- 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 12/6/07 at 2:41 pm to Dale Murphy
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:41 pm to Dale Murphy
quote:
So you're saying that if a plane were in perpetual nonmotion, it would just all of a sudden take off and fly?
No, of course not. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter how fast the treadmill is going, it's the engines thrust that propels the plane forward until lift is achieved. The wheels are just there to provide as little friction as possible, and land the plane of course. So the treadmill could be going the opposite direction as 500 mph, the plane will still move forward the same speed (say, 100 mph) and take off, the wheels will just be going 600 mph to keep up with both.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:43 pm to LSUBoo
Ok, this is totally not what I had in mind when this question was asked (guess I need to read more). My understanding is that you had a plane moving 100 mph (hypothetical, b/c I don't know how fast it needs to go to fly) and it's sitting on a treadmill going 100 mph in the reverse direction. Therefore the plane is not moving. But if the plane is moving, then sure, it'll fly.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:44 pm to Colonel Hapablap
i don't know if anyone follows this line of thinking, but here goes ( for people who are tired of thinking about this in purely physical terms)
but the mere fact that the mythbusters are attempting this experiment in less than idea conditions ( no super duper charged conveyor belt that could keep up with a super powered jet) shows that this can be done. Otherwise detractors would say that if it was a stronger jet then it would have been able to do it.
i think you'll find that they do it with a small plane and a cesna.
but the mere fact that the mythbusters are attempting this experiment in less than idea conditions ( no super duper charged conveyor belt that could keep up with a super powered jet) shows that this can be done. Otherwise detractors would say that if it was a stronger jet then it would have been able to do it.
i think you'll find that they do it with a small plane and a cesna.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:46 pm to Dale Murphy
quote:
My understanding is that you had a plane moving 100 mph (hypothetical, b/c I don't know how fast it needs to go to fly) and it's sitting on a treadmill going 100 mph in the reverse direction.
That is the case, but the catch is that the 100 mph for the plane is its airspeed, not wheel speed, because it uses jet engines pulling against the air as propulsion as opposed to the wheels.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:47 pm to LSU Fan 90812
I think the point of the test is that the plane is not moving relative to the air around it. If this is the case, if the plane does not move forward relative to the air around it, like a person does on a treadmill, then it won't take off. If the plane moves forward on the treadmill, what is the point? I stand by my opinion/fact.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:48 pm to LSU Fan 90812
I dunno how simple this can get. Without wind propulsion the plane isnt going to fly. Sounds good on paper but the physics doesnt allow it. If a plane is on a treadmill going 168 knots(which was said that was the speed to achieve flight) and the plane was going that speed, wouldnt it be motionless?
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:49 pm to LSUBoo
I don't care what kind of speed it is.
I was thinking it was like a person on a treadmill. Your feet are moving but you're not going anywhere.

I was thinking it was like a person on a treadmill. Your feet are moving but you're not going anywhere.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:51 pm to RAGINTIGER
quote:
I dunno how simple this can get. Without wind propulsion the plane isnt going to fly. Sounds good on paper but the physics doesnt allow it. If a plane is on a treadmill going 168 knots(which was said that was the speed to achieve flight) and the plane was going that speed, wouldnt it be motionless?
Nope
If the plane is going 168 knots it wouldn't matter what the conveyor was doing because the plane is going to be flying right off the end of it. The conveyor could be doing a thousand knots and it would be the same. The plane is flying. The conveyor is just there to confuse you.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:53 pm to VanRIch
quote:
I think the point of the test is that the plane is not moving relative to the air around it. If this is the case, if the plane does not move forward relative to the air around it, like a person does on a treadmill, then it won't take off. If the plane moves forward on the treadmill, what is the point? I stand by my opinion/fact.
I agree 100%
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:53 pm to Dale Murphy
quote:
I was thinking it was like a person on a treadmill. Your feet are moving but you're not going anywhere.
True... but you're missing one of the variables in that case. Say you're standing on a treadmill wearing rollerskates (plane wheels) and holding on to the rails. You stand still, of course, the skates just move with the treadmill. Now... if there were an external force such as pulling on a rope that is securely attached somewhere in front of you (like, jet engines pushing against air) then you will of course move along the rope. The speed of the treadmill can increase to the max, if you can pull yourself forward with the rope, you'll still move forward.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:53 pm to VanRIch
quote:
I think the point of the test is that the plane is not moving relative to the air around it. If this is the case, if the plane does not move forward relative to the air around it, like a person does on a treadmill, then it won't take off. If the plane moves forward on the treadmill, what is the point? I stand by my opinion/fact.
it's not like a treadmill. a person on a treadmill is propelling themselves forward by pushing off of the ground.
think of it like this.
there's a long treadmill. there are hand rails on either side of it. you stand in the center of the conveyor belt on roller skates. you take your hands far out and front of you and pull Yourself forward. the treadmill goes in the opposite direction at that same amount of force.
You would still move forward. Your arms pulled you forward (with relation to your initial position) and are in facting holding you at your new postion on the treadmill. your wheels would still be spinning underneath you but your arms are keeping you in your place.
Your arms and the rails= the jets and the air.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:56 pm to LSU Fan 90812
quote:
i think you'll find that they do it with a small plane and a cesna.
LINK
quote:
The episode, which airs in December, finds Savage and Hyneman tackling a question baffling everyone from bloggers to pilots: If a plane is traveling at takeoff speed on a conveyor belt, and that conveyor belt is matching the speed in reverse, can the plane take off?
``We put the plane on a quarter-mile conveyor belt and tested it out,'' says Savage about the experiment using a pilot and his Ultralight plane. ``I won't tell you what the outcome was, but the pilot and his entire flight club got it wrong.
So, judging by the initial reactions of the pilots on here... the plane probably took off.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:57 pm to LSU Fan 90812
Think about it like this, you're on a treadmill with skates on.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 2:58 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
if there were an external force such as pulling on a rope that is securely attached somewhere in front of you
That's 2 external forces in the skating example. The handrail and the rope.
In the plane example, the only external force is the engine and it is being reversed by the treadmill.
BOOM!!!
Posted on 12/6/07 at 3:01 pm to Dale Murphy
quote:
That's 2 external forces in the skating example. The handrail and the rope.
In the plane example, the only external force is the engine and it is being reversed by the treadmill.
Exactly. That is why I think it will not take off.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 3:03 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
Think about it like this, you're on a treadmill with skates on.
:lightbulb:
Posted on 12/6/07 at 3:03 pm to SG_Geaux
The problem is that there is no way physically possible to make the experiment match exactly.
It's a null scenario.
It's a null scenario.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 3:03 pm to Dale Murphy
quote:
That's 2 external forces in the skating example. The handrail and the rope.
In the plane example, the only external force is the engine and it is being reversed by the treadmill.
BOOM!!!
This is true... in the plane's case, if the engines weren't on, the plane would move backwards, as opposed to stay in place. (Like, if you were standing on a treadmill with skates on, and not holding anything, you'd move backwards too.) Or, if it were using its wheels to taxi at the opposite speed of the treadmill, it would stay in place. (Like if you were holding a rail or walking on a treadmill) But the wheels aren't used to take off, only taxi.
This post was edited on 12/6/07 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 12/6/07 at 3:03 pm to LSU Fan 90812
quote:
:lightbulb:
By the way, I said this on page 16.

Back to top
