Go Back  AcuraZine - Acura Enthusiast Community > Off Topic Discussion > AcuraZine's Hall of Fame
Reload this Page >

Will the Plane Take-Off - Merged with MythBusters Show Thread

Notices

Will the Plane Take-Off - Merged with MythBusters Show Thread

 
 
Old 02-04-2007, 02:33 PM
  #321  
Registered Member
 
crazymjb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 7,441
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The question should be will the plane move forward... At first I thought no due to how it was worded, but it will in fact move forward.

Mike
crazymjb is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 04:43 PM
  #322  
Dragging knees in
iTrader: (2)
 
Pure Adrenaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle Area
Age: 37
Posts: 12,434
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by DanL
Whether the conveyor belt is stationary or moving has absolutely nothing to do with the forward speed of the plane. All it affects is what speed the wheels spin. The plane WILL move foward and WILL take off. Look, dust off your old treadmill, find a hot wheel or matchbox car, and try an experiment yourself. Turn on the treadmill, hold the car on there, and then move it forward with your hand. You have no problem moving the car forward, right? In fact, it doesn't matter how fast the treadmill is running, does it? All that happens is that the wheels spin faster. It's the same with an airplane. It doesn't rely on the wheels and friction with the ground (or belt) for propulsion. The engine is pushing against the air. So the plane will move forward even though the conveyor belt and wheels will be spinning like crazy.
One flaw there, buddy.

To use your example with the treadmill and the toy car, as you hold the car steady, the wheels are spinning in the forward direction, as the treadmill belt is moving backward. Overall movement of the vehicle = zero.

Now like you said, if you move the car forward with your hand, then of course it will move forward. But then again, what part of this in the original post did you not understand?

This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite
direction).
Once again, to use your example, the rules are that as you move the car forward with your hand, the conveyor belt would spin faster to offset that movement, which means the overall movement of the toy car remains at zero.

Let me ask you this. Take a radar gun and measure the speed of the toy car as it runs on the treadmill. I don't care if it's spinning at 1 mph or 100 mph. What do you think the radar will indicate, as to the moving speed of the vehicle? Zero.

Replace toy car with airplane. Actual movement of the airplane = zero. Which means zero amount of air is moving around the wings, which means no lift. No lift means no take-off, no flight.
Pure Adrenaline is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 04:49 PM
  #323  
Registered Member
 
crazymjb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 7,441
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Wait... I think I rescind my above statement. If the convener belt is INSTANTLY moving to match the wheel speed than the aircraft could not move forward... Because if the wheels are moving forward, they are moving faster than the conveyor belt at that point in time... But if the convey belt is instantly matching, or is always matched to their speed, than they cannot move forward.

Mike
crazymjb is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 09:36 PM
  #324  
That was uncalled for...
 
S A CHO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Age: 30
Posts: 7,288
Thanked 43 Times in 27 Posts
This question has 466 pages on a Physics forum .... The answer has to be in there somewhere.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2417
S A CHO is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 09:49 PM
  #325  
That was uncalled for...
 
S A CHO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Age: 30
Posts: 7,288
Thanked 43 Times in 27 Posts
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l__kEcvDir0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l__kEcvDir0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


/thread
S A CHO is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 09:54 PM
  #326  
At the Clarmont Lounge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Age: 33
Posts: 2,436
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by crazymjb
Wait... I think I rescind my above statement. If the convener belt is INSTANTLY moving to match the wheel speed than the aircraft could not move forward... Because if the wheels are moving forward, they are moving faster than the conveyor belt at that point in time... But if the convey belt is instantly matching, or is always matched to their speed, than they cannot move forward.

Mike
The only analogy that I could think to explain this the best is; Instead of the treadmill being flat it is angled down. The plane will continue to the end of the treadmill, with out using the turbines. This is beacuse of gravity. The wheels would cancel out enough friction so the plane would continue.

Now lets go back to the original question, all of the same principles are being used. Instead of gravity the turbines would send the plane down the treadmill.
JT Money is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:02 PM
  #327  
Registered Member
 
crazymjb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 7,441
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Again it really depends on this one aspect... The time it takes for the conveyer to match wheel speed increase.

The main "loop-hole" in the argument that I can use is that the conveyor and wheels cannot be moving at the same speed and have one or the other make any progress. So from that physical impossibility, the wheel speed would not be able to increase without the universe coming to an end or some crazy shit like that.

Now if they conveyor is only matching the speed of the actual aircraft, than it could take off.

Mike
crazymjb is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:15 PM
  #328  
fhwagads
 
FuriousGeorge83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago & Milwaukee
Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Why wont this thread die. I thought we all agreed that it could take off.
FuriousGeorge83 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:31 PM
  #329  
Dragging knees in
iTrader: (2)
 
Pure Adrenaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle Area
Age: 37
Posts: 12,434
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
I'm not convinced that it could take off.

My buddy is actually a pilot and I asked him tonight. He called you guys dumbasses for believing that it could take off. By no means he flies jet planes or anything like that, but he is a pilot.
Pure Adrenaline is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:36 PM
  #330  
Dragging knees in
iTrader: (2)
 
Pure Adrenaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle Area
Age: 37
Posts: 12,434
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by JT Money
The only analogy that I could think to explain this the best is; Instead of the treadmill being flat it is angled down. The plane will continue to the end of the treadmill, with out using the turbines. This is beacuse of gravity. The wheels would cancel out enough friction so the plane would continue.

Now lets go back to the original question, all of the same principles are being used. Instead of gravity the turbines would send the plane down the treadmill.
Turbine produces thrust. Thrust moves the plane forward. But this movement is offset by the conveyor belt moving the other way. Once again, the plane itself does not move. Only the wheels would spin faster (and the conveyor belt, as well) when you turn up the turbines. The plane itself does not move. No movement = no air = no flight.

Let me summarize for you... the turbines only produce thrust to move forward. That is all it can do. Unfortunately this energy is offset by the conveyor belt moving the other way. You are not achieving any kind of air flow or lift. You need lift to take off. Forward movement by thrust and vertical movement by lift are two different things; and we need both to fly. We're only achieving one here.
Pure Adrenaline is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 11:11 PM
  #331  
fhwagads
 
FuriousGeorge83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago & Milwaukee
Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I dont understand why this is any different from a water plane taking off from the water. I guess the question would be if a river wheels spin, belt moves, plane stands relatively still. Add thrust from jet engines and the thing moves foward. Some one call mythbusters and have them figure this out.
FuriousGeorge83 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 11:17 PM
  #332  
fhwagads
 
FuriousGeorge83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago & Milwaukee
Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
nvm I think this kind of explains it thouroughly. I always assumed that since this was a theoretical question, the wheels where built to handle the high speed that where supposedly involved. I mean if they could build a treadmill that works this way, why not wheels and tires that have lower/minimal friction rates.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot215/
FuriousGeorge83 is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 11:54 PM
  #333  
At the Clarmont Lounge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Age: 33
Posts: 2,436
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FuriousGeorge83
nvm I think this kind of explains it thouroughly. I always assumed that since this was a theoretical question, the wheels where built to handle the high speed that where supposedly involved. I mean if they could build a treadmill that works this way, why not wheels and tires that have lower/minimal friction rates.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot215/
People that think the plane won't take off please check out the link. It does a pretty thorough job explaning everything.
JT Money is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 11:59 PM
  #334  
tigerstyle
iTrader: (2)
 
neyeswhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SC
Age: 38
Posts: 561
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think most knew the plane would take off assuming it was going to move. It was really a trick on words because it was saying the treadmill will keep the plane still despite the thrust of the engines. You have to realize that engine thrust does not equal drive of wheels. Realistically, the wheels cancel out the conveyor eventually and the engine thrust provides the forward motion for lift from the wings.
neyeswhip is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:23 AM
  #335  
Registered Member
 
crazymjb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 7,441
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well it MUST be specified the conveyor belt is matching aircraft speed and not wheel speed...

So yes, the plane will take off. A 747 takes off at 180 miles per hour, so the belt would be moving 180 in the opposite direction, and the wheels would be spinning as if they were going 360 over a normal runway... Assuming the wheels and tires are up for this, and the bearings don't overheat, we are good to go.

Now IF you say the conveyor speed is matching the WHEEL speed. Than that is where problems arise. So if the aircraft speed has to be 180 MPH to take off, and the belt is trying to match wheel speed, we are left with: [180 + S = S such that S greater than or equal to 180], an impossible equation in reality.

Mike
crazymjb is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:41 AM
  #336  
I shoot people
 
is300eater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 21,134
Thanked 1,845 Times in 1,038 Posts
I'm wondering if this theory can be tested with a R/C plane on a treadmill...
is300eater is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 09:03 AM
  #337  
On the way!
 
fla-tls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Orlando, FL
Age: 50
Posts: 3,715
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Oh man - not this thread again.

My assumption was that the plane was a bomber and that the shaking from the tread mill would shake one of the bombs loose and blow up the plane - killing all of the snakes inside.

So therefore, this whole thing is pointless.
fla-tls is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 11:20 AM
  #338  
'Big Daddy Diggler'
Thread Starter
 
bigman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Yonkers NY
Age: 37
Posts: 11,018
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
at above post.
bigman is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:02 PM
  #339  
Cause of power outages...
 
Hojo061782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 1,586
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FuriousGeorge83
nvm I think this kind of explains it thouroughly. I always assumed that since this was a theoretical question, the wheels where built to handle the high speed that where supposedly involved. I mean if they could build a treadmill that works this way, why not wheels and tires that have lower/minimal friction rates.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot215/


I don't understand why this is so difficult.

The spinning rate of the wheels has nothing to do with takeoff speed. Takeoff speed only relies on the speed of the airflow over the wings. Speeding up the treadmill does not speed up or slow down airflow, it merely means the wheels will spin faster or slower. Technically you could have a treadmill moving in the same direction of the plane causing the plane wheels to not spin at all and yet have the plane take off. Also, because it's only airspeed that matters, an plane that takes off into the wind would theoretically have a lower stall speed than one taking off with the wind.
Hojo061782 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:15 PM
  #340  
Benchwarmer
 
IlliNorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Illinois
Age: 46
Posts: 10,017
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
A plane moves forward due to thrusts of air, much like a horizontal rocket. A car moves forward due to rotational velocity of it's tires. The Matchbox car on a treadmill is an excellent analogy. It does not take any more effort (thrust) for a man to push a Matchbox forward on a moving treadmill than a regular treadmill, assuming negligent friction from the axles and the wheel/treadmill interface. Why? Because the car is moving forward due to thrust (your hand) and not rotational velocity. If it does not require extra effort, when the pilot engages the engines, the plane moves forward and wheels spin faster until friction is broken and the wheels slide.

She flies.
IlliNorge is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:20 PM
  #341  
contrarian in fashion
 
PimpCL23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Angeles / Highland Park
Age: 37
Posts: 9,868
Thanked 18 Times in 9 Posts
i say we call mythbusters!
PimpCL23 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:27 PM
  #342  
Community Architect
robb m.
 
astro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: ON
Age: 42
Posts: 72,448
Thanked 398 Times in 170 Posts
if all you tree goats had just listened to me way back in post #3, this round and round ridiculousness could have been avoided.
astro is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:34 PM
  #343  
Nom Nom Nom Nom
 
SwervinCL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Universal City
Age: 39
Posts: 11,804
Thanked 76 Times in 50 Posts
Oh god, here we go again...
SwervinCL is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:48 PM
  #344  
contrarian in fashion
 
PimpCL23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Angeles / Highland Park
Age: 37
Posts: 9,868
Thanked 18 Times in 9 Posts
a tree goat.....

that should be a new smiley
PimpCL23 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 12:49 PM
  #345  
Benchwarmer
 
IlliNorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Illinois
Age: 46
Posts: 10,017
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Astroboy
if all you tree goats had just listened to me way back in post #3, this round and round ridiculousness could have been avoided.
Some of us goats hadn't found our trees yet back in August.
IlliNorge is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 01:15 PM
  #346  
dom
Senior Moderator
 
dom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 47,711
Thanked 797 Times in 659 Posts
Originally Posted by FuriousGeorge83
I dont understand why this is so difficult for you guys to wrap your head around. It doesnt matter if the converybelt matches the speed of the tires on the planes if they spin freely. The plane can move foward and acheive life because of thrust provided by the propellors or turbines on the wings not the tires. even if the tires are spinning at 500mphs and the converybelt matches that speed, the plane would move foward regardless and the tire speed would just accelerate. Its kinda like, how does a plane stay flying? By the thrust of the engines not the tires on the ground same principle at work here, you dont need ground/tires to move an object foward. You can accelerate in mid air because of thrust. The tires have nothing to do with it.

going with the dyno thing, the car doesnt move because of the "convyer" type thing. but that same care would move foward if you could attach a rocket on the roof.

Best explanation.

dom is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 01:20 PM
  #347  
dom
Senior Moderator
 
dom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 47,711
Thanked 797 Times in 659 Posts
Originally Posted by FuriousGeorge83
I dont understand why this is any different from a water plane taking off from the water.

dom is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 01:25 PM
  #348  
Senior Moderator
 
Yumcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 145,755
Thanked 14,697 Times in 9,127 Posts
Well, at least FuriousGeorge will live up to his name...?
Yumcha is online now  
Old 02-05-2007, 01:31 PM
  #349  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,362
Thanked 2,153 Times in 1,275 Posts
I wonder how fast the plane would be going once it takes off.....
Costco is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 03:54 PM
  #350  
Boeing/Airbus Jetliners
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ,
Posts: 180
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts




Boeing747 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 04:00 PM
  #351  
Nom Nom Nom Nom
 
SwervinCL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Universal City
Age: 39
Posts: 11,804
Thanked 76 Times in 50 Posts
Originally Posted by Boeing747




SwervinCL is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 04:14 PM
  #352  
I shoot people
 
is300eater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 21,134
Thanked 1,845 Times in 1,038 Posts
Originally Posted by SwervinCL
x2
is300eater is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 04:18 PM
  #353  
Senior Moderator
Regions Leader
 
trancemission's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas TX
Age: 48
Posts: 8,859
Thanked 179 Times in 115 Posts
@ SwervinCL avatar

thats a keeper....
trancemission is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 04:19 PM
  #354  
Benchwarmer
 
IlliNorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Illinois
Age: 46
Posts: 10,017
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Show off. Although, those seats look uncomfortable.
IlliNorge is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 04:28 PM
  #355  
Registered Member
 
levon1830's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 36
Posts: 1,440
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Someone told me if this scenario were to be tested with a real plane, the plane would probably implode, turning everyone and everything on board into nothingness. Is this true?
levon1830 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 05:01 PM
  #356  
Benchwarmer
 
IlliNorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Illinois
Age: 46
Posts: 10,017
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Hmmm......interesting. Somebody needs to start a new thread to consider this.
IlliNorge is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 05:05 PM
  #357  
Nom Nom Nom Nom
 
SwervinCL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Universal City
Age: 39
Posts: 11,804
Thanked 76 Times in 50 Posts
Originally Posted by levon1830
Someone told me if this scenario were to be tested with a real plane, the plane would probably implode, turning everyone and everything on board into nothingness. Is this true?
How?
SwervinCL is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 05:50 PM
  #358  
Registered Member
 
levon1830's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 36
Posts: 1,440
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SwervinCL
How?
I'm not sure, exactly. Something about it creating inconsistencies in the Laws of Physics. One law says it will take off, another says it won't. Apparently in situations like this, the test subject always implodes to destroy the evidence, and to dissuade others from trying to recreate it.

levon1830 is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 01:59 AM
  #359  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Age: 34
Posts: 83
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by levon1830
I'm not sure, exactly. Something about it creating inconsistencies in the Laws of Physics. One law says it will take off, another says it won't. Apparently in situations like this, the test subject always implodes to destroy the evidence, and to dissuade others from trying to recreate it.

My guess is that it would create a time paradox which would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum and destroy the entire universe!!
shabaaz is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 02:24 AM
  #360  
Moderator
 
Mizouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 34
Posts: 56,336
Thanked 1,343 Times in 947 Posts
Originally Posted by shabaaz
My guess is that it would create a time paradox which would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum and destroy the entire universe!!
lets do it!
Mizouse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Will the Plane Take-Off - Merged with MythBusters Show Thread


Contact Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.