumbass's there are....

People who are 100% smarter than you internet "genius's" like NASA scientists who study, and calculate, over and over and over to the point there is no room for error, things still go wrong in the "real" world...on paper it might look good....but real world is where things are proven

so I guess you all should just sit there and feel like you have some sense of intelligence...but in reality you are a bunch of tards on an import website who have no degrees in physics, aerospace engineering, aeronautical engineering, or even have the money and resource to conduct this research.....just because this question has been kicked around the internet 1billion times and you read other peoples responses and posts you are now some proclaimed genius...go jump off a bridge.....that's a laugh....the import tuner kids are all now genius's

I thought no too for the first 5 minutes but didn't need anyone elses answers or responses to change my mind. You sit back, think about the process and what's going on, and you'll realize the answer.

Here's another analogy, imagine being on roller blades on a treadmill: can you hold yourself stationary with ease to prevent from falling off the back of the treadmill? Now say you were holding a rope like you were waterskiing on skates on the treadmill, if you turned the speed up all the way would it effect your ability to remain stationary? Now if someone came up behind you and pushed you would you not propel forward? The "thrust" produced from someone pushing you is no differant than the thrust of an airplanes engine, regardless of the speed of the runway/conveyor belt, the planes thrust will propel itself forward creating speed and acquiring lift. There is nothing to prevent the airplane from moving forward just as it would on any other runway.

Here's another, how about an aircraft carrier? They are moving yet a plane is still able to take off? How is that possible if a plane can not take off on a "treadmill" the size of a runway? Do you think the carrier can only be going one direction for the plane to take off? Please don't even refer to the catapult systems, they are only there to accelerate the plane because the length of the flight deck is just a small percentage the size of a traditional runway. Think about it, the wheels have nothing to do with the thrust of the plane and it's ability to propel itself forward.

[Para]

Now if someone came up behind you and pushed you would you not propel forward?

If someone came up behind you and pushed you, would you be going at the same speed, or would you be going faster than the treadmill?

Here's another, how about an aircraft carrier? They are moving yet a plane is still able to take off? How is that possible if a plane can not take off on a "treadmill" the size of a runway? Do you think the carrier can only be going one direction for the plane to take off?

Carriers and aircraft do not move at the same speed.

[Para]

It's funny how you can call yourself "smart" because you say a plane can take off on a treadmill....what college did you attend? what was your major? are you a member of MENSA?

College has nothing to do with a person's intelligence, not does MENSA.

[speedminded]

If someone came up behind you and pushed you, would you be going at the same speed, or would you be going faster than the treadmill?

The treadmill could be moving 10 times faster than the person pushing you or it could be going 1,000 times faster, it still won't effect how hard, or easy in this case, it is for someone to push you forward.

Carriers and aircraft do not move at the same speed.

ok, how about this this, the earth is spinning right? Approximately 1,070 mph at the equator, does the earth spinning have any effect on a plane taking off or landing? That's far faster than a plane is going on take off yet they still take off by the 1,000's everyday with no problems. Then can a plane not land east to west just as easily as west to east or does it have to take off the same direction as the earth is spinning? (as long as there is no dangerous headwinds present anyways) The movement of the runway has no effect on the motion of a plane, just stop thinking how a car operates and you'll figure it out.

[Ruiner]

The funniest part is now the no's are beating the yes's. You know what that means don't ya?

Sadly, it shows the lack of education and ability to have complex, logical thought.

[speedminded]

Sadly, it shows the lack of education and ability to have complex, logical thought.

I wouldn't say it's education as much as simply logical thinking. Most people associate motion with automobiles or people on treadmills, even though some aerospace personal are baffled by it too.

I feel my lack of ability to be able to explain why the plane will take off makes me less intelligent than those who do say no.

[Ruiner]

until it fucking happens, I still say no....

I don't give a shit what physic professors say or any god damn super genius...until I see it with my own two eyes

Here it is with your own eyes. The plane moves forward. Given a long enough runway, it would gain speed, generate lift, and finally take off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk

Another one showing the plane moving forward:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDliz-YinyY

Using the flatbed of a truck as the treadmill that moves in the opposite direction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHUnAU0MyHM

[Ruiner]

sayin a plane could take off on a treadmill is like sayin that your actually going forward when you car is on a dyno. just because the wheels are spinning doesnt mean your going anywhere.

WRONG!

A car powers itself on a dyno via its wheels. A plane DOES NOT use its wheels to move forward in terms of power.

[Ruiner]

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

Wrong again.

[Ruiner]

heres another example. when your running on a treadmill indoors with no fans or anything blowing on you do you feel the wind blowing against your skin...........no. its not about the speed of the tires, its about the wing passing through the air that generates lift.

Correct. What you are failing to reliaze is that a plane will MOVE FORWARD on a treadmill in relation to a stationary object on the ground. The treadmill CANNOT keep a plane from moving forward through the air as long as the wheels are free-rolling.

Watch the damn video and LEARN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk

[Ruiner]

If you pushed the skateboard forward, the treadmill would not be moving at the same speed. If you pushed it forward, the skateboard would be moving faster than the treadmill in the opposite direction. That goes against what the OP said, therefore it can't happen.

Listen, this is rather simple:

No matter what the speed on the treadmill is in reverse (5mph, 10mph, 40mph, 150mph, etc), the plane will take off at its take-off speed.

Remember, the treadmill has to be as long as a normal runway.

Just watch. Notice how the plane travels forward? Eventually it would build up enough speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk

[Para]

Listen, this is rather simple:

No matter what the speed on the treadmill is in reverse (5mph, 10mph, 40mph, 150mph, etc), the plane will take off at its take-off speed.

Remember, the treadmill has to be as long as a normal runway.

Just watch. Notice how the plane travels forward? Eventually it would build up enough speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk

I can't watch the video, I'm browsing from my phone.

My point is that the plane will never reach any speed according to the OP. I would agree with you if the treadmill were at at constant speed.

If the treadmill continues to move underneath the aircraft, the plane will never move. It does not matter how a plane's forward momentum is normally achieved, it cannot go forward if the ground below it is moving in the opposite direction.

[Para]

Wrong again.

What about my statement do you think is wrong? Are you saying that to prevent it from moving it would need to go in the same direction? Because my post was in reference to someone who said that.

[speedminded]

I can't watch the video, I'm browsing from my phone.

My point is that the plane will never reach any speed according to the OP. I would agree with you if the treadmill were at at constant speed.

If the treadmill continues to move underneath the aircraft, the plane will never move. It does not matter how a plane's forward momentum is normally achieved, it cannot go forward if the ground below it is moving in the opposite direction.

The moving ground is irrelevant, it has no bearing or effect on the plane propelling itself forward...i promise.

[Ruiner]

I can't watch the video, I'm browsing from my phone.

My point is that the plane will never reach any speed according to the OP. I would agree with you if the treadmill were at at constant speed.

If the treadmill continues to move underneath the aircraft, the plane will never move. It does not matter how a plane's forward momentum is normally achieved, it cannot go forward if the ground below it is moving in the opposite direction.

The video(s) will disprove the bolded point for you very easily.

[Ruiner]

What about my statement do you think is wrong? Are you saying that to prevent it from moving it would need to go in the same direction? Because my post was in reference to someone who said that.

My point is this: The treadmill cannot prevent the plane from moving forward as long as the plane has free-rolling wheels. Once the plane's thrust is enough to break the friction present in the wheel bearings, the plane will move forward no matter how fast or slow the treadmill is moving in reverse.

[joecoolfreak]

What about my statement do you think is wrong? Are you saying that to prevent it from moving it would need to go in the same direction? Because my post was in reference to someone who said that.

Your statement is wrong because the speed and direction of the treadmill is completely irrelavent. There are two independant systems working here and the reason this becomes such a difficult issue for some people to grasp is because the human mind has a natural tendancy to merge the two systems based on our own experience. You connect the wheels on the plane to the ground, because wheels in most applications are the "thrust factor" The wheels in a plane though have an entirely different purpose. They are not connected to a driveshaft or power of any other kind. The only reason they exist is to prevent friction on the bottom of the plane. As Speedminded has referenced several times in this thread, they aren't even necessary. Some planes don't have wheels at all. Sea planes use pontoons for example. Also, the original question on page 1 says that the wheels are "free rolling" so you can assume that they have no friction (which although in real life can't exist) it makes it easier for the sake of this senerio. Once you can seperate the concept of the wheels from the plane, it is pretty easy to realize that whatever the wheels touch, is also irrelevant. That's why it doesn't matter what direction or speed the treadmill goes. As long as the hypothetical treadmill is the same distance as the plane/jet etc... requires for a normal take off, it will take off just the same whether the treadmill is moving or not.

[speedminded]

Here's your answer from an "educated" person.

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

[RJ's325ITS]

This has been the most stupid question ever and anybody that saw little bit of physics at their high school would know that air is what propels the airplane to take off not the speed of the wheels,

Speed is just used as a measuring mark to achieve the enough wind drag "flow" to propel the aircraft to lift from the ground.



LOL at the OP

[joecoolfreak]

This has been the most stupid question ever and anybody that saw little bit of phisycs at their high school would know that air is what propels the airplane to take off not the speep of the wheels,

Speed is just used as a mesuring mark to achive the enough wind drag "fllow" to propel the aircraft to lift from the gorund.


LOL at the OP

Although I ignored your spelling errors and typos...it still took me a minute to try and decifer what you were trying to say. I then thought...wow...this guy gets it, until I look up at the poll and see that you still got the answer wrong. The correct answer is yes, the plane will take off. If you still don't understand why, you might want to read some of the responces in the thread instead of the first post and then replying. If you still don't get it, let me know. =-)

[Ruiner]

Although I ignored your spelling errors and typos...it still took me a minute to try and decifer what you were trying to say. I then thought...wow...this guy gets it, until I look up at the poll and see that you still got the answer wrong. The correct answer is yes, the plane will take off. If you still don't understand why, you might want to read some of the responces in the thread instead of the first post and then replying. If you still don't get it, let me know. =-)

Ahahahhahahahhahah. So true, so true. Yes, the plane would take off given a long enough treadmill (as long as a typical runway).

How people cannot grasp this is beyond me...

[man]

So, you people that said no, are you saying that if you put an f16 on a treadmill and put the throttle at 100%, the plane would not move forward? Sounds like you all need to take a physics course...

[Ruiner]

So, you people that said no, are you saying that if you put an f16 on a treadmill and put the throttle at 100%, the plane would not move forward? Sounds like you all need to take a physics course...

They think that it won't move forward IF the treadmill is going backwards at the same speed as the jet.

[man]

They think that it won't move forward IF the treadmill is going backwards at the same speed as the jet.

I figured out why this is such a controversial question... The people that say no just don't understand physics. The people that say yes just truly don't understand the logic of the people that say no.

[joecoolfreak]

I figured out why this is such a controversial question... The people that say no just don't understand physics. The people that say yes just truly don't understand the logic of the people that say no.

lol...you may have hit the nail on the head

[Ruiner]

I figured out why this is such a controversial question... The people that say no just don't understand physics. The people that say yes just truly don't understand the logic of the people that say no.

I understand their logic when they explain how they came up with the "No" response, but many do not explain their logic as they, themselves, are not sure if it, either.

[RJ's325ITS]

Although I ignored your spelling errors and typos...it still took me a minute to try and decifer what you were trying to say. I then thought...wow...this guy gets it, until I look up at the poll and see that you still got the answer wrong. The correct answer is yes, the plane will take off. If you still don't understand why, you might want to read some of the responces in the thread instead of the first post and then replying. If you still don't get it, let me know. =-)

Like I said this is one of those stupid questions like:

what was first the egg of the chicken???????????? taaaa taaaa taaaaaaaaaaa

If the "treadmill" is "X" length and X=to the speed needed to take off then the answer is yes and then once again stupid question.

[joecoolfreak]

Like I said this is one of those stupid questions like:

what was first the egg of the chicken???????????? taaaa taaaa taaaaaaaaaaa

If the "treadmill" is "X" length and X=to the speed needed to take off then the answer is yes and then once again stupid question.

I agree that it is a simple question. I still have trouble decifering anything that you say. And I see that although you say the answer is yes, you still voted no. I am glad you have come around and understand now though =-)

[speedminded]

Like I said this is one of those stupid questions like:

what was first the egg of the chicken???????????? taaaa taaaa taaaaaaaaaaa

If the "treadmill" is "X" length and X=to the speed needed to take off then the answer is yes and then once again stupid question.

It's not the point of how long the runway is, it was already established the "treadmill" is the size of a runway...the POINT is whether a plane will remain stationary or not on said "treadmill". Does the rotation/action of a "treadmill" prevent the plane from propelling itself forward?

[RJ's325ITS]

It's not the point of how long the runway is, it was already established the "treadmill" is the size of a runway...the POINT is whether a plane will remain stationary or not on said "treadmill". Does the rotation/action of a "treadmill" prevent the plane from propelling itself forward?

OMG, is a plane not a car deee deeee deeeeeee. The turbine is propelling the airplane by compressing air and fuel.







First if you want to get anal about this lets do it, There are different size of runways all around the world, also different altitudes; some are shorter than others and some other are at 220 sea level and others at 4700 over sea level; so if you have the shortest of the runways at city over 4700 over sea level and you have a fully loaded plane ready for an international flight the plane will not take off, It will reach the end of the stupid "treadmill" and crash.







There are a lot more variables that are not take into consideration when the stupid questions was asked... such as altitude, air temperature, passenger load, fuel load and distance of the runway, w/out all of these variable we can guess a fictional answer to and fictional question.

[Ruiner]

OMG, is a plane not a car deee deeee deeeeeee. The turbine is propelling the airplane by compressing air and fuel.

First if you want to get anal about this lets do it, There are different size of runways all around the world, also different altitudes; some are shorter than others and some other are at 220 sea level and others at 4700 over sea level; so if you have the shortest of the runways at city over 4700 over sea level and you have a fully loaded plane ready for an international flight the plane will not take off, It will reach the end of the stupid "treadmill" and crash.

There are a lot more variables that are not take into consideration when the stupid questions was asked... such as altitude, air temperature, passenger load, fuel load and distance of the runway, w/out all of these variable we can guess a fictional answer to and fictional question.

Okay, let's look at it with a more simple question: WILL the plane move forward? Yes or no? Can the treadmill stop the plane from moving forward? Yes or no?

If the answer is yes to the first question, then we can all agree that the plane will eventually take off given a long enough runway.

[RJ's325ITS]

Okay, let's look at it with a more simple question: WILL the plane move forward? Yes or no? Can the treadmill stop the plane from moving forward? Yes or no?

If the answer is yes, then we can all agree that the plane will eventually take off given a long enough runway.

The only way you can hold a plane back is with the brakes, cutting its air supply, bolting it to the ground; so if the treadmill is none of the above what you think?







The plane will move forward b/c the plane is propelled by a turbine