what do you think /n/iggers?

It depends on the speed setting of the treadmill.

If you put it on max, the plane is gonna take off and hit the wall behind it.

>>1062763
2008 called, they want their meme back. You're way late to the party, Mythbusters already covered this one (in 2008), and by the way no, it won't.

Also you're likely Underage B&, that's the only way you would be 9 years late with this, please leave the site immediately, don't return until you're 18, kid.

It could.

>>1062773
>Mythbusters as a source.
And yes, it will take off.

Ground speed is irrelevent. What matters is airflow around the wings. It can take off but it has to gain the same speed as always no matter how fast the treadmill spins under need it in the opposite direction.

File: 1.jpg (48KB, 763x276px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 763x276px

NEXT QUESTION

It will becasue the WHEELS of an airplane don't make it move, it's the propellers.

The airplane will gain speed at the same time and become airborne at the same time, the wheels will move at double speed (or normal speed, added to the treadmill speed)

>>1062813
The premise of that myth was so staggeringly stupid it took me a long time to realize what they were actually testing that episode.

How do you produce lift when there's no air passing under the wings? If it took off on some TV show it's just because the velocity of the plane relative to the ground wasn't 0.

>>1062833
>If it took off on some TV show it's just because the velocity of the plane relative to the ground wasn't 0
Yes its that simple. I certainly hope no one would have thought otherwise. The premise of an airplane on a treadmill isn't a myth to be tested, but a joke that went over someone's head.

Wheel speed has nothing to do with the ability of a plane to take off. In an extreme wind situation a plane could take to the air with zero forward velocity, though it wouldn't end well.

>>1062763
Not until they throw some screaming chink off the plane.

>>1062813
No it will not take off because a passenger aircraft's lift rate isn't sufficient to clear the treadmill's screen and handles.

File: 1491911263478.jpg (50KB, 763x276px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 763x276px

>>1062805
Don't you mean this?

File: Sea-plane land takeoff.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

This thread might be the only chance I have to post this and have it be even remotely relevent.

>>1062805
yes

>>1062856
no

File: 1473720909960.jpg (438KB, 1083x634px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1083x634px

>>1062858
pjhtochopes

>>1062763
No, the wings will crash into the sides of the treadmill.

>>1062763
No and yes.

As shown, complete with treadmill uprights physically blocking the wings and general forward progress? No, it would either roll off the back or build enough thrust to hit the uprights and then stop forward momentum (and thus the airflow over the wings and associated lift) unless the plane has enough thrust to drag the entire treadmill forward to suitable speed as well, which I doubt and assume is NOT a factor of this exercise, however amusing/terrifying it would be to witness.

Taken as an abstraction for "plane on a treadmill running opposite it's intended vector?" Sure, the plane could takeoff despite running against a treadmill; ----- just don't set the brakes.----- Treadmill rolls backward, engines thrust forward, wheels spin fast but basically free and the engine thrust overcomes the token wheel friction attempting to drag the plane backward and instead moves the plane forward relative to its initial position. Build forward velocity until airflow over wings generates enough lift to raise the plane and you have yourself a pretty standard takeoff, just with a little more wear on the wheels and such than on an unmoving runway.

>>1062805
you don't need the treadmill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPOtDPHjW-Y

No, because the gap is too small between the treadpill pieces so the wings will hit those and the plane will break.

>>1062763
Won't fly. Planes create lift by having air pass over the wings.

>>1062970
The treadmill won't stop the plane from moving forward relative to a fixed observer. The wheels will just spin twice as fast as they ordinarily would.

>>1062926
and that's why planes are tied down or stored in a hangar

>>1062977
I think the image means to suggest that the engines will be putting out exactly enough force relative to the velocity of the treadmill's tread that the plane will remain stationary.

>>1062990
Except that, unless the brakes are set, thrust >>>>> rolling friction.

>>1063007
What's your point? The tread could be moving at a very high velocity with the engines at very low power.

>>1062813
yes, but while, the plane lies on the surface of the conveyor or treadmill it is being moved along with the surface backwards idiot, until the plane leaves the ground, it is going to move along with the surface it is standing on, if concrete was sliding backwards at 10mph backwards the plane would move with it

Engines powerful enough to pull enough air over the wings while stationary

>>1062990
Well if you set the engines at <5% then of course it isn't gonna take off.

>>1063347
What if the treadmill is extremely fast and can go like 600mph and the engines are at full blast?

>>1063358
The treadmill would have to be fast enough that the friction created by the freewheeling wheels slows it down enough that it can't get enough speed required for lift off. You would probably have more luck with 6000 mph treadmill than the 600 mph but even in that case I'd not bet against the plane.