how smart is /b/?

Air plane wheels dont spin

>>713867923
but the turbines move them

>>713867639
Jet steel can't melt fuel beams

The airplane is not a car, it's wheels just "follow the plane" and don't actually make it move... but the conveyor belt could cause more unnecessary friction so idk, maybe the wheels could break or something.

>>713868151
jet beams can'f melt fuel steel

https://youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY

>>713868408
fuel jets can't steal melted steel

attempt a short field takeoff

No, because the plane stays (in relation to the ground) exactly where it is, and there's no air running over and under the wings, which is necessary to achieve lift.

Read a fucking book once in a while, faggots.

>>713867639
yes

>>713869218
But the wheels don't push the plane forward (like cars), it's the turbine or propeller that makes it move and since the turbine or propeller isn't in contact with the conveyor belt at all it would still move and make air run over and under the wings.

>>713867639
Wheels would break and the 747 would get thrown off the belt

>>713869218
The plane would take off, the speed on the belt it's sitting on is irrelevant. The jets pull the plane forward through the air, power is not transmitted through the wheels.

Perhaps you need to study that book a bit longer.

>>713867639
This shit again, huh?

Exactly a plane needs wind to achieve lift.
Example:
Let's pretend your mouth is a wind tunnel and my Dick is the plane. If you blow real hard I will achieve lift.

>>713867639
the plane will lift off. When the conveyor reaches the minimum lift off speed the 747 will take off as the flaps will be in use. The conveyor can actually replace long runways and save space. Nice work OP

File: 129852de57a8bdc53b46af0b78e98106.jpg (171KB, 640x640px)

171KB, 640x640px

>>713867639
Its impossible to keep a plane on a conveyor belt.

>>713869575

You fucking faggot, the other poster is correct. An aircraft becomes airborne due to the lift generated under the wings, via the thrust from the engine. If the aircraft doesn't attain Vr speeds, it can't take off. Just because the plane is on a conveyor belt, doesn't mean that it would be able to attain that lift. More likely, the engines would cause the plane to drive off the conveyor belt and explode, horribly killing all on board due to it being filled with avgas. fucking cuck.

>>713867639
no forward velocity, no takeoff.
Though the belt would have to actively moved in reverse to counteract the acceleration force of the engines. If the belt was rotating only in response to the wheels, the plane would just pull the belt forward without the wheels rotating.

>>713870029
>The conveyor can actually replace long runways and save space.

Eh? I don't think so, planes need enough speed relative to the air to take off and not to the ground right?

Of course it can. The earth is spinning at thousands of mph, which is the same theory of a conveyor belt under the wheels, and planes hardly ever have a hard time getting off the ground.

Not if the wheels are going in reverse.

No cus Trump is your president.

and i have dubs

File: retard_1.png (680KB, 600x542px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 600x542px

>>713869575
>The jets pull the plane forward through the air

And the conveyor belt keeps it in place.

No wonder you never graduated. Learn to read the question properly.

>>713870231
The point is that the belt has no bearing on the movement of the plane.

>>713870289
The speed of the airplane is determined by the power of the turbines. Think of the following anon.
If you go to the gym and hit the treadmill you will go absolutely nowhere because the treadmill will have the same speed as you. But if you lash out and jump you will move forward. If there was no gravity and you were aerodynamically you could fly. These are the flaps

>>713870538
How exactly could it do that, moron? Matching the speed of the wheels doesn't stop the jets pulling the plane forward.

Put a huge ass fan in front of the conveyor and you are good to go.

Fucking faggots. Use Google.

http://c-aviation net/plane-conveyor-belt-explained-debunked/

>>713870538
Nope. The wheels just turn as fast as conveyor belt speed + speed they would turn normally due to thrust. The wheels don't drive the plane.

>>713870561
As stated in the OP's post, this is correct, though the speed of the belt will quickly approximate infinite.

In some versions, it is state that the belt moves fast enough to stop the plane form moving -- in which case, it would not take off if it was stopped from moving. Would have to be one fucking fast belt to put that much dragon the wheels, though.

>>713869218
>>713870231
Same fag

File: airplane.png (37KB, 876x589px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 876x589px

>>713870639
>The speed of the airplane is determined by the power of the turbines.

Yes... so what?

File: Playboy-USA-November-1975_01.jpg (245KB, 440x600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 440x600px

>>713870306
Can't argue that.

>>713867639
Yes, it can take off.
The wheel bearings will take extra stress because they'll be spinning faster than usual due to the conveyor belt moving, but if the conveyor is as long as a runway (and OP pic says it is) then the plane will move forward. build up speed, and take off

>>713871660
IF THE FLAPS ARE DOWN THEN THE PLANE LIFTS OFF. WHY ARE YOU SOO OBSESSED WITH SPEED??

>>713871660
By the turbines, not the wheels. See>>713871360
As long as the take off speed is within the frictional tolerances of the bearings and tires, it's possible.

>>713870306

Yes, but the air around the earth is also moving at the speed of the earth. (If it didn't we'd have winds of 1,000mph.) Thus the fact that the earth is spinning fast is irrelevant.

>>713872327
>the fact that the earth is spinning fast is irrelevant.
FUN FACT:
If you factor in the rotation and revolution of the earth around the sun, the sun's orbit around the center of the Milky Way, and the speed the Milky Way is moving through the universe, when you sit perfectly still you're actually moving over 530,000 mph.

>>713871960
So if it's going at 30 km/h it's going to suddenly take off if the flaps are down? (the speed i'm refering to is relative to the air, not the ground just to make sure you get my point)

>>713872088
I know wheels don't drive the plane... but I forgot wheels aren't braking haha so it doesn't really matter if they're on a conveyor belt or not if the wheels can move freely right?
and i didn't say it was impossible, i was just saying it wouldn't make the take off distance shorter like anon said >>713870029

>>713871386
>though the speed of the belt will quickly approximate infinite.

Wtf? Do the wheels on a plane reach near infinite speed when taking off?

>>713871660
the friction only slows down the belt.The plane has its' own energy source while the conveyor's speed is determined by the plane. In your sketch, the plane will go in the air much sooner than with no friction cause some of the energy transmitted by the plane to the conveyor will convert to heat, thus the conveyor's speed will be much less than the plane's. But OP specifically claimed that it can be the same , so opinion discarded.
Be careful if you are still in school/education cause you will fail your exams if you aren't already repeating class. See me after class

>>713872640
there is no relative speed. Only the minimum speed to lift off.The is no point discussing speeds lower than that. Of course if it goes with 30 km/h it wont lift off

File: 4445.png (34KB, 1015x589px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1015x589px

>>713872858
>The plane has its' own energy source while the conveyor's speed is determined by the plane.

I get that

> thus the conveyor's speed will be much less than the plane's

Why?


I'm more confused now. hahaha :(

Plane can't go anywhere. The plane would be going it's normal speeds of 500mph but the plane needs air to fly, and the conveyor belt would keep the plane in the same spot it is in, so the plane would not have enough air around the wings for it to fly.

>>713869575
you're a fucking retard

>>713869218
this

>>713873330
>Only the minimum speed to lift off.

That was the speed "I'm obsessed with"... but my point was the wheels decreasing the speed by friction, see >>713873592 ... but it doesn't really matter if the wheels spin free even at higher speeds (relative to the ground (in this case conveyor belt)) right?

>>713867639
The wording of the problem is a complete fail.

If you trying to say that the conveyor speed would increase proportionally to thrust, this would probably just lead to failure of the landing gear.

>>713867639
Unlike a car, power is being transferred to the engine, not the wheels. So, yes it can take off.

Source: Mythbuster tested it

The turbines push the air over the wings, not the act of the plane moving forward, so most planes should be able to take off.

>>713873933
mythbusters suck, and probably fucked it up

>>713870723
But it does stop the airflow over the wings, dipshit.

Do you even aerodynamics?

I swear, 4chan is the most butthurt place on the internet lmao. Why you all getting so worked up over this?

File: 1478328124356.png (234KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1024x768px

>>713874109
>The turbines push the air over the wings, not the act of the plane moving forward
The engines are under the wings, anon.

>>713867639
No, it's about the relative air speed.

>>713873833
You know there is the Tangential speed in effect?
How much do know about physics. There are at least two kinds of different speed in effect here

Of course it will take off, lift is generated from how fast the wheels are spinning....

CHECK THIS GUYS !!! IT WORKS!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

>>713875224
Don't know much, that's why i'm asking. sorry :(

>>713867639
No.

>>713873595
You are retard.

apart from this being obvious bait and most people just jumping on the opportunity to trigger some physics afficionados, i get really sad at the thought of people actually being stupid enough to think that the plane would take off

>>713875365
they either fucked it up, or were answering a different question than the one posed in the original post

the conveyor belt isn't going the same speed as the wheels

>>713875795
whatever faggot. Just watch the whole episode. Do you believe earth is flat too?

File: 0d8a2c41b41031c53113c305d49c11d7.jpg (36KB, 459x478px)

36KB, 459x478px

>>713874983
Fuck off you double nigger

17

realistically it would probably fall off the back of said conveyor belt before the turbines got the wheels to speed or the plane got sufficient lift to take off

>>713867639
If the conveyer belts going the exact same speed as the wheels, ignoring slippage, then the airplane's not moving

>>713867639
No that's , no lift would be generated

>>713867639
wheels have no engines.
wheels won't move.
conveyor wont move
plane can't move forward, or achieve lift.
no.

>>713875940
I don't need to watch the episode, I watched the relevant clip and they either fucked it up or were answering a different question

>>713876060
u realize this is impossible, right?!

>>713867639

Yes.

>>713875557
/thread

Just a reminder that it's called a fucking AEROPLANE not an AIRPLANE.

>>713869218
This there is no lift being generated since the plane isnt actually moving.

>>713876135
>judging a scientific approach by only watching 2 minutes
Good job anon. You are retarded as hell

Why wouldn't you just use a normal runway? Seem so like that would make way more sense than I giant conveyor belt.

I don't think anyone even makes conveyor belts that big anyway. Too easy. Next riddle please.

>>713876419
The irony is strong with this one.

>>713876524
Are you retarded?

>>713876546
he's trolling

>mythbusters
>scientific

>>713876604
Yeah right, the only person here who wants to use a runway for plane takeoffs is the retarded one. Not the idiots trying to build a giant conveyor belt that wouldn't even help!

Airports already use runways! Are you calling airport scientists retards? Because they all decided runways work way better than conveyor belts.

In a real scenario, the plane would take off just fine, or with little noticed difference

However this question is worded differently. As per the question, the conveyor moves in the opposite direction of the planes forward motion. Therefore the speed of the conveyor would increase exponentially. Assuming the planes wheels could handle it, both would rather quickly reach light speed, creating an unimaginable amount of drag. However, if the plane isn't completely indestructible, the landing gear would quickly burst into flames/fail catastrophically, causing the plan to fall on the conveyor, preventing take off.

>>713867639
It wouldn't be moving forward and due to the conveyor belt and therefore wouldn't be getting enough air (lift) under it's wings to take off.

The reason planes have wheels is to keep them from skidding on the floor or hitting something while the plane's engines warm up enough to get it to take off.
They're around because they have far less friction than the body of the plane. The plane can take off.

>>713870561
wrong.

plane generates thrust for itself propelling it forward
the belt it's on is going in the reverse direction at the same speed, basically generating negative thrust. the two neutralize eachother and the plane remains stationary relative to the ground AND the air around it. Because it's not moving forward thanks to the neutral speed, there's no air going over and under the wings, and cannot generate lift, so cannot take off. The plane has become nothing more than a hamster on a wheel, running with all its might but never going anywhere.

>>713877032
>increase exponentially

Not exponentially, proportionally.

>rather quickly reach light speed

Wtf are you smoking anon?

The wording of OP's pic is totally retarded. Thrust is the thing here. Full throttle of the engines=Max speed of the conveyor belt. So unless you've got some turbines capable of light speed, the conveyor is only going to go as fast as the thrust would normally spin the wheels if they were on a normal runway. Which is a lot slower than light. Gear would probably fail though.

>>713877003
Its a hypothetical question and you dont get it. Yup your a retard.

>>713877329
no, planes only require wheels for landing

it makes it a little easier for them to take off too, but they're technically unnecessary for that

the engine doesn't drive the wheels, moron

yes the lift under the wings would be just enough to force it up

>>713877846
but there wouldn't be any lift, you need positive forward motion to generate the lift and the belt is neutralizing its speed entirely.

>>713877667
Lets change it around a bit wethead. Say a plane has no wheels. Lets say its sitting on blocks so it cant roll forward. This is setup on a treadmill. The treadmill charges forward at 400mph or whatever the typical takeoff speed is. Does the plane take off?

>>713871386
>dragon the wheels
dragonfuckingacar.gif

>>713867639
No airspeed = no lift.

>>713878073
at that point yes, because it's going forward, giving the plane positive forward motion. the question originally asked was if the treatmill was in reverse however, which neutralizes the speed of the plane, effectively neutralizing lift in the process.

>>713868554
/thread

>>713878370
lol.. this fucking guy is properly saltin me up. There is a reason they call it airspeed and not ground speed. Read up pal!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed

>>713877733
You are.