Would this plane be able to take off?

No, the plane wouldn't be moving through the air at all, the one thing you need to do for the wings to generate lift

Yeah, planes don't take off because of wheels, they take off because of their wings

Of course it would, that's what the propeler is for, to pull enough wind to generate lift off.

>>8249685
>Yeah
And then what would happen once it took off? It'd just hover in mid air in one spot? Just think for a second.

what kind of plane is it

>>8249688
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/

>>8249684
>>8249685
If the speed of the treadmill is fast enough the propeller could generate enough wind for the wings to make the plane fly

>>8249689

F-35B

>>8249692
that's a weird looking f-35b

File: 3f5a00acf72df93528b6bb7cd0a4fd0c[1].jpg (32KB, 537x529px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 537x529px

>>8249679
>planes take off because their wheels spin

In real reality, the wheels would explode, the plane would be pushed backwards and not take off

>>8249690
That just says the plane would eventually just start going forward on a treadmill anyway so it'd take off. If the treadmill and wheels ALWAYS stay the same speed and the treadmill dynamically increases speed with the plane the plane will never take off.

>>8249699

Its been disguised to confuse communists

>>8249701
You don't think a treadmill spinning fast enough will create a upward draft that can create some lift?

In reality, it doesnt kill headcrabs

>>8249709
sure if it's spinning a million miles an hour and the planes wheels dont implode into black holes at that point

>>8249703
that depends

if it's a jumbo jet, the wheels will break, and it will take off anyway

in op's case, the wheels will break, and it will be carried backwards, the rotor will hit the treadmill and it will be anice mess

>>8249712
200mph is about how fast a plane needs to travel to get lift, have you ever even seen a treadmill that massive move at 200mph?

>>8249717
No but I don't think it would create an upward draft strong enough to provide lift for an object that weighs at least a ton

>>8249726
How much would the treadmill that size weigh?

>>8249679
No because it would fall off the front of the treadmill and crash

>>8249679
Assuming wheels won't break, it all depends on length of the belt. If you'll fire engines the plane will move forward just like it would on ground. As long as belt doesn't move at extreme speed and breakers aren't on, it won't affect the way plane move forward using force from engines. In ideal conditions wheels doesn't have any friction on axis so even if you turn belt on without engines, the plane will stay still and wheels will start rotating to keep it that way.

>>8249730
Probably more than the small aircraft, but explain to me how that means it would create an upward draft able to provide lift for an object that weighs 2000 pounds

>>8249679
if the treadmil is fast enough the plane could lift off backwards and tesseract off of our reality

>>8249679
How exactly is a treadmill supposed to stop a plane moving forward?

File: flat.jpg (923KB, 2165x2295px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 2165x2295px

just think that they use pic related for practical applications.

>>8249744
...so?

>>8249737
Because its moving at 200mph with hundreds of tons of mass displacing a shitload of air that run at tangential angles to the wing creating upwards lift.

>>8249750
But still probably not enough air for a takeoff.

>>8249753
How much air is needed and how much would be produced?

>>8249756
The only way to find out is to actually carry out this experiment

>>8249758
You were so quick to dismiss it, but you still barely seem to understand the scale the treadmill would be at and can't even explain your calculations.

Mythbusters did do something similar and showed you could get lift from a conveyor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

>>8249764
They didnt get lift from the conveyor you moron, they plane moved forward and the conveyor couldnt stop it

>>8249749
a plane moving at 500mph would eventually gain a significant amount of altitude within 5 minutes and eventually leave earth.
these calculations prove something entirely different.

>>8249766
>a plane moving at 500mph would eventually gain a significant amount of altitude
No it wouldnt, because it flies a curved path over the curved earth, which approximates fairly nicely to a flat path over a flat earth

>>8249765
For some reason it seems their 'myth' was precisely just that any airplane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt. Even in the video, one of the mythbusters says that it was able to take off because the engine thrusts using the propeller, not the wheels.

>>8249764
I'm pretty sure everyone assumes that the implied question is whether the plane can take off if it remains stationary with respect to the ground--not whether it can take off without using its wheels to accelerate itself.

What they 'busted' in this episode seems kind of trivial, especially when you consider how a plane generates thrust mid-air. I always thought it was meant to be a thought experiment highlighting how lift is actually generated, not some particular experiment involving a humorously-sized treadmill where the effects of such a large treadmill/its track come into play. If the latter is the case, just replace the treadmill with the Earth and act shocked that planes take off at all.

>>8249795
Its not a thought experiment, its a bait question, and your answer depends entirely on what you interpret the question to mean.

>I'm pretty sure everyone assumes
This is the point, everyone assumes different things. This explains the whole thing quite well

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

>>8249717
You're a little on the high side there. For that plane, more like 60 mph. Even commercial jets don't need 200. They have flaps that increase their effective wing/lift area for takeoffs and landings.

>>8249769
Plane surveying uses a radius of 161 miles as flat and anything more curvature is accounted for.
A plane traveling at 500 mph (that's five hundred miles per hour) parallel to the ground all the while NASA's applications showing that they don't factor in curvature and it's a flat and stationary earth just opens a can of worms.

Flat earth does not equal round, spinning, and moving atmosphere earth.

>>8249679
Hmmm. What is the friction coefficient of the belt and the wheels?

>>8249804
>planes flap their wings
Those are birds, you fucking idiot

>>8251013
I chuckled

>>8249679
Depends on the speed of the conveyor belt, the coefficient of rolling resistance of the airplane's wheels, and the distance between the airplane and the end of the conveyor belt.

>>8249679

If the treadmill goes up to like 200mph and then suddenly stops, the plane will take off.

>>8249692
kek

File: rgegr.png (8KB, 548x442px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 548x442px

What if we also put the plane on the treadmill in some sort of wind tunnel?

>>8249691
No

>>8249713
So theoretically if the wheels can't break surely the plane will just reach terminal velocity ultimately meaning it won't take off

File: rela.gif (280KB, 621x366px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 621x366px

>>8249679

>>8253655
Kek

>>8249679
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/