I enjoyed it.

Now I want a plane and a giant conveyor belt for Christmas.

So how come when I'm running on a treadmill, I don't feel a breeze?

The plane will be stationary...just like I'm stationary when I'm on a treadmill. There will be no air moving over and under the wings and, thus, no lift created. Hence, no flight.

Some of you must have failed basic physics, or were English majors.

No I didn't read the other 500 posts, nor do I care.

[This message has been edited by 99ag01 (edited 12/6/2006 2:22p).]

you are an idiot (didn't even grasp the point of the question)

hth

Die in a plane crash.

how could I if the plane never takes off? Luckily for you, it would take off and thus I could die

It's not a literal question. It's a theoretical question.

No doubt the friction of the plane's wheels would propel it off the conveyor belt after about 10mph.

But if, in theory, and discounting friction, the plane stayed on the conveyor belt until take-off speed, it would be stationary and there would be zero lift under the wings.

How long did you spend as a kid trying to figure out why the chicken crossed the road?

the chicken crossed the road because he wanted to. ****ing simple question......but you are still wrong on the plane thing (and I put about 5 minutes of thought into this problem)

Come on 99! A jet does not push itself off the ground with its tires. There are no propulsion components to an airplane driving the tires. It’s all about air thrust power and air speed over the wings. It is irrelevant how fast the ground is moving under it (conveyer or not).

This thread needs to go away!

I'm with the folks who say it doesn't take off.

Does that settle it?





mmmm...didn't think so...

why do people choose to side with the idiots?

500th reply.

Now I'm done.






































(the plane doesn't fly)

someone take one for the team and bomb this thread with porn to make it die

post a pic of your sister naked

ANYONE WHO POSTS A REPLY AFTER ME HAS TO SUCK MY BALLS.

Dad-O-Lot,






















































(Yes it does)

ohk chiming back in for Wrong-Dad's sake....

quote:

---

He has the fan set to move him at a constant 5 MPH.

---

This assumption is wrong, to move at a constant 5 mph, the fan would have to be variable to account for any outside force, say change in drag (or a moving conveyor). We don't have a pulley that is hooked to something like, say, a speedometer. A speedometer is linked to the wheel speed in car. if we use that, then no, the plane does not move. However if we measured the planes actual motion (with a GPS perhaps), then the plane will take off.

Planes don't have a throttle setting that says, go 50mph, they just don't, it isn't like a car at all.

Dad-o-lot, if you were my dad, i think i would definitely disown you

YOU BOTH HAVE TO SUCK MY BALLS FOR POSTING.


ANYONE ELSE THAT POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL FEEL MY WRATH. KILL THIS FING THREAD.

Good lord, not this thing again.

got an experiment you can perform with your kids dad.

Go to the grocery story. Get a can of soup (you should probably use alphabet soup since the alphabet is probably all you should ever teach your kids). Now, with can of soup in hand, head for the checkout lane that has, gasp, a conveyor belt. Lay the can on the moving conveyor so that it will roll. Now, using your finger (simulating the thrust of a jet engine), try to push the can forwards (against the conveyors motion defined as forwards). You will quite visibly see the rotation of the can speed up (like the airplanes wheels). You will also notice that the can will in fact not be magically held in place by the conveyor belt no matter how fast you could possibly manage to speed up the belt.

If you are really daring, you could have the checker stop the belt and start it at the same moment that you start to apply "thrust" (your finger) to the can. I assure you that you will be able to push the can forwards.

Good call, Brad! Best visualization tool so far. End of thread.

If you can't understand THIS one, then please slam your f'ing brains on your desk until something useful comes out. Then you'll see that the plane takes off.

quote:

---

Dad-o-lot, if you were my dad, i think i would definitely disown you

---

and if you were my son, I would welcome it.

Any man with a handle like Dad-O-Lot is most likely a great human being and gets my total respect.

BTW:

Will it fly or not?

I think it will.

~(%^D)

HRLIII

His Royal Lameness has spoken!

( ...voice punctuated with a clap of distant thunder... )

OK, I said I was done but I just realized why the controversy. I believe it lies in how the "speed" of the plane is measured and what "speed" the conveyor uses to compensate.

I have been translating all speed to the wheels because as long as the plane is on the ground, the speed of the wheels = the speed of the plane.

When on the conveyor, I assumed the "speed" of the conveyor would equate to what the speed of the plane would be if it's wheels were spinning at that rate on level ground. In short, I was making the assumption that the speed of the plane was measured by the rpms of the wheels. Note, I never believed that the wheels were the cause of the plane's speed, just that they were the means of measurement of the speed. So anytime someone said "the wheels just spin faster", I shook my head and thought "you idiot, so does the conveyor, to compensate"

I assumed that whatever means were used to measure the speed of the plane would then be translated to the conveyor and cause the conveyor to spin faster in order to compensate.

If you measure the speed of the plane relative to an outside point (not the wheels), then what are you assuming drives the speed of the conveyor belt in this scenario? If my assumptions were true, then the speed of the plane relative to an outside point would be zero and if that is what drove the conveyor then the conveyor wouldn't move. But if the conveyor doesn't move then the plane would have movement relative to an outside point.

It all lies in your assumptions. Agree with them or not, My assumptions were that the conveyor would continually compensate for the thrust of the plane's engines and the plane would not take off. I see how with a different set of assumptions, the plane would take off but it would require approximately twice the thrust of takeoff on level ground.

Now I am done.

Noooo!

I don't want this thread to die!

I have reevaluated as well and think if would fly as long as a sip didn't design the plane or the conveyor belt.

DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!!

quote:

---

I have reevaluated as well and think if would fly as long as a sip didn't design the plane or the conveyor belt.

---

Ouch!

Btw: I designed the building yer working in ... I'd wear yer hardhat and body armour if I were you.

which building do you think I am working in?

That one over there!

quote:

---

Any man with a handle like Dad-O-Lot is most likely a great human being and gets my total respect.

---

Why thank you Horn.














btw, final answer = it depends.

If I'm interpreting the handle right it provides insight concerning your priorities.





[This message has been edited by IIIHorn (edited 12/7/2006 9:52a).]

Eh, what the heck. I came in late and skipped the middle 100 pages, so sorry if I post something that's already been covered/rebutted.

The way I see the original question is that the mythical conveyor belt can instantaneously go infinitely fast to match the speed of the plane's wheels.

Obviously the wheels are free spinning and aren't the "means of propulsion". But they are the thing that transfers the propulsion into usable energy to propel the plane forward. The analogy just above about pushing the can on the supermarket conveyor, and an earlier one I saw about pulling yourself with a rope on a treadmill miss an important point. The plane has nothing to pull/push against other than the air and the ground.

Sure you could tie a rope to something and pull the plane on the conveyor belt no matter how fast it spun, but for the jet engines, the air is the rope. And thats like trying to pull a rope thats not attached to anything.

Same thing for pushing a can; the can can be pushed because your finger and body provide something to push against EXTERNAL to the conveyor belt. If you were somehow sitting on top of the can as it rolled and tried to push it with your finger, it wouldn't move forward. Or if you sat on top of the can and tried to push against the air - no forward movement.

For the plane, the ground is the external component, the rope that's actually tied to something, or the body standing there to push against. The wheels may not be the propulsion, but they are definately the thing the propulsion uses to push for a takeoff. When the engines can't use then to push, no forward motion. No forward motion=no airflow=no lift=no flying.


Like others on here, I can't resist a good argument.

This was a bit unclear and incomplete. Obviously the jet/propeller pushing and pulling the air is what makes the plane fly when its in the air. And this would work on the ground to push also. The difference is in the air, there is lift to counteract the weight of the plane. On the ground, from a dead stop, there is no lift, so the plane DOES rely on its wheels to allow it to move forward - the weight of the plane is driving it down into the ground. No matter how hard the engines drive the plane, there is no upward force present without lift.


[This message has been edited by Dstyle02 (edited 12/7/2006 11:06a).]

quote:

---

so the plane DOES rely on its wheels to allow it to move forward

---

I disagree.

quote:

---

For the plane, the ground is the external component, the rope that's actually tied to something, or the body standing there to push against. The wheels may not be the propulsion, but they are definately the thing the propulsion uses to push for a takeoff. When the engines can't use then to push, no forward motion. No forward motion=no airflow=no lift=no flying.

---

so what does it push against while in the air? THE EXACT SAME THINGS THAT IT DOES WHILE ON THE GROUND. IT PUSHES AGAISNT THE AIR. Jet/prop propulsion.

(yes i had to bring this **** back up, lol.