Airplane on a treadmill

Will the airplane take off?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • No

    Votes: 10 62.5%

  • I have no idea

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Total voters
    16
Professur said:
The sad part of this conversation is that some folk simply can't accept that the mere precept is impossible. A conveyor belt could never match the wheel's speed. The wheels are moving, not with relation to the belt, but in relation to the frame supporting the belt. Belt speed is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

In the real world that's true. It's a thought experiment though, like Schrodinger's cat. As BoP points out, it's really more than one question. It depends on how you interpret the original question and the original question was deliberately left incomplete, open to said interpretation. If you could (magically I suppose) Keep the plane from moving through the air, it would not take off. Of course, you can't. :shrug:

Note that there are those who actually believe that nothing is impossible. ;)

paul_valaru said:
is it's a prop, does that cause enough wind to take-off, on a treadmilled plane?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Okay.. I knew I'd get that. I didn't mean the plane in a vacuum.. I meant the belt - not the plane.. I'm actually schmarter than that..

Okay then, what was the question?
BoP is right! There is an undebatable answer.

It just says speed. There are two definitions of speed... Airspeed, and ground speed. Airspeed is the speed of an airplane through the air, not necessarily across the ground. ie: if a plane flies at 150 MPH into a 20 MPH headwind, its airspeed is still 150 MPH, but its groundspeed is 130 MPH Airspeed is shown on an airspeed indicator or speedometer.
(from www.swairfest.org/page.aspx) This is valid. That's MY point.:mad4:
 
paul_valaru said:
is it's a prop, does that cause enough wind to take-off, on a treadmilled plane?
Click to expand...

Depends. A C-130 gets 40% of its lift from the props blowing air across the wings. If you fire-wall the throttles, you might generate enough lift to bounce it. I've seen pics of accidents where they jumped the chocks because they were doing engine runs with the props trimmed for flight instead of ground idle...
 
:banghead:

loon are 'fficially dun wit dis thread.
probably with the whole forum, now that I know how ignorant some folk are.

Now, that's not a blanket statement meant to include the likes of D0od or Eldora, or Infinnity, or Phoenix Blue, or Mol, or anyone. ...officially

:wave:
 
Professur said:
The sad part of this conversation is that some folk simply can't accept that the mere precept is impossible. A conveyor belt could never match the wheel's speed. The wheels are moving, not with relation to the belt, but in relation to the frame supporting the belt. Belt speed is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


I was looking at it another way. Let's say that the belt speed could match the wheel speed. That would equate to zero forward motion relative to the wings. Since this whole premis is a precept, thats where your answer would lie. This would exclude aircraft such as the Harrier, the Osprey, the F-35, or, believe it or not, the C-17 (blown flaps)...
 
'let's say'?


Dude, if you're gonna take reality outta the equation, then let's negate gravity too. Hell, let's say we cancel the third law of thermodynamics while we're at it. The point is that the wheels have fuck all to do with a plane taking off. If you could magically keep the belt at speed with the wheels, eventually the wheels bearings would fail and seize and then what? The plane's engines are still running, but now the wheels have become skids. The belt has now matched the wheels and stopped. Planes take off in that configuration every day north of the arctic circle.
 
Some posts must have been lost, I clearly remember restating my opinion to say that the plane would take off, just like bop said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top