Plane on a conveyor belt
-
just skimmed through 7 pages of this thread to take the intellectual pulse, so to speak. I've seen a lot of arguments with a lot of concepts and rationalization used in an attempt to support them. I've seen a lot of stupidity, too. But what I haven't see is any real analysis of the problem.
What would a physicist do?
The first thing he'd do is draw a free body diagram and label the forces acting on the plane.
I'm not going to draw a free-body diagram, but I will use the picture below as a substitution:
The forces acting on the plane, in the horizontal (or x) direction are:
T (thrust - positive x direction)
R (rolling friction - negative x direction)
D (drag - negative x direction)The TOTAL force is given by summing these up:
F=T-R-D
Everybody knows that F=ma, so we can calculate the acceleration of the plane:
F=ma=T-R-D
a=(T-R-D)/m
The acceleration of a plane is pretty high, therefore we can conclude that T is much much greater than R and D.
Now a quick word about rolling friction:
A spinning tire has rolling friction, due to the bearings, air, etc... This friction is constant. So a tire spinning at 10 rpm has the same amount of friction as a tire spinning at 100 rpm, or 1000 rpm. But the diagram shows that rolling friction decreases as the plane's velocity increases. How can this be? This is because friction is a function of force, or weight. As the plane picks up speed, lift is generated due to the wings, the force due to weight reduces, and so does the friction.
Now if you consider a plane sitting on a treadmill. The brakes are off and the engines are off. The plane is free to roll in the +/- x direction.
If you turn the treadmill on such that it's surface is moving in the -x direction and speed it to 100 mph, what happens to the plane? What forces are acting on it?
The only force acting on it is rolling friction. The plane will begin to accelerate in the -x direction at a rate given by the amount of friction. And we know that the rolling friction is pretty small. So the plane will not instantly move at 100 mph in the -x direction. It will slowly accelerate to 100 mph in the -x direction. And when I say "slowly", I mean slowly. Rolling friction is approximately equivalent to a coefficient of 0.003. At that rate of acceleration, it would take approximately 25 minutes to "catch up" to the speed of the treadmill of 100 mph.
However, since rolling friction is constant, this is the same acceleration working against the plane during a normal runway takeoff.
So let's now look at the forces acting on a plane under the treadmill scenario, where the treadmill matches the speed of the plane.
The forces are:
T (thrust - positive x direction)
R (rolling friction - negative x direction)
D (drag - negative x direction)The TOTAL force is given by summing these up:
F=T-R-D
the acceleration of the plane on the treadmill is found by:
F=ma=T-R-D
a=(T-R-D)/m
Are any of these forces different from the runway condition?
Thrust from the engines T is the same, regardless of runway or treadmill.
Rolling friction R is the same, regardless of runway of treadmill.
Drag D is the same, regardless of runway or treadmill.So a plane will take off from a treadmill just the same as it would take off on a runway. Therefore,
The treadmill is irrelevant
So if you said it wont take off, your a dumbass, end of story
Gary -
^^^^^ The reason I wouldn't do such an analysis, is cuz i can think about it in my head and understand that the wheels and whatever they are on have nothing to do with the plane taking off. So why do all of that??
-
JN210;203041 wrote:
lol, you actually counted?......Its like this,If a plane lands on a train going in the opposite direction at the same speed does that mean it stops flying?
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.
-
gary, I'm stealing your response and posting it elsewhere.
-
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....
*1989 Nissan 300ZX Z31 *
> DelSlow;262050 wrote:
> I like the new JN210 -
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.
-
screw it, just watch this video and all will be explained:
-
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
-
No, we are asking what affect a treadmill has on a planes ability to take off. The answer is none.
-
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 offyes u are...
-
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 offYou got that exactly right (the part about being way the fuck off).....
-
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.....
-
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
-
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
-
Gary is a Homo
-
-
its just like a car on a dyno.. strap wings on you car and see if it will fly....................negative
2001 GSX-R 1000- one wheel wonder
1976 Chevy K5- lifted beater
1995 240sx- DDD, daily driven drifter
1995 Eagle Talon- wire tuck,shaved bay.. project in the works
2006 Honda CRF50-stunt machine
1993 Eagle Talon tsi-5spd swap,wire tuck, holset hx35. on E85...SOLD
2000 Ford F250 7.3L powerstroke...SOLD
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