Started By
Message

re: Can this 747 take off?

Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:11 pm to
Posted by TD422
Destrehan, LA
Member since Jun 2019
504 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:11 pm to
quote:

BTW, I like how you deflected a question you couldn’t make up an answer to


Which was?

quote:

with a question to made to someone else some other time


Once again, in english?
Posted by meansonny
ATL
Member since Sep 2012
25999 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:12 pm to
quote:

quote:
Planes can fly with wheels not moving at all because the thrust of the engine is on the atmosphere (no trust to the wheels).
Oh...wow.


Ever see a seaplane?
The thrust is against the atmosphere.

If you have a big enough engine, those babies will take off on dry land.

747s have 240,000 horsepower by the way.
Implying that the speed of the wheels is going to counter the thrust of four 747 engines is laughable.
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
84535 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:13 pm to
quote:

Air movement over a wing.


And how do airplanes achieve that? Follow up, why do planes not just keep flying when they have engine failure midflight? Sully should have just kept flying, amirite?
quote:

This is a great question for those not getting the wheels on the moving treadmill part.


It is pretty funny that you of all people in this thread have a condescending attitude
Posted by meansonny
ATL
Member since Sep 2012
25999 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:14 pm to
quote:

quote:
could put a regulator on the wheels so that they do not exceed the speed of the belt.
if I am belted into the wheels and the wheels match the belt?


What does "belted to the wheels" mean?

I'm not familiar with the term.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 2:14 pm
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
84535 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:14 pm to
quote:

so the wheels remain at rest?


No, but that's about the level of understanding I'd expect from you.
Posted by Lonnie Utah
Utah!
Member since Jul 2012
24195 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:15 pm to
Posted by NATidefan
Two hours North of Birmingham
Member since Dec 2008
36343 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:15 pm to
quote:

Impossible as the force of teh treadmill is not transmitted to the actual plane.


If I put a toy plane with wheels on a treadmill and turn the treadmill on it will fall off the back of the treadmill.

So tell me exactly how the force of the treadmill is not transmitted to the toy plane in that case?

This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 2:19 pm
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81955 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:15 pm to
quote:

It is pretty funny that you of all people in this thread have a condescending attitude
I really don't, but if I did, why would it be funny? All I am doing here is trying to get you to understand the part you're missing.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81955 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:16 pm to
quote:

No, but that's about the level of understanding I'd expect from you.
So, it's about him and not the problem?
Posted by jmh5724
Member since Jan 2012
2153 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:17 pm to
quote:

Of course I assumed it was stationary.


That’s the entire problem with this scenario. It uses two objects that aren’t even scalable to each other.
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
84535 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:18 pm to
quote:

If I put a toy plane with wheels on a treadmill and turn the treadmill on it will fly off the back of the treadmill. So tell me exactly how the force of the treadmill is not transmitted to the toy plane in that case?


You've now describes a situation where the treadmill was moving significantly faster than the wheels on the plane. Also, you should look up videos of what balls do when they are paced on treadmills. Might blow your mind.
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
84535 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:21 pm to
quote:

All I am doing here is trying to get you to understand the part you're missing.


You're doing the funny thing again.

Just like how you completely ignored my questions to again tell me I just don't understand
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 2:22 pm
Posted by meansonny
ATL
Member since Sep 2012
25999 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:21 pm to
quote:

So tell me exactly how the force of the treadmill is not transmitted to the toy plane in that case?


You have the force of friction fighting against Newton's first law of motion.

It would take minimal force from your hand to push the toy plane down (not forward) and successfully keep it stationary.

It would equally require minimal force for your hand to move the toy plane forwards and backwards on the treadmill.
The free wheels of the toy plane offset over 99% of the backward force from the treadmill (saving under 1% for friction in the wheels).

Imagine that jet engines generate a lot of force. And that the real plane still has free wheels.
Posted by NATidefan
Two hours North of Birmingham
Member since Dec 2008
36343 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:21 pm to
quote:

You've now describes a situation where the treadmill was moving significantly faster than the wheels on the plane


Yes, the treadmill is moving faster than the wheels which are not moving, which makes the plane go backwards on the tread mill and fall off.

In the described scenario the wheels and the treadmill are going EXACTLY the same speed. Which means the plane would neither move forward or backward.

Which means no airflow over the wings.

Which means it won't take off.

Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81955 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:22 pm to
quote:

You're doing the funny thing again.
Funny is good.
Posted by tigerfoot
Alexandria
Member since Sep 2006
56698 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:22 pm to
quote:

Also, you should look up videos of what balls do when they are paced on treadmills. Might blow your mind.
they don’t rotate at a speed the same as the treadmill and move forward.
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
84535 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:23 pm to
quote:

In the described scenario the wheels and the treadmill are going EXACTLY the same speed. Which means the plane would neither move forward or backward. Which means no airflow over the wings. Which means it won't take off. Thanks for proving my point.


Unless of course the force of thrust overcame the force of friction.
Posted by tigerfoot
Alexandria
Member since Sep 2006
56698 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:23 pm to
quote:

Which means no airflow over the wings. Which means it won't take off. Thanks for proving my point.
every time he mentions the thrust of the aircraft overcoming the speed of the treadmill he does this
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
84535 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:24 pm to
quote:

they don’t rotate at a speed the same as the treadmill and move forward.


They also.dont shoot off the back, which was the point.
Posted by NATidefan
Two hours North of Birmingham
Member since Dec 2008
36343 posts
Posted on 4/11/24 at 2:24 pm to
quote:

Imagine that jet engines generate a lot of force. And that the real plane still has free wheels.


Not saying it doesn't have the force, but the wheels still have to spin faster than the treadmill so it moves forward to generate airflow over the wings.

The threadmilll matches the wheel spinning exactly (no matter how fast or slow they go)... so no movement forward.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 2:28 pm
Jump to page
Page First 15 16 17 18 19 ... 26
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 17 of 26Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram