Plane on conveyor belt

[Tamil]

Pretty much. I apologize for not being clear on that first post.

 

[Klotz]

My physics powers say it stays on the ground. Of course there are exceptions, like a propeller strong enough to cause lift or vertical takeoff.

 

[BlondeWarrior]

end of flame war.

 

[liquid!]

end of flame war.

Frodo made it into Mordor? Yes

*fist pump*

 

[Donut62]

My physics powers say it stays on the ground. Of course there are exceptions, like a propeller strong enough to cause lift or vertical takeoff.

What isn't everyone understanding? The engines of a plane move it RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF THE AIR AROUND IT, NOT THE GROUND!!!!!

 

[liquid!]

^ Somebody has Caps Lock Rage ^

 

[BlondeWarrior]

which is why the engine powers the propellor, not the wheels.

 

[Donut62]

which is why the engine powers the propellor, not the wheels.

Obviously, or else planes wouldn't fly.

 

[hunto]

BW you are right. If the conveyor negates the wheel speed, then the plane never develops enough forward motion to create lift on the wings.

 

[Donut62]

BW you are right. If the conveyor negates the wheel speed, then the plane never develops enough forward motion to create lift on the wings.

The only force acting in the opposite direction of forward motion of the plane (disregarding drag) is going to be resistance caused by the friction of the wheel bearings, which is minimal. So you are still wrong.

 

[joshetc]

wtf kind of dumb ass question is this? If the conveyor belt pulls the plane back while the propeller pulls the plane forward, the plane will still take off. The only difference is the planes wheels will spin twice as fast.

 

[hunto]

The only force acting in the opposite direction of forward motion of the plane (disregarding drag) is going to be the friction created by the wheel bearings, which is minimal. So you are still wrong.

No, you're thinking about it wrong. If the conveyor belt negates the wheel speed, and we say wheel speed = 0, then the planes speed relative to the air around it is also zero, hence no lift.

 

[hunto]

A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?
.

Original question. The conveyor negates wheel speed. The plane achieves no speed relative to the air around it so it remains on the ground. For the plane to take of fit must move relative to the air around it (airspeed) so that lift is generated on the wings.

 

[ChaseT.]

No, you're thinking about it wrong. If the conveyor belt negates the wheel speed, and we say wheel speed = 0, then the planes speed relative to the air around it is also zero, hence no lift.

 

[Donut62]

No, you're thinking about it wrong. If the conveyor belt negates the wheel speed, and we say wheel speed = 0, then the planes speed relative to the air around it is also zero, hence no lift.

No, you are thinking about it wrong. And you also must not have watched the video. The wheels are freely rotating. The engine of the plane moves the body of the plane relative to the speed of the air. The wheels are just along for the ride. If what you are saying is true, then when a plane is off the ground with it's wheels out and hits the wheel brakes, the plane stops. The only way to negate the planes speed is by moving the air in the opposite direction at a rate equal to the plane to cancel out the lift. I don't understand how you can still confuse what frame of reference the plane is moving. The ground has no effect on it.

 

[liquid!]

Lets add another variable...What if there were Snakes on a Plane on a Conyevor

 

[Donut62]

Two real life scenarios:

You are walking on the

 

[hunto]

No, you are thinking about it wrong. And you also must not have watched the video. The wheels are freely rotating. The engine of the plane moves the body of the plane relative to the speed of the air. The wheels are just along for the ride. If what you are saying is true, then when a plane is off the ground with it's wheels out and hits the wheel brakes, the plane stops. The only way to negate the planes speed is by moving the air in the opposite direction at a rate equal to the plane to cancel out the lift. I don't understand how you can still confuse what frame of reference the plane is moving. The ground has no effect on it.

Fuck a video. Mythbusters got it wrong. It isn't the first time.

Case in point: MB tested the scene from 'American Graffitti' where a chain on a telephone pole yanks a cop cars rear end completely out. They tested it over and over, and couldn't get the rear end to move. They declared the myth BUSTED. They then showed the scene from American Grafitti where it happens to the cop car. I am familiar with the movie, and have built mor ecars than I can count. The cop car MB used was a early 90s Ford full size car. The cop car in AG was an early 60s Plymouth/Dodge. The MB car had a coil spring suspension, with upper and lower control arms. These anchor the rear end in the car. The coil spring flew out, that was all. On a 50s-60s Plymouth/Dodge, the rear end was held in with leaf springs, usually over the rear end, held on by 2 long U-bolts on each side. 4 U-bolts was all that held the rear in the car. It is certainly possible to bust those 4 ubolts, a hell of a lot easier than the big control arms holding a modern rear. Thus, Mythbusters was wrong. I have removed too many rearends from Plymouths, Chevys, etc to know better. They got it wrong. And they got the airplane thing wrong too.

 

[hunto]

Two real life scenarios:

You are walking on the ‘people-mover’ at the airport. You are walking normal speed, dragging your travel bag (which is on two free spinning wheels) but you are moving across the floor twice as fast. The moment you step off, your bag is still on the conveyor belt. Does it all of a sudden hit you in the butt? No. The wheels slow down the moment you do. You are the bags power, not the wheels. If you just stand there, with you bag on the belt and you are not, do you constantly have to push the bag back? Nope. It’ll just sit there, with wheels turning.

If you still don’t believe me, hold two matchbox cars at the top of a declining platform (Like a propped up book.) Put a piece of paper underneath one of the cars. Let go of the cars and pull out the piece of paper from under the one car in the opposite direction the cars are traveling. Both cars will reach the bottom of the platform at the same time. Why? The power is gravity. The moving paper will affect the wheels, so the one cars wheels will be moving faster, but the free spinning wheels have nothing to do with the power exerted on the car (in this case, gravity).


Courtesy of a college physics professor^

Good examples, but cars lack the same drive a plane does. A plane relies on it's thrust to move forward. If that forward speed is being negated by a conveyor belt, then plane remains still. If the plane is still, no lift is generated, thus it doesn't move.

 

[Donut62]

Fuck a video. Mythbusters got it wrong. It isn't the first time.

Case in point: MB tested the scene from 'American Graffitti' where a chain on a telephone pole yanks a cop cars rear end completely out. They tested it over and over, and couldn't get the rear end to move. They declared the myth BUSTED. They then showed the scene from American Grafitti where it happens to the cop car. I am familiar with the movie, and have built mor ecars than I can count. The cop car MB used was a early 90s Ford full size car. The cop car in AG was an early 60s Plymouth/Dodge. The MB car had a coil spring suspension, with upper and lower control arms. These anchor the rear end in the car. The coil spring flew out, that was all. On a 50s-60s Plymouth/Dodge, the rear end was held in with leaf springs, usually over the rear end, held on by 2 long U-bolts on each side. 4 U-bolts was all that held the rear in the car. It is certainly possible to bust those 4 ubolts, a hell of a lot easier than the big control arms holding a modern rear. Thus, Mythbusters was wrong. I have removed too many rearends from Plymouths, Chevys, etc to know better. They got it wrong. And they got the airplane thing wrong too.

Congratulations for debating by talking about something completely irrelevant. I think you need to quit the drugs, hombre, it's fucking with your mind.