Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

So, will it take off?Follow

#52 Jul 20 2006 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:


Edit: Exactly the same applies to a pontoon plane taking off against the current of a stong flowing river. The plane will still take off.



Anyone seen a pontoon plane take off in a river that flows 80+ miles and hour? For that matter, short of a flash flood, anyone seen a river that flowed that fast?
#53 Jul 20 2006 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
CaptainOmelette the Meaningless wrote:

I was just replying to Elderons post. I've already stated that I think no foreward movement means no lift and no flight.


But why isnt there forward movement? Unless I am missing something, it seems to be an extra constraint you have put on the problem.
#54 Jul 20 2006 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
****
8,832 posts
The conveyer belt.
#55 Jul 20 2006 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
CaptainOmelette the Meaningless wrote:
The conveyer belt.


But just because the belt is moving opposite the dirrection of the plane doesnt mean the plane could not move forward.

To me, the wheels are not a necessity in the movement of the plane. Their main purpose is to just keep the plane moving without having it scrape along the runway. (I realized I didnt make mention of this in my prior post, which was my mistake)
#56 Jul 20 2006 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
fenderputy wrote:
Elderon the Wise wrote:


Edit: Exactly the same applies to a pontoon plane taking off against the current of a stong flowing river. The plane will still take off.



Anyone seen a pontoon plane take off in a river that flows 80+ miles and hour? For that matter, short of a flash flood, anyone seen a river that flowed that fast?
You are describing a river that flows faster than the amount of thrust available to overcome the friction pushing on the pontoons.



PsiChi the Meaningless wrote:
CaptainOmelette the Meaningless wrote:
The conveyer belt.


But just because the belt is moving opposite the dirrection of the plane doesnt mean the plane could not move forward.

To me, the wheels are not a necessity in the movement of the plane. Their main purpose is to just keep the plane moving without having it scrape along the runway. (I realized I didnt make mention of this in my prior post, which was my mistake)
Exactly. No one is arguing that a plane cannot take off without forward movement. That is just ludicrious. We are arguing that the plane does indeed move foreward regardless of the speed that the wheels are spinning since they do not propel the craft, the prop/jet engines do. The push is gained from pushing on AIR not pushing on the CONVEYOR.




Edited, Jul 20th 2006 at 4:33pm EDT by Elderon
#57 Jul 20 2006 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Cecil Adams wrote:
Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground--and more importantly the air--regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane's wheels spin madly.


The wheels on a plane are just to reduce friction, not to generate wind.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#58 Jul 20 2006 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
****
8,832 posts
Assuming it was possible for a belt to be constructed to maintain exactly the same speed of the wheels for an infinate amount of time there could be no forward movement. It's akin to running on a treadmill, as long as it goes at the same speed as the user they won't make any forward progress.
#59 Jul 20 2006 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
Cecil Adams wrote:
Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground--and more importantly the air--regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane's wheels spin madly.


The wheels on a plane are just to reduce friction, not to generate wind.
Why is that such a hard concept for some people to grasp? Smiley: dubious
#60 Jul 20 2006 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
What part of "forward movement relative to the ground is irrelevant to the process" is confusing you?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#61 Jul 20 2006 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
CaptainOmelette the Meaningless wrote:
Assuming it was possible for a belt to be constructed to maintain exactly the same speed of the wheels for an infinate amount of time there could be no forward movement. It's akin to running on a treadmill, as long as it goes at the same speed as the user they won't make any forward progress.
That is only true if the wheels pushing against the conveyor were the source of the object's propulsion.

If you strapped a rocket engine to a car on the same treadmill, the same rules apply to the car as the plane. The treadmill is not going to matter since the rocket pushes on the air, not the treadmill.
#62 Jul 20 2006 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
What part of "forward movement relative to the ground is irrelevant to the process" is confusing you?
Smiley: lol The part where he fails at teh relativity.
#63 Jul 20 2006 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
****
8,832 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:




CaptainOmelette the Meaningless wrote:
The conveyer belt.


But just because the belt is moving opposite the dirrection of the plane doesnt mean the plane could not move forward.

To me, the wheels are not a necessity in the movement of the plane. Their main purpose is to just keep the plane moving without having it scrape along the runway. (I realized I didnt make mention of this in my prior post, which was my mistake)
Exactly. No one is arguing that a plane cannot take off without forward movement. That is just ludicrious. We are arguing that the plane does indeed move foreward regardless of the speed that the wheels are spinning since they do not propel the craft, the prop/jet engines do. The push is gained from pushing on AIR not pushing on the CONVEYOR.




Edited, Jul 20th 2006 at 4:33pm EDT by Elderon[/quote]



The plane won't be able to move forward, the wheels have nothing to do with the physical act of moving the plane, however they are the means to which the force of the engines move the plane forward. If they are spinning in a continous manner on something going the exact same speed in the same direction they will go nowhere, nor will the plane.
#64 Jul 20 2006 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:
We are arguing that the plane does indeed move foreward regardless of the speed that the wheels are spinning since they do not propel the craft, the prop/jet engines do. The push is gained from pushing on AIR not pushing on the CONVEYOR.


Right, and that is why I am so confuzzed by that bananna guy. I dont see how he can say that there is no forward movement due to the conveyor belt. (Unless I am misunderstanding what he was saying).



CaptainOmelette the Meaningless wrote:



The plane won't be able to move forward, the wheels have nothing to do with the physical act of moving the plane, however they are the means to which the force of the engines move the plane forward. If they are spinning in a continous manner on something going the exact same speed in the same direction they will go nowhere, nor will the plane.


Nope, I didnt misunderstand what he was saying..

Edited, Jul 20th 2006 at 4:46pm EDT by PsiChi
#65 Jul 20 2006 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
CaptainOmelette the Meaningless wrote:

The plane won't be able to move forward, the wheels have nothing to do with the physical act of moving the plane, however they are the means to which the force of the engines move the plane forward. If they are spinning in a continous manner on something going the exact same speed in the same direction they will go nowhere, nor will the plane.
Smiley: oyvey Smiley: banghead
#66 Jul 20 2006 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
If they are spinning in a continous manner on something going the exact same speed in the same direction they will go nowhere, nor will the plane.

It doesn't matter where the wheels go.


Ok think about this.

If you're just standing on a treadmill as it carries you backwards, do you feel wind at your back?

#67 Jul 20 2006 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
****
8,832 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:
CaptainOmelette the Meaningless wrote:

The plane won't be able to move forward, the wheels have nothing to do with the physical act of moving the plane, however they are the means to which the force of the engines move the plane forward. If they are spinning in a continous manner on something going the exact same speed in the same direction they will go nowhere, nor will the plane.
Smiley: oyvey Smiley: banghead



Relax, I'm fairly sure I'm wrong..however that never stops me from arguing til I'm blue in the face Smiley: grin
#68 Jul 20 2006 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
The plane won't be able to move forward, the wheels have nothing to do with the physical act of moving the plane, however they are the means to which the force of the engines move the plane forward. If they are spinning in a continous manner on something going the exact same speed in the same direction they will go nowhere, nor will the plane.
The belt will be moving at a certain speed. The plane will be moving forward. The wheels will be spinning however fast they have to spin to make up the difference. Make the belt move faster and you are doing nothing but turning the wheels faster. The plane will continue to move forward at the same speed.
#69 Jul 20 2006 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Now, if the experiment was done in a vaccuum, the plane would go nowhere. It would actually probably overheat and blow up. Smiley: grin
#70 Jul 20 2006 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
Try pushing a toy car on a treadmill. Making the car move against the direction of the belt will require the same amount of force from you regardless of how fast you allow the treadmill to spin.

The toy car and the plane are both getting their forward push from something other than the wheels.
#71 Jul 20 2006 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Without reading all the other posts here, it seems to me that the airplane WILL take off, but only when the conveyor reaches the speed that the airplane would normally need to reach to take off. The airplane should achieve lift by matching the speed of the conveyor at normal takeoff speed.

The only real gain is space consumption. You couldn't take off at half speed or anything goofy like that.
#72 Jul 20 2006 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:
Now, if the experiment was done in a vaccuum, the plane would go nowhere. It would actually probably overheat and blow up. Smiley: grin

How would a combustion engine overheat in a vacuum?

#73 Jul 20 2006 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:
Now, if the experiment was done in a vaccuum, the plane would go nowhere. It would actually probably overheat and blow up. Smiley: grin


If it was done in a vaccuum, would any necessary combustion even take place?

Looks like there is an echo

Edited, Jul 20th 2006 at 4:53pm EDT by PsiChi
#74 Jul 20 2006 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Anyone want to test this by sticking a remote control plane on a treadmill?
#75 Jul 20 2006 at 4:01 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
fenderputy wrote:
Anyone want to test this by sticking a remote control plane on a treadmill aimed at my gaped ***?


Nah, I'll pass
#76 Jul 20 2006 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Would the experiment be identical by tethering the plane to a tree, rather than using a treadmill?

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 339 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (339)