Well will it take off?

File: 1481891588573.png (134KB, 500x566px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 500x566px

Nope

File: 1441065788059.jpg (58KB, 725x365px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 725x365px

>>717075388
no

nope

>>717075388

No, it gains no airforce to push it up in the air.

File: Baffling.gif (2MB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x240px

>>717075388
Why would you even think it would?

>>717075388
No, it'll crash into the uprights.

>>717075388
Yes. Yes is always the answer to this question. Although it would crash into the running machine. Want me to explain it to you plebs?

The wings generate no lift, so no

>>717075456
>>717075468
>>717075492
>>717075575
>>717076156
mugs

If a plane takes off, but there's no WTC around for it to hit, did it ever really fly?

>>717075388
It needs to have a fan taped to the front.

>>717076230
Yes

>>717075388
Yes, the Mythbusters proved it.

Yes because it's a jet. If it had props it wouldn't.

>>717076389
Your data is backwards

It would but hit the stupid arm things and then crash. So cut off the arms and she will fly.

>>717076389
Its not even a case if they proved it or not. Its the fact of how planes work. If this was a car then the car would not go forwards because a cars mobility is via the wheels on the belt.

But an air craft uses thrust to move. So all that would happen is the plane would move forwards and the belt would move backwards causing the feel movement wheels to spin twice as fast while the plane takes off.

>>717076463
It would even if it had props.

>>717076062
/thread

The plane's relative acceleration would be 0. No flight.

As long as the wheels don't fall off, yes.

>>717077050
If it was a car you'd be right since cars use wheels to move. Planes use air and thrust. You're an idiot. Congratulations.

>>717077050
Think about HOW a plane accelerates.

>>717077367
The plane uses the wheels' accelleration to take off though dumbass. Propellars only work in the sky.

>>717077664
No, it does not. The wheels are there simply so the plane isn't scraping along the ground. They're to stop friction.

>>717075388
Nope. The wings dont move relative to the air surrounding them

>>717077870
They do.

>>717075388
that one specifically? no. a real one on a giant treadmill? yes, the wheels will just be spinning a lot faster.

>>717077821
If that were true, take off would be instant. Unfortunately, the wheels have to gain momentum first.

File: 368-SnapLeak.png (155KB, 240x426px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 240x426px

Late christmas present on me guys go fuck your ex gf tonight - snap-leak-cf

Pilot here:

NO. In this case, the wheels would overspeed and blow.

***If the treadmill truly matched the wheels speed, resulting in the plane not moving, then the wings generate no lift. The wheels would eventually overspeed, and blow.....

>>717078091
Ok, imagine this. You put the plane on a surface with absolutely no friction, meaning the wheels can't get any grip on the ground.

Will the plane be able to take off or not?

>>717078091
No. The plane gathers forwards momentum to produce lift with the wings. The wheels just progressively spin freely until the plane takes off. Absolutely no power goes to the wheels for forwards motion. Meaning a tread mill is totally negated in this situation.

>>717077664
lol where's the driveshaft you moron?

>>717077937
How so? Isnt the implication of that picture that the plane uses the treadmill just like you normally would? As in, you remain stationary

>>717078214
Of course not.

>>717078181
Clearly not a pilot since you got the question wrong.

File: 1880482183012.png (22KB, 441x576px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 441x576px

>>717075388
yes, movement of wheels is enough, yet retards without basic understanding of physics are unable to conceive it
pic for better visualizing

>>717078181
Wanna know how i know you're not a pilot?

>>717076576
Nice bait. An aircraft uses thrust to create lift by moving through the air quickly. This plane is not moving anywhere, so no lift, and no takeoff.

>>717078239
In the axle.

>>717078259
No because us humans use our feet to move forward. A plane uses thrust.

File: seawing-water-plane.jpg (17KB, 500x243px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x243px

>>717078283
So, according to your logic, this plane should not be able to fly.

>>717078283
Now you're just trolling.

>>717078091
This man is a master baitrr

>>717078404
Look closely. It has wheels.

File: vietnam seaplane tours.jpg (92KB, 750x525px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 750x525px

>>717078450
This one doesn't. Can it fly or not?

>>717078404
The propellers create forward thrust, ergo, the plane is moving forwards, not the relative zero speed of a treadmill.

>>717078450
Fucking kek

>>717078685
That's the point I'm trying to make.

File: 1435766892828.gif (879KB, 245x230px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 245x230px

>>717078301

>>717075388
In theory, if the treadmill can move at up to ~1000 mph then it might be able to.

>>717077664
He's right you know

File: 387-SnapLeak.png (159KB, 240x426px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 240x426px

Leaking my way to 2017...try this out on any girl in your school lol snap-leak-cf

>>717075388
Only if it moves forward enough to produce sufficient lift.

>>717078367
(You)

>>717078978
nope

>>717075388
No, it's wings would hit the uprights and halt it.

>>717076389
[Citation needed]

Imagine this for a moment. You're on a threadmill on rollerskates, and you have a rope to pull yourself forward with.

Do you move forward when you pull on the rope?

>>717075388
it would, the tires dont transport energy (except friction), they just roll however fast they have to, the jets move the plane, and they will work as always

>>717075388
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil

'nuf said

>>717078259
That is the implication of the picture. People just want to overcomplicate it so that they can get a different answer.

>>717079414
I think the obvious implication of this hypothetical scenario is that the mill matches the speed of the plane like a regular one can match the speed of a person. It doesnt move forward relative to the frame of the mill

>>717079250
(Mug)

>>717079484
wrong

File: 1462655577842.jpg (30KB, 362x282px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 362x282px

what if the treadmill was perfectly flat, pretty damn long and moved at 180mph and the brakes were on?

File: lily..png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>717078301

>>717079953
You're also a mug.

>>717079854
The threadmill will match the speed of the rolling wheels. In a realistic situation the wheels wouldn't be able to handle the amount of friction at some point, no doubt, but no matter how fast the threadmill is moving it won't stop the plane from moving forward.

>>717079966
If the brakes were on then the plane would go backwards 180mph.

>>717079953
whats wrong

Guys, reply to me when you work it out amongst yourselves

>>717080088
dubs confirm my post

>>717080070
a slight setback

>>717080037
>but no matter how fast the threadmill is moving it won't stop the plane from moving forward
Thats just wrong and doesnt even matter, since it is part of the hypothetical scenario.
IF the treadmill runs at take-off speed, would the plane take off?
Of course not.

File: 10qiu2.jpg (47KB, 676x820px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 676x820px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ul_5DtMLhc

Here is the Myth Busters video. Showing how the wheels just turn twice as fast rather than the plane not moving at all.

>>717080405
How fast the threadmill moves doesn't matter. It just means the wheels will be rolling twice as fast as the plane is pushed forward by the thrust. Hence, the rollerskates and rope analogy.

>>717075388
No.

>>717080552
But the treadmill IS imparting energy into the plane. If it's engines are running at normal speed then it'll move forward but not quite fast enough to take off. It could eventually take off if the engines are pushed further.

File: 15171247_1026389810803439_5193797155321587276_n.jpg (56KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 960x960px

no

>>717080088
Most planes arent moved by their engines alone. The important part for them to fly is having air flowing over the wings.

>>717075388
Where is the lift? All that's happening here is the wheels spinning.

>>717080705
No. Its imparting energy onto the "FREE MOVING" wheels. Not the plane. Which uses thrust. Not propulsion via the wheels. If this was a car you'd be 100% right. But its not a car. The wheels just spin faster.

File: 246-SnapLeak.png (151KB, 240x426px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 240x426px

Have a sick Friday on me go leak your ex gf or sister now at snap-leak-cf

>>717080552
Of course it matters. Are you dumb? Firstly there is friction and oh, there is the problem with the engine not having unlimited thrust

>>717080852
So you're saying it wouldn't affect the takeoff thrust required at all? if the engines are off, would the plane just sit still on the mill with it's tyres spinning? No, the tyres would spin a bit but the hing would move backwards momentum. Same thing with the engines going on but the difference would be smaller, but still there.

>>717080940
But the engine propels the plane via thrust with the air not the wheels you absolute fucking pleb.

No it wont. It takes airflow over and under the wings to create "lift" due to higher air pressure under the wing then above the wing. How fast the tires spin doesn't matter at all. #learntoscience

>>717080940
You're right that I am oversimplifying things, but when it comes to discussions like this, that almost always feels necessary to get any sort of point across.

The point is that the plane will be able to move forward, and especially if the treadmill always matches the speed of the plane, the plane would most definitely be able to accelerate enough for the friction of the wheels to not be a concern.

>>717081050
No one is saying it wouldnt make a difference. What we are saying its the plane would take off. It seems you understand how thrust works and free moving wheels so why dont you think it would take off?

>>717075388
No, air needs to move around the wings to create lift. Not the fucking wheels.

Fluid dynamics specialist here
it would not fly because there is no air flowing over the surface of the wing, thus generating 0 lift

No, it will crash into 911

>>717082013
Over and under

>>717081873
I interpret the scenario as the plane using the treadmill just as a human would. Stationary
Lets say the treadmill runs fast enough that the the planes remains stationary (relative to the frame of the mill) at full thrust. What happens?

>>717082078
Yes my excuses, I made a mistake
Well theoretically you could have air movement just under the wing, and there would be a pressure difference between the top and the bottom of the wing, which would generate lift

>>717082216
>I interpret the scenario as the plane using the treadmill just as a human would.

But that's completely disregarding how planes actually work.

>>717075388
It would hit the fucking handles of the treadmill. so regardless of any other stupid questions there is nowhere for it to go

>>717078283
weak bait

>>717080741
All planes are moved by their engine alone you dummy.
What the fuck else can they move from?

>>717082286
They provide forwards thrust while the conveyerbelt moves the plane backwards. If those things are balanced, the plane is stationary, even if the belt and the wheels run like crazy. There is no lift, because there is no relative air speed

>>717082771
Next time read the whole post before sperging out. Here is the part you missed:
>The important part for them to fly is having air flowing over the wings.
>the wings

>>717082899
So why would the plane start moving backwards just because the treadmill is running faster?

While not perfectly scientific, the Mythbusters experiment backs up my claim that all that would do is simply make the wheels spin twice as fast while the plane moves forward as normal.

>>717083056
I always thought OP's picture implied that only the treadmill provided power, the plane's engines were off.

Yes, unless the brakes are applied or the wheels/tires fail, the wheels will simply spin faster and the engines will create airspeed to allow the plane to take off. The treadmill is one giant non-factor.

Gotta love how everyone thinks they know anything about planes/sciences.

Anyone with basic physics knowledge knows speed is a relative thing. Relatively to the earth, the plain isn't moving. But relatively to the treadmill the plane is gaining speed. When the threadmill goes fast enough, the plane will take off and float over it, until the threadmill is turned back off for a safe landing of the plane in the same position.

>>717083301
>I always thought OP's picture implied that only the treadmill provided power, the plane's engines were off.

So you had no idea what the thought problem was about and reached the wrong conclusions based on that misunderstanding.

>>717083056
Are you suggesting that the system cant be in a state of balance where the vectors cancel each other out? Yes, the wheels of the plane make it harder to move it backwards, but it is not like the speed of the mill doesnt affect the system anon.

>>717083008
No, this was the important part
> Most planes arent moved by their engines alone
Explain that shit

Air doesn't flow over the wings, the wings are being pushed through the air because the plane is being moved by an engine.
Or magic apparently according to you

>>717083751
Yes, anon, most planes need wings to take off. They cant fly with their engines ALONE. I didnt say engines werent important. Or that there is magic. I dont know what there is to explain you fucking brainlet

>>717084134
Then your phrasing is wrong. Planes aren't moved by their wings.

>>717084134
There is this to explain
> Most planes arent moved by their engines alone
Give me any example of a plane that doesn't move by engine power

>>717084134
>he thinks planes wings flap like a bird

>>717084238
They are. Wings provide lift

>>717084303
Any plane with a trust to weight ratio lower than 1. Unless you think that the typical movement of a plane is rolling straight forward on a flat surface. Are you suggesting wings arent needed for the motion of planes, or are you just pedantic?

>>717084387
stop samefagging. And I didnt say this.

ONLY THE WHEELS ROLL NOT THE WINGS HOW ARE YOU ALL THIS FUCKING STUPID

The engine pushes the plane forward, as it gains speed more air starts to flow over the wings and the wings start to generate lift
-Fluid dynamics specialist

>>717078347
You are retarded

>>717078283
stfu, you're either trolling or really fucking dumb

As a plane speeds down a runway, air pressure builds up under the wings because of the curved shape of the wing, that pressure is what causes the plane to start moving upwards. A plane on a treadmill would not have wind going towards the wings so no pressure would build up, the plane would accelerate but it would not take off.

>>717079966
180mph seems slow to me, but I wouldn't know.
also the plane moves backwards sooo

>hurr I just disregard the hypothetical scenario

I fucking hate all people that do this. I bet you are the same people who answer "neither" in a game of "would you rather...". fucking autists, just fucking kill yourself

>>717084527
>>717084527
> Are you suggesting wings arent needed for the motion of planes
No.
You said
> Most planes arent moved by their engines alone
Which is nonsense.
Even in flight it's the engine causing the plane to move.

Wings can stabilise or redirect that movement, but the only things that causes the plane to actually have motion is the engine.

File: image6.png (60KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 320x240px

>>717085039
this
-Fluid dynamics specialist

>>717075388
I am surrounded by idiots. The plane gains speed with its turbines not the wheels.the wheels only roll so it would be unaffected by the treadmill.

>>717075388
It will

>>717083550
You are more likely to break traction and just skid until you take off (which a plane like the one depicted does have enough thrust to accomplish) before you can spin the treadmill fast enough for the minimal friction of the wheels to become a significant factor.

Imagine for a moment my /b/rothers that you have roller skates on and a jet suit. Now you step on a treadmill infinitely long, you turn on your jet suit and start to roll forwards but your motion is stopped to the the treadmill pushing you backwards so that your speed of movement is 0mph. Regardless of how much thrust you use from your jetsuit the treadmill increases speed to match your acceleration. At what point would your wheels "spin twice as fast" from the amount of energy being put in from the jet suit and not from the skates or treadmill. Your lift would be 0 and you would never take off. you would just be in a static motion, moving on the surface of the belt of the treadmill but actually not moving relative to the treadmill

>>717078978
You wot

>>717078301
seems legit

>>717085196
>> Are you suggesting wings arent needed for the motion of planes
>No.
There you go. Planes arent moved by the engine ALONE

But I already feel that you want to shift this to a fucking pointless semantic game, so here you go:
Yes, they need the engine to start their movement, to get the required relative air speed.

>>717085509
If your forward force were coming from the wheels than sure. Since it is not though, the only thing imparting any force backwards at all is the minimal friction of the wheels.

>>717080740
15

>>717085387
You're trying way too hard, troll.
4/10

No, there is no air rushing over the wings to create the pressure imbalance that results in lift.

>>717076389
That wasn't even a real "treadmill". That tarp they used was so thin, the wheels would have still rolled on the ground underneath, all it would have done is just slowed it down, if anything. The way they did that was absolutely retarded. With their budget, i.e, fucking up nice cars and the such, they could have afforded to actually legitimately test it.

>>717080740
5 + 2 x 10 = 120

>>717085734
>minimal

What do you people expect from stepping on a treadmill with rollerskates?
Pro tip: they dont magically disconnect you from the movement

File: 15252472_1791138131136054_4856337863578157299_o.jpg (27KB, 956x960px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 956x960px

https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/

>>717085700
There was more you know
>Wings can stabilise or redirect that movement, but the only things that causes the plane to actually have motion is the engine.

You're saying that cars don't move from the drive wheels alone, but also by the steering wheel.
That's wrong.
The steering wheel can direct the movement caused by the drive wheels.

>>717085996
>>717086123
Low quality bait or just straight up retarded

>>717086123
retard

>>717085734
>Minimal Friction
Yes but remember that the treadmill is matching the speed of the wheels
Try to think if you only had the skates and the treadmill you turned it on would you stay static or roll backwards?
Roll Backwards since you do not have any other force being applied now imagine you had an acceleration that matched your acceleration backwards would you start moving forward or just nullify the backward force

File: eaZrosc.png (20KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x500px

>>717075388
>pic related how I view people unironically thinking plane would take off

File: tmp_29802-angry-keyboard-xsmall-260769500.jpg (101KB, 399x301px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 399x301px

>>717084579
>And I didnt say this
Autistic rage engaged

File: 1466224507142.jpg (54KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 612x612px

>>717078301

>>717084869
Your*

>>717086475
oh
yes
I am totally outraged anon.
I am literally losing my shit over here

All that would happen here is the plane would move forward as normal and the wheels would spin faster. It would probably slow the plane down a bit simply because of the weight of the plane and the friction of the tires connecting to the treadmill, but it would still move forward, and the wheels would spin much faster then they normally would at that speed.

>>717075388
Of course it will you faggots don't even into science and proofs and hard facts lololol

File: tmp_29802-main-qimg-601d05f55656f6ef35f033bd785f8677-c-953022691.jpg (17KB, 549x441px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 549x441px

>>717086577

>>717086599
This

no because jet fuel can't melt steel beams

The earth rotates at 1037 miles/hr. Aircraft taking off against the rotation seem to take off just fine.

Literally the myth busters marathon is on and they proved a plane in a belt can still take off

no because theres no air running past the wings to generate lift. it would just keep rolling.

>>717086577
Well
at
least
the autism part
was still accurate though

>>717075388
whoever made this picture is an idiot.

here
is
your
(You)
,you
autist

>>717087285
And you are allowed to walk around?

>>717087488
?

File: tmp_29802-Screenshot_20161231-0158221619227657.jpg (241KB, 1413x842px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1413x842px

>>717087416
Thanks, but I already got it.
Looks better in blue

>>717075388
No, toy planes don't fly...

>>717087488
Nigga what the fuck are you talking about

>>717075388
Yes. As long as the mat isn't as smooth as the surface of water. The friction between the surface moving and the air above it will create movement in the form of wind. This is all academic of course. Also the treadmill would have to move at one fourth the speed of light to generate enough wind

>>717077050
No one's talking about net acceleration. If the belt causes enough friction to generate wind than yes it would work

no, because it'll crash into the front of the treadmil

here's the real correct answer:
if the plane is moving on a belt that has a fixed speed it will start accelerating and when it reaches it's liftoff speed relative to the ground it will take off if the belt is long enough of course
If the belt always adjusts it's speed to be the same as the plane's the plane will never take off, because it's speed relative to the air around it will stay 0, and air moving around the wings is needed for lift

>>717085039
I'd agree with this if it were the wheels providing the forward momentum. However, it's the jet propulsion or props that are giving it momentum and the wheels would just move faster than usual as they're currently the best option for quickly traversing land.

The only way what you've said would be true is if the wheels were slowing the momentum of the plane greatly, such as when trucks engine break to slow down.

>>717088421
No you fuckhole, that guy has the right answer>>717088009

The plane cannot take off without moving forward through the air.

File: 6krQHeo.jpg (128KB, 750x685px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 750x685px

>>717088421
>if the plane is moving on a belt that has a fixed speed it will start accelerating and when it reaches it's liftoff speed relative to the ground it will take off if the belt is long enough of course
Yes. of course...

>>717088421
>If the belt always adjusts it's speed to be the same as the plane's the plane will never take off
Nope. The wheels will just spin twice as fast.

>>717075388
In that picture? No, it will crash.

On a giant conveyor? Yes. It is literally physically impossible for a conveyor belt to stop a plane from moving if the engines are fired up.

source:
http://www.airplaneonatreadmill.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

I honestly cannot believe how stupid some of you are.

THE PLANE NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD IN ORDER TO LIFTOFF

IT WILL NEVER LIFT OFF ON A TREADMILL

>>717088732
see
>>717088706

>>717075388
Actually it won't. Lift-Off is not a thing of relative speed to ground but the airspeed an the wings. So it won't take of. Doesn't matter how fast it goes.

>>717088810
It would have to move past the treadmill, it needs a runway, it needs room to takeoff. As long as it is kept from moving forward by being on a treadmill, it would never take off.

>>717088536
That's what I said you filthy muslim degenerate

>>717089023
Can you even read? I don't think you read my post at all.

I specified on a GIANT CONVEYOR it would take off. By giant, I mean large enough for the plane to be able to take off.

You also completely ignored the fact that I stated the conveyor/treadmill whatever the fuck you want to call it, CANNOT stop the plane from moving forward as long as the engines are running.

>>717076126
Yes pls

>>717089612
The wheels on a plane a free spinning. If you put a plane on a giant conveyor belt that is moving backwards, the wheels will spin and the plane will not move anywhere. The net force acting on the plane is 0.

If you switch on the engines, they generate thrust and the plane will move forward and eventually reach take off speed. The only difference to being on a normal runway is the wheels will be spinning twice as fast.

>>717086245
shit analogy. strawman


>>717089521
Of course they can. What are you on about

see
>>717083550

>>717090117
This is assuming that there isnt friction at all. Nice elementary school physics, anon.

>>717075388
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/

/thread

File: berni-wing.gif (9KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x240px

>>717075388

The plane will NEVER take off since there's no air pressure under the wings. No matter how fast the wheels spin nor the power of the engines, if there's no forward movement in order to deliver high pressure of air under the wings (and lower air pressure over the wings) the plan will never take of.

>>717075388
You're all fucking backwards. No wouldn't take off. Whichever cunt had bothered to explain it has got it wrong. No air is travelling over the planes wings or in fact any of it. Lift comes from movement against air. This isn't fucking moving. So the answer is always no. Literally. No other answers. Theoretical bullshit does not apply.

>>717078674
Of course boats can't fly :^)

>>717090529
It's a simplified explanation to make it easier for most of the dumb fucks thinking the plane wouldn't move to understand. The friction would be small so that any plane engine could easily overcome it and take off.

>>717090438
If you have a conveyor belt capable of infinite velocity it can, otherwise, no it cant. The conveyor spins the wheels, it doesn't move the plane.

>>717090841
>>717090826
Both wrong.

Apparently nobody in this thread has ever used google.


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

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2638/an-airplane-taxies-in-one-direction-on-a-moving-conveyor-belt-going-the-opposite-direction-can-the-plane-take-off

http://www.airplaneonatreadmill.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

>>717075388
of course it will. and it'll take you directly to eternal happyness. and you will finally get a girlfriend, she will be amazing. lucky you.

>>717088421
mcfuckin exactly.
/thread

>>717075388
Well I suppose there's a reason why aircraft carriers use giant slingshots instead of a giant treadmill

>>717075388
no

/thread

>>717091371
Why?

>>717090898
>otherwise, no it cant
but thats wrong. explain yourself.
Are you suggesting that the system cant be in a state of balance where the vectors cancel each other out?

>>717075388
>>717091862
You guys won't believe this but sometimes when I use the treadmill really fast, I myself take off

>>717091549
Because it wouldnt help the plane. It just makes the runway longer as it makes it harder for the plane to gain speed

>>717090898
>It's a simplified explanation
There is a difference between a simplification and leaving out an essential part that changes the outcome

>>717091978
The plane doesnt need to gain speeed if it's going over the ground surface at sufficient speed to take off right?

you people are idiots. i can't believe this thread is still alive. it's like a fucking idiot magnet.

>>717092116
Only thing that matters really is the relative air speed

>>717092528
Who's relatives? Mine?

>>717091862
I'm saying int he scenario given, this system cannot be in a state of balance unless the pilot wants it to be.
The conveyor spins the wheels underneath the plane, it does nothing to counter the thrust from the engines.

>>717092103
A tiny amount of friction that any plane engine could overcome does NOT change the fact that the plane would move forward and take off.

Seriously google the fucking problem.

http://www.airplaneonatreadmill.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2638/an-airplane-taxies-in-one-direction-on-a-moving-conveyor-belt-going-the-opposite-direction-can-the-plane-take-off

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

The plane moves forward unless the conveyor is able to accelerate infinitely.

File: 1483022614623.jpg (16KB, 252x255px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 252x255px

>>717087979
I like the idea but it wouldn't work

>>717078181
Head of the pilots union here:
Plane would not take off because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...check and/or mate bitches ;)

>>717077664
By that logic helicopters must operate because magic...

>>717092717

your autism isn't letting you see this little thought experiment in the abstract manner it should be

the conveyor having a speed limit is a likely as a conveyor being big enough for a passenger jet or a passenger jet being small enough to fit on conveyor

this is what they mean by thinking outside of the box, you can't seem to

>>717077050
I guess Harrier jump-jets get off the ground using sunshine and farts then...

>>717077367
Your forgetting about max plank's 6th law of thermo-aeronautics though...

>>717078301
This is way too much science for one post...

>>717076389
Was that the same episode where they proved That you can't pull yourself out of quicksand using your own face?

>>717092582
Both that's why it's relative!

>>717093383
Shit, you are right. How could I have forgotten about Max Plank and his laws

>>717093096
Seems like something you should have said the first time I stated it would need infinite velocity rather than after I've posted links backing the claim up.

Yes it's a thought experiment describing what is essentially an impossible situation. But you still apply the laws of physics when giving an answer unless the question specifically states that they don't.

It's not thinking outside the box, it's getting the question wrong.

>>717092717
>oes NOT change the fact that the plane would move forward and take off.
it does. The belt can move fast enough for the thrust being not enough to move the plane forward that way
>The plane moves forward unless the conveyor is able to accelerate infinitely.
Only because you disregard friction for some reason

>>717078301
No it will not you retard. wheels rolling will not do it because there is no air moving across the wings to give it lift. If it were just about rolling then it would fall as soon as it left the ground you dipshit.

>>717075388
of course not you fool. exercise equipment cannot generate its own lift, no matter how many toy airplanes you apply to it. not only that, but if it could, it wouldnt stay aloft due to lack of appropriate aerodynamics.

It would crash into the treadmill.

But if there were no supports it would since the engines provide the thrust.

>>717075388
Depends
>toy plane or plane on giant treadmill.

No. Thats silly.

>real plane on giant conveyor belt.

Yes. Mythbusters even did this you can watch it happen and have them explain it.

Its not like a car where the thrust is in the wheels, nor is it like you walking on a treadmill where thrust is generated by the kinetic energy of your legs.

The thrust for a plane is purely in the engines. The wheels spin free. Once the planes engines start going, the plane will accelerate forward as though the conveyor is doing nothing, and the wheels will just spin faster to compensate for the moving ground.

>>717078674
has wheels inside the pilot cabine, fool
of course it can fly

>>717094185
Obviously the wheels are rotating at 88mph and have 1.21 jiggawatts of power...fuck do I have to draw you another fucking diagram fuck-face????

>>717093977
Happens to the best of us no worries ;)

>>717079966
Is that standard mph or nautical mph?

>>717094179
The friction between the wheels and the plane? It's miniscule. Speeding up the conveyor doesnt change that. Unless you want to include coulomb friction, which is also going to be miniscule.

The friction between the wheels and conveyor itself? Well this is what causes the wheels to turn so obviously has no bearing on the planes ability to move

>>717094045
I can't hear you from inside your box.

>>717075388
Yes, Mythbusters proved it.

>>717075388
yes

>>717095570
>It's miniscule
>going to be miniscule
>has no bearing on the planes ability to move
wow. I have enough of this shit on /x/, so I wont start to teach people basic physics on here too. But wow, just wow. Dont become an engineer

File: 1482708721125.jpg (26KB, 436x436px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 436x436px

>>717075388
Okay, obviously it won't take off and 75% of the faggots saying it will are just baiting. I won't draw you dumbasses a picture but I will explane (pun intended) it to you. Here you go: planes fly via windforce lifting the wings and also with the help of props/jet engines to assist in speed acquisition. Without an extremely strong surge of wind, an immobile plane cannot go airborn, and with a strong forward push it won't stay airborne, just like how a bicycle is much harder to balance while immobile. Now here is for the 25% who actually think the plane would take off: since I just taught you the physics of what is actually required for takeoff I'll explain the wheel takeoff farce to you. Let's pretend by some fucking miracle that rotating wheels made planes fly: knowing this, if it were true, every airport on earth would just be either a series of hydraulic lifts, plane-sized treadmills, or near-frictionless surfaces so runways wouldn't have to be paved. The reason this cost and space-saving measure isn't implemented everywhere is because it doesn't fucking work. If stationary rotating wheels made things fly then excercise bicycles would be the only means of transportation in the world. Fuckers.

How to visualize this better:

Imagine the plane is situated exactly vertical, like a rocket. Imagine that this plane is able to freely stand on its own, structurally.

Ok got that in your head?

Now decide whether that plane, when it reaches a certain amount of thrust, is capable of generating enough lift to put it into the air and fly.


As far as the plane on the treadmill goes, keep in mind that the engines on a plane direct their thrust a few degrees downward, so hypothetically if you were to suspend a plane in one space without allowing for lift to generate, the force of the thrust would eventually tilt the plane upward anyhow. In the case of the treadmill, this would lift the wheels off of the treadmill and the plane would immediately escape the fixed space. However I do not know if the plane would actually fly or if it would immediately crash due to the lack of lift over the wings. The engines are not designed to be like rockets.

>>717096156
Yeh you're probably right, I mean it's not like a simple google of this problem doesn't result pages and pages of people explaining why the plane moves forward and takes off.

oh wait.

>>717075388
no

>>717078181
>pilot here
Like that makes your opinion anymore valid than the rest of ours. Stfu

>>717096605
Yeah cool. You can be right about the general question and still have stupid mistakes about the way you came to the conclusion. Oh shit I am teaching somebody about basic concepts again. fuck