- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Myth Busters/Can a plane take off on a conveyor belt
Posted on 12/4/07 at 1:49 pm to boxcarbarney
Posted on 12/4/07 at 1:49 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:
But, if the plane is stationary, because the conveyer belt negates any forward motion, how do the wings get the appropriate air pressure to create lift?
The plane is not stationary... that's the key. The conveyor just forces the wheels to spin twice as fast because the plane AND the runway are moving.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 1:54 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:
But, if the plane is stationary, because the conveyer belt negates any forward motion, how do the wings get the appropriate air pressure to create lift?
I don't understand that part either. When I run on a treadmill there is no wind. So when the plane is traveling at 100mph on the converyor belt there is should be no wind resulting in no lift, right???
Posted on 12/4/07 at 1:54 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
The plane is not stationary... that's the key. The conveyor just forces the wheels to spin twice as fast because the plane AND the runway are moving.
Like I said, this is just not my thing. But, I still don't understand. Let me ask you this: If I was standing in one spot and watching the plane on the conveyer belt, would I see the plane moving forward?
Posted on 12/4/07 at 1:55 pm to LSUBoo
Oh so the plane is actually moving down the conveyor belt?
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:00 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:DING! DING! DING!
Like I said, this is just not my thing. But, I still don't understand. Let me ask you this: If I was standing in one spot and watching the plane on the conveyer belt, would I see the plane moving forward?
Yes, for the love of God, yes.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:02 pm to ags01
Is this a joke? I'm a dumbass but I don't need a test to tell me what will hapen to the plane.Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:02 pm to just me
quote:
DING! DING! DING!
Yes, for the love of God, yes.
If the plane can move forward on the conveyer belt, then what is the freakin' point of testing this?
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:02 pm to Pierre
quote:
Oh so the plane is actually moving down the conveyor belt?
Yes, and the wheels are spinning twice as fast to keep up with the opposite forces.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:04 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:
If the plane can move forward on the conveyer belt, then what is the freakin' point of testing this?
Because a lot of people just refuse to accept the fact that the plane will move forward.
The fact of it all is though, the speed of the conveyor belt is irrelevant, unless it causes the wheels to break down. Of course, they're designed to handle the speed of the plane when it lands, so it would take a lot of speed to burn out the bearings.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:07 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
Because a lot of people just refuse to accept the fact that the plane will move forward.
The fact of it all is though, the speed of the conveyor belt is irrelevant, unless it causes the wheels to break down. Of course, they're designed to handle the speed of the plane when it lands, so it would take a lot of speed to burn out the bearings.
Ok, so what you are saying is that it will basically impossible for the conveyer belt to cancel out the plane's forward motion. But, hypothetically, if the plane could be held stationary by the conveyer belt; if the conveyer belt could completely negate the plane's forward motion, the plane would not take off, right?
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:09 pm to Colonel Hapablap
There are any variables to the question.
If the airplane on the treadmill has enough relative wind passing across the wing to cause lift it will fly.
If the treadmill causes the plane not to move in relation to the relative wind it will not be able to fly.
If an airplane is on a treadmill and has a greater than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio such as 4th and 5th generation fighters. It will fly.
or in the case of the F-18 it will blow up the treadmill and then fly. The 767 will crush the treadmill and continue takeoff roll.
It is a thrust vs. aerodynamics problem in my view.
If the airplane on the treadmill has enough relative wind passing across the wing to cause lift it will fly.
If the treadmill causes the plane not to move in relation to the relative wind it will not be able to fly.
If an airplane is on a treadmill and has a greater than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio such as 4th and 5th generation fighters. It will fly.
or in the case of the F-18 it will blow up the treadmill and then fly. The 767 will crush the treadmill and continue takeoff roll.
It is a thrust vs. aerodynamics problem in my view.
This post was edited on 12/4/07 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:09 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:
Ok, so what you are saying is that it will basically impossible for the conveyer belt to cancel out the plane's forward motion. But, hypothetically, if the plane could be held stationary by the conveyer belt; if the conveyer belt could completely negate the plane's forward motion, the plane would not take off, right?
Right... if, say, the plane was chained to the ground behind it, so it couldn't physically move forward, it wouldn't be able to take off.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:09 pm to LSUBoo
I'm not reading this thread, but I'm gonna say no it won't take off.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:10 pm to LSUBoo
Forget all that. That chick is hot.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:10 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
Right... if, say, the plane was chained to the ground behind it, so it couldn't physically move forward, it wouldn't be able to take off.
ok, so I ask again.. what's the freakin point. When I read this myth, they imply a certainty that the plane will be stationary compared to the earth and air.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:12 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:
ok, so I ask again.. what's the freakin point.
The point is to fool people into thinking that the conveyor belt matters. It implies that the plane is stationary, but in reality, that's not the case. It's a trick, with some physics involved.
Posted on 12/4/07 at 2:14 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
The point is to fool people into thinking that the conveyor belt matters. It implies that the plane is stationary, but in reality, that's not the case. It's a trick, with some physics involved.
Now I'm just pissed.
Posted on 12/5/07 at 11:21 pm to boxcarbarney
If the runway is a conveyor belt the plane will take off in less than normal runway length.
If the conveyor belt is designed to keep the plane in one spot motionless over the ground with no airflow over the wings... it will not fly.
It is a trick question.
If the conveyor belt is designed to keep the plane in one spot motionless over the ground with no airflow over the wings... it will not fly.
It is a trick question.
Posted on 12/5/07 at 11:28 pm to FlyinTiger
Regardless of whether the runway is a conveyer belt, how fast the belt is moving, or whatever else. The wings on the aircraft need wind. Depending on the aircraft the wind would need to be anywhere from 50 knots for a Cessna type aircraft upwards to 160 knots for some jet aircraft (the plane I fly rotates at 145 knots and lifts off at 162 knots). So if you can find a conveyor belt to not only keep a plane "stationary" as well as put wind over the wing, then it won't takeoff.
This post was edited on 12/5/07 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 12/6/07 at 12:11 am to MulesAFpilot
quote:
MulesAFpilot
quote:
So if you can find a conveyor belt to not only keep a plane "stationary" as well as put wind over the wing, then it won't takeoff.
Okay, so... what propels the jet forward during takeoff, the wheels, or the jet engines?
Page 11 of 29
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News