Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
If somehow there was somehow an infinite treadmill with no friction the plane would not take off.
Explain. What is an "infinite" treadmill?
a treadmill that has a starting point but no ending point.
If that's what he means then, no, it doesn't matter. The treadmill could be 200 miles long and the plane would still take off. The only thing that would stop the plane taking off would be the force of friction, if it became great enough.
what do you imply by the force of friction? A plane that can gain no windspeed wont take off and isnt that what a infinetely long treadmill would be able to take away from it? This is considering it is a standard 747 with standard engines and a treadmill that would match the speed of the planes wheels causing it to remain in place.
I'd encourage you to read through my posts again, but I'll be happy to keep trying to explain it.
Can you answer the following questions for me:
Imagine we took an airplane and hung it on a huge sling. The landing gear is deployed, but not touching anything. Now the pilot turns on the jets. What will happen?
A sea plane is sitting on a lake. The pilot fires up the engine. What happens?
Originally posted by: jandrews
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
If somehow there was somehow an infinite treadmill with no friction the plane would not take off.
Explain. What is an "infinite" treadmill?
a treadmill that has a starting point but no ending point.
If that's what he means then, no, it doesn't matter. The treadmill could be 200 miles long and the plane would still take off. The only thing that would stop the plane taking off would be the force of friction, if it became great enough.
what do you imply by the force of friction? A plane that can gain no windspeed wont take off and isnt that what a infinetely long treadmill would be able to take away from it? This is considering it is a standard 747 with standard engines and a treadmill that would match the speed of the planes wheels causing it to remain in place.
I'd encourage you to read through my posts again, but I'll be happy to keep trying to explain it.
Can you answer the following questions for me:
Imagine we took an airplane and hung it on a huge sling. The landing gear is deployed, but not touching anything. Now the pilot turns on the jets. What will happen?
A sea plane is sitting on a lake. The pilot fires up the engine. What happens?
Sure, in your first instance the plane begins to push forward, I doubt it would take off even at maximum speed though. Once the sling released, the plane would begin to plummet and once it got enough resistance under the wings it would begin to pull up and be flown.
The plane moves forward on the lake, gets up speed, wind under wings, begins to take off.
Originally posted by: jandrews
I think the big argument people have is they consider the plane will remain stationary due to the treadmill picking up the speed and not allowing the plane to get any wind resistance. I think people overlook this point and think that other people just dont understand when if it was explained to most people in that manner the debate would be over.
Should still be interesting to see them test.
Yes, you are correct, but what ruins your whole idea is the plane remaining stationary due to the wheels and cannot gain the momentum needed to provide the wind resistance to take off. For some reason you keep thinking the jets would continue to push the plane forward giving my hypothetical example of an infinite treadmill that could keep up with the wheel speed.Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: jandrews
I think the big argument people have is they consider the plane will remain stationary due to the treadmill picking up the speed and not allowing the plane to get any wind resistance. I think people overlook this point and think that other people just dont understand when if it was explained to most people in that manner the debate would be over.
Should still be interesting to see them test.
err, I understand what you are implying, I am just saying it's a fallacy unless the plane in question is in the vaccum and can not push air, it will generate thrust. rotation of the wheel is a by product of the plane moving forward, not the cause of it. The spinning of the wheel is what cancels out the negative momentum of the threadmill. This leave the engine thrust to push plane forward.
Alrite, the jets propulse the plane and the skis allow the plane to be pushed more easily with the ground. Eventually the plane gets up enough speed and takes off once enough wind resistance is provided under the wings.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
If somehow there was somehow an infinite treadmill with no friction the plane would not take off.
Explain. What is an "infinite" treadmill?
a treadmill that has a starting point but no ending point.
If that's what he means then, no, it doesn't matter. The treadmill could be 200 miles long and the plane would still take off. The only thing that would stop the plane taking off would be the force of friction, if it became great enough.
what do you imply by the force of friction? A plane that can gain no windspeed wont take off and isnt that what a infinetely long treadmill would be able to take away from it? This is considering it is a standard 747 with standard engines and a treadmill that would match the speed of the planes wheels causing it to remain in place.
I'd encourage you to read through my posts again, but I'll be happy to keep trying to explain it.
Can you answer the following questions for me:
Imagine we took an airplane and hung it on a huge sling. The landing gear is deployed, but not touching anything. Now the pilot turns on the jets. What will happen?
A sea plane is sitting on a lake. The pilot fires up the engine. What happens?
Sure, in your first instance the plane begins to push forward, I doubt it would take off even at maximum speed though. Once the sling released, the plane would begin to plummet and once it got enough resistance under the wings it would begin to pull up and be flown.
The plane moves forward on the lake, gets up speed, wind under wings, begins to take off.
Okay, so let's focus on #2 and let's change the scenario a bit. The plane is now on a frozen lake, and has skis instead of wheels. What happens now?
Originally posted by: jandrews
Yes, you are correct, but what ruins your whole idea is the plane remaining stationary due to the wheels and cannot gain the momentum needed to provide the wind resistance to take off. For some reason you keep thinking the jets would continue to push the plane forward giving my hypothetical example of an infinite treadmill that could keep up with the wheel speed.Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: jandrews
I think the big argument people have is they consider the plane will remain stationary due to the treadmill picking up the speed and not allowing the plane to get any wind resistance. I think people overlook this point and think that other people just dont understand when if it was explained to most people in that manner the debate would be over.
Should still be interesting to see them test.
err, I understand what you are implying, I am just saying it's a fallacy unless the plane in question is in the vaccum and can not push air, it will generate thrust. rotation of the wheel is a by product of the plane moving forward, not the cause of it. The spinning of the wheel is what cancels out the negative momentum of the threadmill. This leave the engine thrust to push plane forward.
If you go back I already agree with what people are saying, that a plane will take off on a treadmill. This is about the hypothetical infinite treadmill that can always keep pace with the wheel speed causing the plane to never move forward. If the plane never moves forward, it simply will not take off, that is an agreed point between everyone. Now I am tired of responding to everyone else and will just focus on bomberman or whatever his name is.Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
Originally posted by: jandrews
Yes, you are correct, but what ruins your whole idea is the plane remaining stationary due to the wheels and cannot gain the momentum needed to provide the wind resistance to take off. For some reason you keep thinking the jets would continue to push the plane forward giving my hypothetical example of an infinite treadmill that could keep up with the wheel speed.Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: jandrews
I think the big argument people have is they consider the plane will remain stationary due to the treadmill picking up the speed and not allowing the plane to get any wind resistance. I think people overlook this point and think that other people just dont understand when if it was explained to most people in that manner the debate would be over.
Should still be interesting to see them test.
err, I understand what you are implying, I am just saying it's a fallacy unless the plane in question is in the vaccum and can not push air, it will generate thrust. rotation of the wheel is a by product of the plane moving forward, not the cause of it. The spinning of the wheel is what cancels out the negative momentum of the threadmill. This leave the engine thrust to push plane forward.
The answer is 42...
I give up!:roll:
Originally posted by: jandrews
Alrite, the jets propulse the plane and the skis allow the plane to be pushed more easily with the ground. Eventually the plane gets up enough speed and takes off once enough wind resistance is provided under the wings.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Okay, so let's focus on #2 and let's change the scenario a bit. The plane is now on a frozen lake, and has skis instead of wheels. What happens now?
Originally posted by: jandrews
Yes, you are correct, but what ruins your whole idea is the plane remaining stationary due to the wheels and cannot gain the momentum needed to provide the wind resistance to take off. For some reason you keep thinking the jets would continue to push the plane forward giving my hypothetical example of an infinite treadmill that could keep up with the wheel speed.Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: jandrews
I think the big argument people have is they consider the plane will remain stationary due to the treadmill picking up the speed and not allowing the plane to get any wind resistance. I think people overlook this point and think that other people just dont understand when if it was explained to most people in that manner the debate would be over.
Should still be interesting to see them test.
err, I understand what you are implying, I am just saying it's a fallacy unless the plane in question is in the vaccum and can not push air, it will generate thrust. rotation of the wheel is a by product of the plane moving forward, not the cause of it. The spinning of the wheel is what cancels out the negative momentum of the threadmill. This leave the engine thrust to push plane forward.
I understand what you are saying. The jets do the work, I understand that as I always have. I also unerstand the things below a plane are a means to an end, they are just there to keep friction at a reasonable level to let the plane get to an acceptable takeoff speed. Hell, planes can even be taken off with no wheels if you were in a bunch of sand and got lucky enough for it to pull you forward without hitting anything.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Alrite, the jets propulse the plane and the skis allow the plane to be pushed more easily with the ground. Eventually the plane gets up enough speed and takes off once enough wind resistance is provided under the wings.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Okay, so let's focus on #2 and let's change the scenario a bit. The plane is now on a frozen lake, and has skis instead of wheels. What happens now?
Okay, so we've established the plane doesn't give a damn about what's underneath it, right? It could be ground, water, ice, snow, or nothing and the plane can still move forward. What matters is that whatever is contacting the plane doesn't provide enough friction to prevent the jets from propelling the plane forward.
Wheels are used by most planes because they provide the least friction. Hence, the only consequence of our mythical conveyor belt is that the tires would spin at 2x their normal rate and everything else proceeds as usual. The jets push against the air, the plane starts to move forward. The conveyor speeds up to try and slow the plane down, but it just makes the wheels spin twice as fast.
Originally posted by: jandrews
I understand what you are saying. The jets do the work, I understand that as I always have. I also unerstand the things below a plane are a means to an end, they are just there to keep friction at a reasonable level to let the plane get to an acceptable takeoff speed. Hell, planes can even be taken off with no wheels if you were in a bunch of sand and got lucky enough for it to pull you forward without hitting anything.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Alrite, the jets propulse the plane and the skis allow the plane to be pushed more easily with the ground. Eventually the plane gets up enough speed and takes off once enough wind resistance is provided under the wings.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Okay, so let's focus on #2 and let's change the scenario a bit. The plane is now on a frozen lake, and has skis instead of wheels. What happens now?
Okay, so we've established the plane doesn't give a damn about what's underneath it, right? It could be ground, water, ice, snow, or nothing and the plane can still move forward. What matters is that whatever is contacting the plane doesn't provide enough friction to prevent the jets from propelling the plane forward.
Wheels are used by most planes because they provide the least friction. Hence, the only consequence of our mythical conveyor belt is that the tires would spin at 2x their normal rate and everything else proceeds as usual. The jets push against the air, the plane starts to move forward. The conveyor speeds up to try and slow the plane down, but it just makes the wheels spin twice as fast.
I just dont see how your example proves me wrong on the method I listed. If some way you could put a plane on an island 100 ft long, cover that belt with ice, put the plane on skis, have the belt match the speed of the plane it would just spin and spin and spin and spin and never take off. The plane is dependant on getting up enough ground speed to get the air resistance needed to take off in the air no matter what is said. I dont care if the plane went 8 times its normal speed on wheels it would still remain stationary because the belt would keep up with it. Maybe I am just an idiot but I dont think so.
Originally posted by: jandrews
I understand what you are saying. The jets do the work, I understand that as I always have. I also unerstand the things below a plane are a means to an end, they are just there to keep friction at a reasonable level to let the plane get to an acceptable takeoff speed. Hell, planes can even be taken off with no wheels if you were in a bunch of sand and got lucky enough for it to pull you forward without hitting anything.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Alrite, the jets propulse the plane and the skis allow the plane to be pushed more easily with the ground. Eventually the plane gets up enough speed and takes off once enough wind resistance is provided under the wings.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Okay, so let's focus on #2 and let's change the scenario a bit. The plane is now on a frozen lake, and has skis instead of wheels. What happens now?
Okay, so we've established the plane doesn't give a damn about what's underneath it, right? It could be ground, water, ice, snow, or nothing and the plane can still move forward. What matters is that whatever is contacting the plane doesn't provide enough friction to prevent the jets from propelling the plane forward.
Wheels are used by most planes because they provide the least friction. Hence, the only consequence of our mythical conveyor belt is that the tires would spin at 2x their normal rate and everything else proceeds as usual. The jets push against the air, the plane starts to move forward. The conveyor speeds up to try and slow the plane down, but it just makes the wheels spin twice as fast.
I just dont see how your example proves me wrong on the method I listed. If some way you could put a plane on an island 100 ft long, cover that belt with ice, put the plane on skis, have the belt match the speed of the plane it would just spin and spin and spin and spin and never take off. The plane is dependant on getting up enough ground speed to get the air resistance needed to take off in the air no matter what is said. I dont care if the plane went 8 times its normal speed on wheels it would still remain stationary because the belt would keep up with it. Maybe I am just an idiot but I dont think so.
ahhh just forget it, in real life with a real conveyer belt and a real plane the plane would supercede the belt and gain windspeed and takeoff, I suppose that is all that really matters, I need to get some work done!Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
I understand what you are saying. The jets do the work, I understand that as I always have. I also unerstand the things below a plane are a means to an end, they are just there to keep friction at a reasonable level to let the plane get to an acceptable takeoff speed. Hell, planes can even be taken off with no wheels if you were in a bunch of sand and got lucky enough for it to pull you forward without hitting anything.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Alrite, the jets propulse the plane and the skis allow the plane to be pushed more easily with the ground. Eventually the plane gets up enough speed and takes off once enough wind resistance is provided under the wings.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Okay, so let's focus on #2 and let's change the scenario a bit. The plane is now on a frozen lake, and has skis instead of wheels. What happens now?
Okay, so we've established the plane doesn't give a damn about what's underneath it, right? It could be ground, water, ice, snow, or nothing and the plane can still move forward. What matters is that whatever is contacting the plane doesn't provide enough friction to prevent the jets from propelling the plane forward.
Wheels are used by most planes because they provide the least friction. Hence, the only consequence of our mythical conveyor belt is that the tires would spin at 2x their normal rate and everything else proceeds as usual. The jets push against the air, the plane starts to move forward. The conveyor speeds up to try and slow the plane down, but it just makes the wheels spin twice as fast.
I just dont see how your example proves me wrong on the method I listed. If some way you could put a plane on an island 100 ft long, cover that belt with ice, put the plane on skis, have the belt match the speed of the plane it would just spin and spin and spin and spin and never take off. The plane is dependant on getting up enough ground speed to get the air resistance needed to take off in the air no matter what is said. I dont care if the plane went 8 times its normal speed on wheels it would still remain stationary because the belt would keep up with it. Maybe I am just an idiot but I dont think so.
Run the whole belt and ice thing by me again and I'll try to work through it. The problem with the plane question is that it is tricky and counterintuitive.
Originally posted by: jandrews
I understand what you are saying. The jets do the work, I understand that as I always have. I also unerstand the things below a plane are a means to an end, they are just there to keep friction at a reasonable level to let the plane get to an acceptable takeoff speed. Hell, planes can even be taken off with no wheels if you were in a bunch of sand and got lucky enough for it to pull you forward without hitting anything.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: jandrews
Alrite, the jets propulse the plane and the skis allow the plane to be pushed more easily with the ground. Eventually the plane gets up enough speed and takes off once enough wind resistance is provided under the wings.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Okay, so let's focus on #2 and let's change the scenario a bit. The plane is now on a frozen lake, and has skis instead of wheels. What happens now?
Okay, so we've established the plane doesn't give a damn about what's underneath it, right? It could be ground, water, ice, snow, or nothing and the plane can still move forward. What matters is that whatever is contacting the plane doesn't provide enough friction to prevent the jets from propelling the plane forward.
Wheels are used by most planes because they provide the least friction. Hence, the only consequence of our mythical conveyor belt is that the tires would spin at 2x their normal rate and everything else proceeds as usual. The jets push against the air, the plane starts to move forward. The conveyor speeds up to try and slow the plane down, but it just makes the wheels spin twice as fast.
I just dont see how your example proves me wrong on the method I listed. If some way you could put a plane on an island 100 ft long, cover that belt with ice, put the plane on skis, have the belt match the speed of the plane it would just spin and spin and spin and spin and never take off. The plane is dependant on getting up enough ground speed to get the air resistance needed to take off in the air no matter what is said. I dont care if the plane went 8 times its normal speed on wheels it would still remain stationary because the belt would keep up with it. Maybe I am just an idiot but I dont think so.
Originally posted by: BudAshes
Basically, if the treadmill can approach infinite speed and the wheels create friction where they attach to the jet, then the plane will not take off. In any other scenario it will. It's pretty fvcking simple.
Originally posted by: Anubis
there are a lot of stupid people in this thread
Originally posted by: BudAshes
Basically, if the treadmill can approach infinite speed and the wheels create friction where they attach to the jet, then the plane will not take off. In any other scenario it will. It's pretty fvcking simple.