Plane on a conveyor belt
-
. it will definatly lift off. think of the turbine thrust as a rope pulling the plane instead of an engine pushing it forward. you pull the "rope" relative to wind speed, or being stationary compared to the conveyor belt. no matter how fast the conveyer belt under the plan is moving the plane will still get pulled forward by the rope, only the wheels will spin the speed of the forward movement and the backward movement combined.
might not have explained it the best but it makes sense to me
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
DrifterExtreme;199210 wrote:
ok yes it will take of no matter what the speed of the conveyor is going.conveyor 50mph, then the plane wheels go 50mph when it is standing still. so when it is going say 200mph to generate enough lift to take so the wheels are going 200mph. now if you ad the speed of the conveyor going the opposite direction the wheel will be travling 250mph. and the plane will still take of no matter what the speed of the wheels and it is not the wheel that drive the plane it is the thrust from the jet engines.
now if a ged having high school drop out can answer this in a semi cohearent manner. how the fuck do you ppl not get how a plane works??????
+11ty billion...this is exactly what I was gonna say if it came down to it. Planes dont use their wheels to drive they use thrust...it's not like a car...
-
the wheels on a plane are like the rear wheels on a FWD car. They are only there to support the rest of the car so it can do its job.
What I want to know. In the question, does the conveyor start moving when the airplane starts to move. Or does it start to move based on throttle perchentage. I believe the plane would take off. But, I dont know how to explain it, I have some thoughts in my head that it won't just dont know how to explain them.
question 2:
if you have a conveyor belt and a FWD car on well the rear wheels spin if the conveyor belt matchs the speed of the car attempting to drive on it?
-
on a FWD car the wheels are going to go the same speed as the conveyor belt, and the car is going to sit still. the rear wheels aren't driven wheels, so they go the speed of the car minus the speed of the road, and the car sits still.
just like the plane is going to sit still and not take off, the way the question is worded.
If every bit of forward momentum gained is ripped away by a conveyor belt, the plane doesn't gather enough inertia to move, and if the plane doesn't move, it doesn't fly. we're talking "real" plane and "imaginary" conveyor belt, though.. real-world, we don't have a belt that can take this on. anything that gets set up to "test" in a real-world setting.. it'll probably fly. because the belt isn't going to be matching the plane's speed, just trying to catch up to the wheels.
-
harm;199246 wrote:
the wheels are going to go the same speed as the conveyor belt, and the car is going to sit still.Wait...what car?
just like the plane is going to sit still and not take off. I don't know how this is even a question.. or how the hell it got to 14 pages. No matter how damn fast the wheels are going.. I don't care.. eleventy-billion miles per hour.. if the conveyor belt is matching the same speed, opposite direction, the plane sits still and does not take off. It's all about lift.
The plane does NOT remain still. The riddle clearly states that it is moving forward
If this conveyor belt take-off theory worked, we wouldn't have runways anymore.. we'd have little take-off belts and slightly larger landing belts (those wouldn't work either because of inertia, it was a bad joke, don't analyze it) sitting outside the airport.
Because the plane is moving forward and will require the same length of runway whether it is a conveyor belt or not. The "trick" is that the conveyor belt is completely irrelevant and the plane overcomes it treating it as if it wasn't even there (except for wheels rotating twice as fast)
It doesn't work. Planes don't move because of their wheels. The engine isn't even attached to the wheels. and now I'm going to read the rest of this thread and laugh at it.
What scares me is that you understand that the wheels do nothing but provide a slippery surface for the plane to use while taxiing down the runway and have nothing to do with moving the plane...all they do is free roll, yet you can't comprehend that the plane moves forward irregardless of the conveyor.
Posts like this make me want to cry.
What part of the riddle makes you think the plane remains stationary?
A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band convey0r). The plane <u>moves</u> in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).
Please explain to me the physics involved that would be required for a conveyor belt to hold a plane stationary. It is IMPOSSIBLE.
Ok, maybe you are referring to the alternate version of this riddle which states that the conveyor matches wheel speed in the opposite direction.....but wait, the only way to match the wheel speed would be for the conveyor and the plane to be traveling in the same direction (with the conveyor moving at 1/2 the speed of the plane which would mean the wheels would be spinning at 1/2 of their normal rate as well causing the conveyor and the wheels to be matched in speed) which certainly won't stop the plane from taking off either.
-
little bit of friction x lot of speed.. the conveyor belt .. ah shit. i've mentioned i fail at morning posting.
okay okay.. as a riddle.. yes, the plane takes off. in my head in the morning, keeping the plane in one spot came from nowhere.
I will explain. If - the plane moves forward. good call. belt moves backward the same amount. wheels spin twice as fast. plane moves forward anyway.
haha, "part of this post makes me want to cry." I read it again and went.. yeah, that's gotta go. and I was still wrong. nice.
Plane moves at 5, belt moves at 5, plane takes off because it has wheels. and I'm sitting here groggy thinking "if the plane moves forward, the belt is just going to start tearing away until the friction in the wheels keeps it in one spot. that makes sense." =D heh.. thanks for waking me up.
-
tjamz;199249 wrote:
Please explain to me the physics involved that would be required for a conveyor belt to hold a plane stationary. It is IMPOSSIBLE.alright. for shits and giggles. the plane starts out, sitting still.
conveyor belt attempts to match the WHEEL speed. ends up going really damn fast. melts down the wheel bearings, because they aren't frictionless. wheels lock up. plane slows down. conveyor belt keeps trying to match the plane's speed without wheels.. and eats the plane away like a belt sander, causing the bits and pieces left to stand still.
ghetto physics. that's one tough conveyor belt.
-
harm;199246 wrote:
on a FWD car the wheels are going to go the same speed as the conveyor belt, and the car is going to sit still. the rear wheels aren't driven wheels, so they go the speed of the car minus the speed of the road, and the car sits still.Forget about cars...that was a bad analogy by Faber.
just like the plane is going to sit still and not take off, the way the question is worded.
**
Nope, it says it matches the speed of the moving plane. Not the momentum/force. Only the speed. It doesn't say the plane is stopped from moving forward. **If every bit of forward momentum gained is ripped away by a conveyor belt, the plane doesn't gather enough inertia to move, and if the plane doesn't move, it doesn't fly.
It does move, the question clearly states that
we're talking "real" plane and "imaginary" conveyor belt, though.. real-world, we don't have a belt that can take this on.
**
Mythbusters did, and the plane flies (real world) episode is on January 30th.**anything that gets set up to "test" in a real-world setting.. it'll probably fly. because the belt isn't going to be matching the plane's speed, just trying to catch up to the wheels.
**Again, it was done w/ a 1/4 mile long piece of conveyor belt being pulled by a pickup at the same speed as the airplanes take off speed (ultralight plane, so takeoff speed wasn't too high). Both started moving at the same time and the plane achieved take off speeds and lifted off. How do I know this? Well, I watched the teaser clip from here:
(listen to what the pilot has to say) http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
then read the article here (read what they have to say about the pilot)
Think about this many many many people have changed their minds and said the plane will fly, no one (on any forum I've been on....and I've been on LOTS of them arguing this point) has ever (to my knowledge) switched to thinking it won't take off.
-
harm;199251 wrote:
alright. for shits and giggles. the plane starts out, sitting still.conveyor belt attempts to match the WHEEL speed. ends up going really damn fast. melts down the wheel bearings, because they aren't frictionless. wheels lock up. plane slows down. conveyor belt keeps trying to match the plane's speed without wheels.. and eats the plane away like a belt sander, causing the bits and pieces left to stand still.
ghetto physics. that's one tough conveyor belt.
LOL, if you get infinite speed treadmill, I get indestructible wheel bearings and tires. :icon_cheers:
-
JN210;199253 wrote:
OR!!!, the plane can speed up to speed (about 200mph) and then the conveyor belt can just stop.....that should get the plane somewhere:icon_cheers:Wouldn't affect the plane at any more than if it kept on spinning.
-
I love this topic.
-
a real aircraft on a conveyer belt moving backwards with its engines off will be pushed backwards, off the belt, because the tires and wheel hubs are not frictionless
turning on the engines will cause the plane to have a forward acceleration, but whether or not that counteracts the backwards motion of the belt depends on the specifics involved
if the belt is not powered via an external source, the plane definitely takes off
-
JN210;199258 wrote:
if it just stopped (the belt) then the plane should rocket forward...thus making it go up?:icon_scratch: (assuming there is more runway)Nope, the plane doesn't care about the belt while its moving, so it won't care if it stops moving either.
-
thrash;199257 wrote:
a real aircraft on a conveyer belt moving backwards with its engines off will be pushed backwards, off the belt, because the tires and wheel hubs are not frictionlessCorrect
turning on the engines will cause the plane to have a forward acceleration, but whether or not that counteracts the backwards motion of the belt depends on the specifics involved
Assuming the plane is capable of moving forward on a normal runway, it will be capable of it on this conveyor as well.
if the belt is not powered via an external source, the plane definitely takes off
Doesn't matter how its powered, plane takes off. The question could read "conveyor matches speed of plane at twice the normal rate" and the plane still takes off
I still love this thread.
-
[quote]turning on the engines will cause the plane to have a forward acceleration, but whether or not that counteracts the backwards motion of the belt depends on the specifics involved
Assuming the plane is capable of moving forward on a normal runway, it will be capable of it on this conveyor as well.
[/quote]I am unconvinced. Why do you say that? Suppose that the plane develops only enough thrust to move it forward at 1mph (and never any faster, due to power and aerodynamic reasons not really seen on a real aircraft). Further suppose that the (powered) belt moves backwards with such violence that the plane, due to the friction in the wheels and tires, is going to be pushed back at somethingl like 200 mph. The plane certainly is not going to move forward in this situation.
[quote]
if the belt is not powered via an external source, the plane definitely takes offDoesn't matter how its powered, plane takes off. The question could read "conveyor matches speed of plane at twice the normal rate" and the plane still takes off
[/quote]I don't think so. See my point above -- if the belt develops so much reward motion on the plane such that the planes engines, at full thrust, are unable to make forward progress vs the belt, then by the same token, the plane is not making forward motion through the air, and thus, there's no lift, and no liftoff.
The reason i gave a cautious answer is because i can envision a system of engine output so low and wheel friction so high that the plane, at full throttle, on a powered belt, will either stay stationary or move backwards.
-
thrash;199263 wrote:
I am unconvinced. Why do you say that? Suppose that the plane develops only enough thrust to move it forward at 1mph (and never any faster, due to power and aerodynamic reasons not really seen on a real aircraft). Further suppose that the (powered) belt moves backwards with such violence that the plane, due to the friction in the wheels and tires, is going to be pushed back at somethingl like 200 mph. The plane certainly is not going to move forward in this situation.I'm assuming no mechanical failures. I figured that was a given. So long as the plane is capable of getting the plane moving forward on the belt in the first place, it will continue moving it forward, completely unhindered by the belt (barring mechanical failure of bearings) Besides, the belt matches the planes forward speed. Once the static friction of the wheels is overcome, the plane will continue moving forward.
I don't think so. See my point above -- if the belt develops so much reward motion on the plane such that the planes engines, at full thrust, are unable to make forward progress vs the belt, then by the same token, the plane is not making forward motion through the air, and thus, there's no lift, and no liftoff.
This is impossible. Speed has very little to do with the friction of the bearings/wheels. Actually, the faster something spins, the less friction there is (until it becomes unbalanced and starts spinning erratically, causing wobbles and binding at the bearings resulting in overheating and malfunction)
The reason i gave a cautious answer is because i can envision a system of engine output so low and wheel friction so high that the plane, at full throttle, on a powered belt, will either stay stationary or move backwards.
Ok, IF you could have that much friction AND that little power to keep the plane motionless, sure, the plane won't take off. But then it wouldn't take off regularly either.
(tjamz is too lazy to use quote tags)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login