bobby177
Member
+129|6919|Texas.. getting out asap

burton wrote:

but seriously...it wont take off its like jogging in place, you can jog as fast as you want but do u feel any wind on your face? that is as long as its not windy outside.
WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS??? IF THE PLANE HAD NO ENGINES THEN YOUR THEORY WOULD BE TRUE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT MOVE. BUT THE ENGINES PROVIDE EXTRA FORCE TO OVERCOME THE TREADMILL, MOVING THE PLANE FORWARD.

That is all
viper313
One Shot, One Kill
+53|7087|Minnesota
Video proof now uploaded on google video.  Waiting for them to process it.  I will post it tomorrow.  Or i should say today.  It's 3:30 in the morning here.
Coolbeano
Level 13.5 BF2S Ninja Penguin Sensei
+378|7209

God.

https://img12.picsplace.to/img12/1/PLAEN2.GIF
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6938|Connecticut

d3athwi5h4 wrote:

No, the plane being stationary wouldn't create any lift
exactly
Malloy must go
heggs
Spamalamadingdong
+581|6834|New York
have any of you read my explanation????

anyone?????????

instead of skimming over it, try reading it. it's on page 8.

Last edited by heggs (2006-12-28 06:04:49)

Remember Me As A Time Of Day
Coolbeano
Level 13.5 BF2S Ninja Penguin Sensei
+378|7209

Yes Heggs, I read (the bulk of) it, and you're forgetting one minor detail. Look at my 'diagram' above.

If the engines are in such a position and have enough power, there WILL be airflow over the wings.

The treadmill and wheels are only there as a means of 'keeping the plane stationary' as I have so delicately illustrated.
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7238

deeznutz1245 wrote:

d3athwi5h4 wrote:

No, the plane being stationary wouldn't create any lift
exactly
Think about what happens when you're in an aeroplane, sitting at the end of the runway and you've been given permission to take off.  You (the pilot) increases the thrust through the engines - the thrust being the force that sucks air in and spits it out the other side.

Ignore the wheels at this point - the only purpose they serve is to keep the belly of the fat arsed plane from scraping on the ground.

Back to the engines.  They are going at full thrust now, sucking air in and pumping it out.  The air that's being sucked in is going to be replaced by more air and that's also going to go in through the engines and out the back.   

The pertinent question you have to ask here is whether any of the air around the engines is going to go over the wings.  I think the answer is a big fat, like the belly of the said aeroplane, no.

It's the same as if the aeroplane were still sitting at the end of the runway with its brakes on.  The wheels are straining to turn because there's all this power urging them forward but the brakes are still on.  And while that's happening, the plane's not lifiting into the air, is it?  Same thing as if the brakes were off but there was a humoungous treadmill or the plane were on a frictionless surface.
Kung Jew
That one mod
+331|7191|Houston, TX
It's threads like these that have prevented my morning coffee from making it down my throat.  I start reading and laugh so hard...  I think I'm gonna invest in popcorn.  It's easier to clean up.



KJ
heggs
Spamalamadingdong
+581|6834|New York

Coolbeano wrote:

Yes Heggs, I read (the bulk of) it, and you're forgetting one minor detail. Look at my 'diagram' above.

If the engines are in such a position and have enough power, there WILL be airflow over the wings.

The treadmill and wheels are only there as a means of 'keeping the plane stationary' as I have so delicately illustrated.
true, but that doesn't mean that there will be airflow over the ENTIRE wing surface. it will be localized around the engine and there will be a gradient going out to the wing tip and towards the fuselage. i highly doubt there will be enough airflow over the entire wing surface to generate enough lift.


and thank you for taking the time to read it. took me forever to draw that damn explanation up.

and thank you, aardfith, for agreeing with me.

Last edited by heggs (2006-12-28 06:16:53)

Remember Me As A Time Of Day
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6975|Global Command

Kung Jew wrote:

It's threads like these that have prevented my morning coffee from making it down my throat.  I start reading and laugh so hard...  I think I'm gonna invest in popcorn.  It's easier to clean up.



KJ
What's really funny is how this thread topic is spreading through internet forums like a virus.


burton wrote:

u mother fucker u started all hell with that airplane question fuck you.
friendly pm regarding this thread.
-=raska=-
Canada's French Frog
+123|7071|Quebec city, Canada
Not only there would be airflow under the wings if the plane was stationary, the plane would go forward

Read this example again :

-=raska=- wrote:

if you push a toy car that is on a treadmill, do you think you would be able to move it forward, even if the treadmill push it in the opposite direction ?

Yes, the treadmill may go in uberhigh speed, this will only affect the rotation of the toy car's wheels, and you will be able to move it forward.

Now replace your hand by jet engines...
How could the treadmill stop your effort to push the car forward ? The answer is only by the friction of the wheels between their axle. You could move easily the car forward even if the treadmill was running at 1000 mph, the wheels would just rotate faster and maybe dommage the axle

Same thing with the plane. At 0 friction, the treadmill could go uberfast and the plane wouldnt even move backward. Because of the friction between its wheels and its axles, it would, but the thrust of the engines would overcome the friction, and make the plane move forward.

Dont compare this case with a real car that gets his movement by its engine, because it is linked to its wheels.
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|7076|USA

kessel! wrote:

YEEE BURNIN THE KUSH! haha

http://www.sinsemillast.com/shop/images … 20KUSH.jpg
hey that looks just like my xmas tree
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|6834

aardfrith wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

d3athwi5h4 wrote:

No, the plane being stationary wouldn't create any lift
exactly
Think about what happens when you're in an aeroplane, sitting at the end of the runway and you've been given permission to take off.  You (the pilot) increases the thrust through the engines - the thrust being the force that sucks air in and spits it out the other side.

Ignore the wheels at this point - the only purpose they serve is to keep the belly of the fat arsed plane from scraping on the ground.

Back to the engines.  They are going at full thrust now, sucking air in and pumping it out.  The air that's being sucked in is going to be replaced by more air and that's also going to go in through the engines and out the back.   

The pertinent question you have to ask here is whether any of the air around the engines is going to go over the wings.  I think the answer is a big fat, like the belly of the said aeroplane, no.

It's the same as if the aeroplane were still sitting at the end of the runway with its brakes on.  The wheels are straining to turn because there's all this power urging them forward but the brakes are still on.  And while that's happening, the plane's not lifiting into the air, is it?  Same thing as if the brakes were off but there was a humoungous treadmill or the plane were on a frictionless surface.
close, but no cigar.

you see, when the brakes are ON, the brakes are acting AGAINST the thrust of jets, using the traction of the ground, coupled with the force of gravity, to increase the DRAG factor of the jet... thus stopping it from moving.


The wheels on the aircraft, coupled with the force of moving ground, does not create enough DRAG factor to counter the THRUST generated by the jet engines.

Wheras before ,you had the force of the breaks, which were holding the wheels STILL on the ground, thus allowing the rubber to maintain grip... the ground in this example is moving and the brakes are not applied.

Because the ground is moving, you would SOLEY be relying on the friction of the wheel hub bearings, and the grip of the tyres on the ground to counter the drag.

If these were enough to counter the drag, then they would be enough to STOP a jet from taking off on a normal runway.
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|6834
To prove my theory, try this out....

get an empty plastic bottle
Get a toy car (pull back and go style ) which pulls itself forward
Get a large peice of paper.

the empty bottle will represent our plane

The car will repsresent a normal car (or any other vehicle that requires use of the ground to provide it's momentum.

ok... first, using the pullback and go car, pull it back (or wind it up or whatever) and place it on one end of the paper..
now, when you release the car, pull the paper from a direction directly behind the car (so, if the car is heading left from right, you pull the paper out from behind the car, on the right...)

try and pull it at the same speed the car is trying to move - I know it won't be accurate, but it's good enough.

Great.. what you should have seen is that the car would sit NEARLY on the same spot as you let go of it, as you pulled the paper (until the paper ran out or the car ran out of power).

You have proven that a automobile would be buggered in the situation described in the first post, as the car relies on the friction between it's wheels and the ground to provide forward momentum.

ok..now for the plane example..

Lie the bottle at one end of the piece of paper, leaving just enough of the paper at one side to pull it (the bottle needs to roll in the same direction as you will be pulling the paper...)

Now this time, as you pull the paper along, BLOW on the bottle from the same direction you are pulling the paper.

As the bottle starts to move forward, increase the speed at which you are pulling the paper, but also increase how hard you are blowing (you can use a fan or whatever).

You will find that no matter HOW hard or fast you are pulling the paper, you can always blow the bottle forward with relative ease.




another good example, stick your thumb on the peice of paper and hold it down with a moderate force.
Now pull the paper...
you will feel quite a lot of friction.
This illustrates the DRAG factor a normal car would have to deal with to stay stationary.

Now, stick a free-wheeling car (ie.. a matchbox car with wheels the freely rotate!) on the same piece of paper.
This time, place your thumb behind the car, but NOT touching the paper..
As you pull the paper out, you will find that it takes significantly less pressure to keep the car stationary.
Infact, if you applied the same pressure as you did in the first example, to the car in THIS example, you will find you easily push it forward.
This represents how very little the ground and wheel friction would have on the drag factor of the aircraft.

So... the aircraft WILL move forward, thus generating lift, thus taking off....
Kung Jew
That one mod
+331|7191|Houston, TX
I'm really lucky ATG.  My office received one of those huge tubs of multi flavored popcorn.  They left it in my lab.  I'm fully stocked with a easy to clean, spillable-whilst-laughing-at-all-the-Bill-Nye-wannabe's, fun and nutritious snack.  From time to time, I refill the bowl of popcorn and sit down to a healthy dose of fun filled reading.  Seeing as I see alot of astronauts from the space program down here in the NASA area, I'm thinking of forwarding it to a couple of my patients to see what the monkeys at NASA have to say about it.  It might just be enough to derail the space program for a decade or two....



KJ
spray_and_pray
Member
+52|6937|Perth. Western Australia
Even with engines the aircraft has to move forward somehow if its wheels meant nothing the aircraft wouldn't go anywhere the wheels roll to help the speed of an aircraft build up have you ever seen an aircraft thats performed a belly landing takeoff? With all the thrust in the engines after an eventual amount of thrust the wheels would move if wheels didn't move and werent a factor in aircraft we could just line the bottom of an aircraft in rubber so that way it could skid across the runway. Stationary wheels would never move an aircraft has anyone seen a video of a pilot landing an aircraft with parking brakes on? Thats what happens when wheels dont move at high speed and remain stationary you end up with the nose planted in the ground. When a pilot powers up an aircrafts engine it takes a little while for the power to go from the sucking and blowing to the wheels moving forward when the power gets to them. If the wheels could never move at any speed the aircraft wouldn't be able to move at anyspead unless it was a VTOL the treadmill wouldn't start moving until the aircraft would start moving because it matches the speed of the wheels. Someone could be giving a jet fighter 100% thrust with afterburners on a runway but if the wheels couldn't go forward the jet won't go forward. Its known on STOL fields to hold the brakes on an aircraft and power up to 100% until the engines stabilize the aircraft doesn't move forward even with 100% thrust simply because its wheels arent spinning cause the brakes arent on.

In this scenario the treadmill is acting as the brakes any movement in the wheels is counteracted by the movement in the treadmill and it stands still. I beleive most people understand how an aircraft works but for some reason people beleive that the aircraft engines generate lift and it will move forward and takeoff no matter that it is not moving what so ever on the ground. A propeller aircrafts engine might create the slightest amount of lift the most minescule and that would be if its a front mounted prop aircraft because prop aircraft also use bernoulli's theory when it comes to propeller design. Propellers can also be feathered in more complex aircraft this is when the actual blade of the prop itself moves. This is done when an engine fails to reduce the amount of drag the prop creates. This however is on the more complicated aircraft.

This thing alone leads me into wanting to buy a small fuel driven aircraft (model) and buy a treadmill  then match the speeds of the treadmill and the aircraft to show that it wont get anywhere. With all the thrust the engine is producing it would stay still if the thrust that it created was taken out because the wheels couldn't move at all. And if the aircraft starts at 0 kmph it will never accelerate the wheels would never move whatsoever no matter that thrust was being produced by aircraft. Tell you what ill call up my old physics teacher he had a PHd in Newtonian Physics and Quantum Physics (I dont know what the guy was doing in a highschool) and we will see... Then again I dont know how to get into contact with him since I was in highschool 8-9 years ago. Anyone got a friend that has PHd's in those two areas?
bobby177
Member
+129|6919|Texas.. getting out asap

spray_and_pray wrote:

Even with engines the aircraft has to move forward somehow if its wheels meant nothing the aircraft wouldn't go anywhere the wheels roll to help the speed of an aircraft build up have you ever seen an aircraft thats performed a belly landing takeoff? With all the thrust in the engines after an eventual amount of thrust the wheels would move if wheels didn't move and werent a factor in aircraft we could just line the bottom of an aircraft in rubber so that way it could skid across the runway. Stationary wheels would never move an aircraft has anyone seen a video of a pilot landing an aircraft with parking brakes on? Thats what happens when wheels dont move at high speed and remain stationary you end up with the nose planted in the ground. When a pilot powers up an aircrafts engine it takes a little while for the power to go from the sucking and blowing to the wheels moving forward when the power gets to them. If the wheels could never move at any speed the aircraft wouldn't be able to move at anyspead unless it was a VTOL the treadmill wouldn't start moving until the aircraft would start moving because it matches the speed of the wheels. Someone could be giving a jet fighter 100% thrust with afterburners on a runway but if the wheels couldn't go forward the jet won't go forward. Its known on STOL fields to hold the brakes on an aircraft and power up to 100% until the engines stabilize the aircraft doesn't move forward even with 100% thrust simply because its wheels arent spinning cause the brakes arent on.

In this scenario the treadmill is acting as the brakes any movement in the wheels is counteracted by the movement in the treadmill and it stands still. I beleive most people understand how an aircraft works but for some reason people beleive that the aircraft engines generate lift and it will move forward and takeoff no matter that it is not moving what so ever on the ground. A propeller aircrafts engine might create the slightest amount of lift the most minescule and that would be if its a front mounted prop aircraft because prop aircraft also use bernoulli's theory when it comes to propeller design. Propellers can also be feathered in more complex aircraft this is when the actual blade of the prop itself moves. This is done when an engine fails to reduce the amount of drag the prop creates. This however is on the more complicated aircraft.

This thing alone leads me into wanting to buy a small fuel driven aircraft (model) and buy a treadmill  then match the speeds of the treadmill and the aircraft to show that it wont get anywhere. With all the thrust the engine is producing it would stay still if the thrust that it created was taken out because the wheels couldn't move at all. And if the aircraft starts at 0 kmph it will never accelerate the wheels would never move whatsoever no matter that thrust was being produced by aircraft. Tell you what ill call up my old physics teacher he had a PHd in Newtonian Physics and Quantum Physics (I dont know what the guy was doing in a highschool) and we will see... Then again I dont know how to get into contact with him since I was in highschool 8-9 years ago. Anyone got a friend that has PHd's in those two areas?
I stopped reading after I saw "the wheels roll to help the speed of an aircraft build up".
NO THEY DON'T. All they do is reduce the friction between the plane and the ground.
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|6834
see now.. if this question had been worded oh so slightly different.. then the answer would have been NO...

However, the question clearly states
This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane's
speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same


this means that if the plane is travelling forward at 10mph, the treadmill is only moving at 10mph, but that means the jet's wheels will be turning at 20mph... and the jet can continue forward at a leisurely 10mph forward, with it's wheels spinning freely at 20mph, until it get's off the runway.

You could exand this and say the aircraft accelerates to say 150mph, where it normally generates enough lift to take off.
AT THIS POINT, the treadmill is going 150mph in the opposite direction, which simply means the jet's wheels will be turning at 300mph as they leave the ground.

HOWEVER..... if the question had been worded as such:
This conveyor has a control system that tracks the
[u]speed of the plane's wheels[u/] and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same

Then the answer becomes a LOT more complicated (and is still argued by scientists to this day )
bobby177
Member
+129|6919|Texas.. getting out asap

Sk wrote:

see now.. if this question had been worded oh so slightly different.. then the answer would have been NO...

However, the question clearly states
This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane's
speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same


this means that if the plane is travelling forward at 10mph, the treadmill is only moving at 10mph, but that means the jet's wheels will be turning at 20mph... and the jet can continue forward at a leisurely 10mph forward, with it's wheels spinning freely at 20mph, until it get's off the runway.

You could exand this and say the aircraft accelerates to say 150mph, where it normally generates enough lift to take off.
AT THIS POINT, the treadmill is going 150mph in the opposite direction, which simply means the jet's wheels will be turning at 300mph as they leave the ground.

HOWEVER..... if the question had been worded as such:
This conveyor has a control system that tracks the
[u]speed of the plane's wheels[u/] and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same

Then the answer becomes a LOT more complicated (and is still argued by scientists to this day )
yay someone who understands
Eagle
Togs8896 is my evil alter ego
+567|7076|New Hampshire, USA
They way a plane works is as follows:  The airfoil creates lift because of a high pressure system created under it.  This is all explained in Bernoulli's principle.  The way the airfoil is shaped makes it so when air hits it, the air particles that go over the airfoil have to travel a longer distance than the particles that go under it.  And since air particles must all move at the same speed, the air that goes over the air foil must move faster to keep up with the air that goes under it.  This creates low pressure above the airfoiil which allows the high pressure beneath it to push it up.  SO if the plane wasn't moving, there wouldn't be any air moving over the airfoil to lift the plane up, therefore making the treadmill useless.

Thank you for your time :-P

Last edited by -=]NS[=-Eagle (2006-12-28 10:25:45)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/14407/Sig_Pats.jpg
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|6834

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

They way a plane works is as follows:  The airfoil creates lift because of a high pressure system created under it.  This is all explained in Bernoulli's principle.  The way the airfoil is shaped makes it so when air hits it, the air particles that go over the airfoil have to travel a longer distance than the particles that go under it.  And since air particles must all move at the same speed, the air that goes over the air foil must move faster to keep up with the air that goes under it.  This creates low pressure above the airfoiil which allows the high pressure beneath it to push it up.  SO if the plane wasn't moving, there wouldn't be any air moving over the airfoil to lift the plane up, therefore making the treadmill useless.

Thank you for your time :-P
yeah.. that's all well and good.. but who agreed the plane wasn't moving?
Valium500mg.
Member
+3|6786
1. ATG I thought you had an original thou THC induced idea until all the links started popping up
2.SK very fine example of how to test and prove a theory on the cheap, you should write a paper on the principal and send it to the gov.
3. Jet engines do not push with the exhaust the push by means of a lower pressure at the exhaust vent and higher pressure at the front of the combustion chamber thus pushing on the engine and what ever it is mounted to.
4 mod to SK's test use a CO2 powered car like the ones the boy scouts used to make, put it on the paper pop the CO2 cartridge and pull nuff said the plane will fly.
Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6992|the best galaxy
This topic has had 6712 replies and 246130 views on the physorg forum so be prepared for a long discussion:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2417
https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|6834

Valium500mg. wrote:

1. ATG I thought you had an original thou THC induced idea until all the links started popping up
2.SK very fine example of how to test and prove a theory on the cheap, you should write a paper on the principal and send it to the gov.
3. Jet engines do not push with the exhaust the push by means of a lower pressure at the exhaust vent and higher pressure at the front of the combustion chamber thus pushing on the engine and what ever it is mounted to.
4 mod to SK's test use a CO2 powered car like the ones the boy scouts used to make, put it on the paper pop the CO2 cartridge and pull nuff said the plane will fly.
was discussed as part of my physics degree

Last edited by Sk (2006-12-28 10:33:33)

Valium500mg.
Member
+3|6786
This is a simple thing, you guys should be debating (nice word for arguing) why Qua tum mechanics is right and General relativity is right but why do they disagree? maybe I'll start a new thread if I do I'll call it Super string theory.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard