because /b/ will fight over anything. Discuss the discussion

2ez

way to use the shittiest graphic ever for your troll post faggot

There's no air rushing under the wings, it doesn't take off on the speed of its wheels anons.

its about the amount of air that gets under the fuckin wings and the faster it goes the more air gets under the fuckin wings and now its fucking standing still u cunt so no it cannot take off

>>719540563

What is an airfoil? How does it work? This thread is DEEPLY STUPID.

The engines create thrust, there's no power at the wheels to make the wheels move, the wheels move with the thrust. Therefore the conveyor belt becomes useless and it will still go.

>>719540984
But wouldn't the engine thrusts move the wheels, thus moving the conveyor belt?

I think that it would not take off, because the net movement of the plan would be 0 (movements cancel out), so it'd essentially not be able to fly due to no wind

>>719540563
Yes, because the WHEELS aren't what moves the 747, the jet engines are. It wouldn't remain stationary no matter how fast the conveyor was moving.

>>719541658
No, the engine thrusts would move the 747. The ground underneath is what would move the wheels.

The airspeed remains the same. I wouldn't take off.

>>719540563
i'll just leave this here
https://youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY

Pilotfag here.
Plane wouldn't take off.
Motion of air over the airfoil is what generates lift.
If the air was moving past the plane fast enough it would take off with no ground movement though. Seen it happen.

>Latinos post

You faggots just let the beaners win.

NO LIFT YOU FUCKING RETARD ITS NOT A CAR ITS A PLANE YOU STUPID FUCKING FAGGOT NIGGER

>>719542286
>the plane's wheels are clearly moving faster than the conveyor belt

fuck off

>>719542632
the conveyor belt can't counteract the motion of the plane because the wheels are free spinning

These are some next level retards

>>719542323
We all know how airfoils work. Essentially the question is would the plane go forward? and it would

>>719540563
if the wind is blowing hard enough, sure

>>719542323
You are not a pilot. A real pilot know this is a total bullshit question. I asked this question one time to my class so I could go take a shit. It turned a class of wanna be pilots into the Lord of the fucking flies. The answer to this question is yes.

>>719540563
>LATINOS POST

kek'd

The plane would take off. It would be impossible for the conveyor belt to match the exact speed of the wheels. Because the wheels are free spinning and provide no forward force to the plane the wheels and conveyor in theory would keep accelerating (due to the conveyor trying but unable to match the increasing speed of the wheels) until the plane is airborne.

>>719540713
The wheels are not what moves the plane forward, the engines push air, therefor making the plane move forwards regardless of the speed of the conveyor belt.

Wtf People actually answer no ?
I'm an aircraft mechanics, not a very good one tbh, but all does it take to answer this is some basic common sense...

So yes the airplane would take off

>>719541658
If the engines made the wheels turn, it wouldn't be able to sustain flight. It's not a glider. The engines create a force that propels the plane through the air, regardless of what the wheels are touching.

>>719540563
No, it will crash when it gets to the end of the "runway" conveyor belt, which is too short for a 747. They need a pretty long runway.

>>719543932
Kek. You sir are why checklists exist.

>>719541658
What is a bearing?

Correct.

I'll take basic engineering for $300 Alex!

>>719542807
Not so -- there is no such thing as truly frictionless bearings.

>>719544137
Thanks, I like my red herring fried with potatoes and malt vinegar on the side. I didn't say the conveyor matches a friction coefficient. The wheels would simply move at a rate of engine thrust + conveyor speed.

>>719540563
No, you have created an expensive jet-powered fan, yes air will be moved by the engines but since the thrust from this will be countered by the conveyor belt, no air will pass over the wings to generate lift. The plane will not take off.

>>719544311
You are dumb. Don't breed.

>>719542323
>Pilotfag here
Bullshit, because if you were you would know that the wheels aren't what moves the plane.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x270px

>>719544311

>>719544065
Working on c-135, this shit fly by itself, rust is what holds all pieces together.
And we are working with shitty tools...
I can't care less.

>>719544360
The real troll question is why planes can fly upside down.

>>719544404
>rust is what holds all pieces together.

Yeah, youre shitty alright.

>>719544435
I'll be honest here, I don't know much about aerodynamics, but I would assume it's similar to why they can fly right side up?

>>719544631
And that ends that attack of dumbassery

>>719540563
Needs airflow.

Planes can take off while stationary with enough headwind.

File: Untitled.png (16KB, 1008x630px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 1008x630px

This is why /b/ is so shit. No you bunch of newfags, It wouldn't take off.

This thread is beyond retarded

>>719544435
Because of Flaps and Trim.

>>719543856
>>719543932

It'd fall flat on it's face with that tiny little runway.

>>719544631
Yeah. Kinda they can but they generally can't without losing some altitude. The airfoil design allows for this but a significant loss of possible angle of attack. It makes it very very easy to stall. If a plane is designed for manuverability it can fly well like that but makes the plane much more tippy with less final stability. Why fighter pilots are freaking amazing.

File: IMG_1728.jpg (200KB, 736x1011px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 736x1011px

The converyer belt fill spin so fast that it brings air under the wings of course it will take off HAHAHAHAHAHAHA UR ALL FUCKING RETARDED

>>719545097
bait

File: IMG_1720.jpg (72KB, 623x713px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 623x713px

>>719545213
No shit you fucking retard.

Jesus it's hard to see between the troll posts in here.

>the runway isn't long enough
Read the picture again fucknugget
>it wouldn't move
The wheels have NO ENERGY applied to them. The engines pull the plane and the wheels turn as a response. The conveyer belt could be running twice the 'speed of the wheels' (which are still only running as fast as the engines pull), and be made of ice, the plane's ENGINES would pull it forward.

It would take off. Obviously. Stop being fucking idiots/trolling fags.

>>719540563
the wheels are not steering, so the conveyor have 0 speed, and the plane will take off du to power of reactors.

Yes it takes off. The wheels motors are only used for taxiing, when on a runway, it uses the jets, which pushes it. It would gain speed and go forward no matter how fast the conveyor belt runs. The air still stands still, and as jets pushes it, it moves forward, and air travels along the wings and lifts it.

Why are people so stupid? The wheels are irrelevant, they are not what moves the plane forward. It's not like a plane has wheels to launch it into the air...

>>719544848
The posts states the conveyor belt is as wide and long as a runway.

>>719544276
But, since the bearings cannot be truly frictionless, they will allow the conveyor to apply drag to the plane -- more drag the faster the wheels turn (regardless of how fast the plane is moving.)

Read OP's conditions --the conveyor moves backwards fast as the wheels roll (not move)forward. Sothe wheels roll forard at one mile an hour as the plane begins to move. So the belt goes backward at 1mile an hour. Which causes the wheels to be spinning as if they were rolling 2 mph -- the 1 mph that was generated by the plane moving, plus tghe backwards speed of the belt --which now must accelearte to 2 mph to match the wheels. Which now are spinning 4 mph, driving the wheels to 8... then 16... then 32... you se where this is going? The speed of the belt will quickly become immense. Which very quickly builds up immense backward drag through the wheel and bearings. Very soon, this overpowers the thrust the engines can produce, and the plane actually begins to move backwards.

Unless, of course, the bearings burn out and the hole undercarriage gets trashed- which tears the shit out of the plane as it collapses onto the speed-approaches-infinity belt -- after which, it willl not take off.

>>719545416
I really hope you're a troll...

>>719545416
dude you don't know anything about aviation. the engines push the airplane even when its taxiing. the jets propel the airplane on both the ground and in the air. on the ground, the thrust causes the wheels to turn.

all ordinary aircraft need forward speed to fly because the air under the wing creates a vacuum which causes lift. i dont think this airplane would be able to take off

>>719545298
In OP's example, the wheels have HUGE energy applied to them, not by the aircraft systems but by the conveyor belt.

it would be funny to watch all those *niggers* try to the push the plane back to their chop shop, rotflol!

>>719546000
And so until the engines turn up to speed the plane would gently roll backwards (the wheels would all but spin freely), and then with the engine engaged it would roar forward into the sky.

>>719545087
Because the foil is like an imperfect tear-drop, right?

>>719545994
>Describes exactly why it WOULD take off
>I don't think it would be able to take off

>>719545582
still no air, though. Just because the wheels and engine are making it seem like it'll take off, it'll be still (otherwise, it would go backwards), and gain no velocity.

>>719546192
No,because any forward velocity the engines add to the system only makes the problems being caused by the drag applied through the interaction of the wheels and the belt even worse.