Plane on a conveyor belt

[bubba]

^ Lmao

[Guest]

gary, I'm stealing your response and posting it elsewhere.

[JN210]

inspector01;203044 wrote:
All you have to do is view poll results and 14 ppl said it wouldn't fly, im guessing even more idiots thought it.

And yes, if it LANDS on the train, it will stop flying you idiot.

perhaps I should have rephrased that a little better......If a plane landed (without the brakes or any type/way of slowing down) on a train could it just take off again?

sorry....

[dubbsy]

tjamz;203046 wrote:
gary, I'm stealing your response and posting it elsewhere.

heads to OT to see the shitstorm chuckles is going to stir up

[Joel]

BassPlayer, I made the same mistake as you did when first thinking about this theory. Think of hotwheels on a treadmill with a bottle rocket attached to it... If the bottle rocket has enough force to overcome the friction created by the rotating wheels, it will launch the car off the front of the treadmill right? now imagine the treadmill being way longer and the hotwheels having wings, eventually it will create enough speed to make enough lift to take off.

[Guest]

screw it, just watch this video and all will be explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4owlyCOzDiE&feature=related

[GhettoFabulousCRX]

no. We're not talking about if it will overcome the speed of the treadmill. We're talking if a plane takes off at lets say 120mph. The conveyor is set at 120. Will the plane raise up and take off. No the plane is matched in speed and in turn is not moving. Zero air is going over or under the wing creating no lift. But then again I could be way the fuck off

[Guest]

No, we are asking what affect a treadmill has on a planes ability to take off. The answer is none.

[bubba]

GhettoFabulousCRX;203111 wrote:
no. We're not talking about if it will overcome the speed of the treadmill. We're talking if a plane takes off at lets say 120mph. The conveyor is set at 120. Will the plane raise up and take off. No the plane is matched in speed and in turn is not moving. Zero air is going over or under the wing creating no lift. But then again I could be way the fuck off

yes u are...

[inspector01]

GhettoFabulousCRX;203111 wrote:
no. We're not talking about if it will overcome the speed of the treadmill. We're talking if a plane takes off at lets say 120mph. The conveyor is set at 120. Will the plane raise up and take off. No the plane is matched in speed and in turn is not moving. Zero air is going over or under the wing creating no lift. But then again I could be way the fuck off

You got that exactly right (the part about being way the fuck off).....

[Afsil80]

[zbrown]

Wow how did i miss this..... the rules of this experiment are vague

I am not gonna get into the whole conveyor part because you will not change what people think

there is only one point i want to make

Lets just disregard the conveyor and say we chain the plane to a stake in the ground behind it, so it cannot move forward at all.....

1. A prop plane with a enough thrust will lift off the ground even being stationary, if there is enough air moving across the wings from the prop

2. I dont car what anyone says, a jet/rocket powered plane (even with unlimited thrust) is going nowhere as there is no air being moved across the wings

3. Gary is a Homo

[GnArKiLl]

its just like a car on a dyno.. strap wings on you car and see if it will fly....................negative

[XJHEAD]

zbrown;203128 wrote:
2. I dont car what anyone says, a jet/rocket powered plane (even with unlimited thrust) is going nowhere as there is no air being moved across the wings

How does a VSTOL aircraft take-off????? hmmmmmmm

[Guest]

zbrown;203128 wrote:
Wow how did i miss this..... the rules of this experiment are vague

I am not gonna get into the whole conveyor part because you will not change what people think

there is only one point i want to make

Lets just disregard the conveyor and say we chain the plane to a stake in the ground behind it, so it cannot move forward at all.....

1. A prop plane with a enough thrust will lift off the ground even being stationary, if there is enough air moving across the wings from the prop

2. I dont car what anyone says, a jet/rocket powered plane (even with unlimited thrust) is going nowhere as there is no air being moved across the wings

3. Gary is a Homo

1. Maybe

2. Completely irrelevant to what we are talking about, but yes, a stationary plane will not take off (excluding Harrier, etc...) This plane is NOT stationary however and there is nothing holding it still.

3. LOL

[zbrown]

XJHEAD;203135 wrote:
How does a VSTOL aircraft take-off????? hmmmmmmm

Obviously I was talking conventional............hmm .... better clear up the space shuttle and Saturn V will go somewhere to for the smart asses

[zbrown]

tjamz;203139 wrote:

1. Maybe

2. but yes, a stationary plane will not take off

I can see how some can be confused though....... the question kind of states that the plane will not move forward in relation to its relative original position

atleast someone could take it that way...

and you and I both agree a stationary plane is going nowhere, cept what i said about a prop plane

Gary is still a homo....

[Grr]

fuck U, i think im the only one that actually posted a clear scientific answer in this thread. You can think whatever you want, but the proof is in my post, simple as that.

Hey zac, if the plane remains stationary, there is no conveyor belt, and the whole question takes place in the 17th dimension, and ive been there man, its crazy, you dont want to know
Gary

[Guest]

zbrown;203144 wrote:
I can see how some can be confused though....... the question kind of states that the plane will not move forward in relation to its relative original position

Actually, it doesn't. It says the plane moves one way and the conveyor moves the other way. It doesn't say the conveyor stops the plane from moving.

Gary is still a homo....

You'd know better than I would (or so I hear)

[Guest]

Grr;203145 wrote:
fuck U, i think im the only one that actually posted a clear scientific answer in this thread. You can think whatever you want, but the proof is in my post, simple as that.

I basically tried to use simple english to explain what you did with science. Thank you for putting it out there in scientific form though, it was greatly appreciated.