View Full Version : THE biggest online debate ever?
Teds89IROC
12-02-2005, 01:07 AM
Seriously, i'm not just blowing smoke at you guys, i used to be really, REALLY into planes when i was younger.
then maybe you should have taken up a different hobby :shrug: :lol: I'm just busting your balls ;-)
~Ted
Dark_Knight7096
12-02-2005, 07:36 AM
then maybe you should have taken up a different hobby :shrug: :lol: I'm just busting your balls ;-)
~Ted
No, i'll agree, i was a nerd, LOL.
jims69camaro
12-02-2005, 10:13 AM
Okay, I'm going to explain it the same way Matt did for me.
put a toy car on a treadmill and hold it in one position. Now turn the treadmill on and keep holding it there. next, accelerate the treadmill. notice anything? it takes the same amount of energy (thrust) for you to hold the car there at 2 mph and 20 mph. push the car forward and you will notice that no matter how fast the treadmill goes, the car will move forward. you are acting as the jets on the plane and the cars wheels are acting as the planes wheels. the thrust pushed the car forward even though the treadmill accelerated.
go back to the original post.
it does not say anything about:
thrust, wheels, energy or the amount thereof that would be required to hold the plane stationary.
it does say that the conveyor will move backwards to match the plane's speed. if the plane cannot move forward, because the conveyor is moving backwards to match its speed, then it cannot take off.
GP99GT
12-02-2005, 10:56 AM
if the plane cannot move forward
then the treadmill will not move
think about it.
jims69camaro
12-02-2005, 11:31 AM
if the plane cannot move forward
then the treadmill will not move
think about it.
i have thought about it. now what?
the plane needs to move forward to take off. the second it begins moving forward, the conveyor moves in the opposite direction at the same speed of the plane. the plane cannot move forward, therefore the plane cannot take off.
Teds89IROC
12-02-2005, 11:52 AM
i have thought about it. now what?
the plane needs to move forward to take off. the second it begins moving forward, the conveyor moves in the opposite direction at the same speed of the plane. the plane cannot move forward, therefore the plane cannot take off.
The second the plane starts to move forward, the conveyer will move in the opposite direction which will just spin the wheels at twice the speed of the planes forward movement.
~Ted
qwikz28
12-02-2005, 12:11 PM
well youre still not getting it though. the plane is going to be moving forward at a normal speed for takeoff, regardless of how fast the conveyor is moving underneath. we all understand how planes use lift to take off.
The motion would only be counteracted if the plane were driven by the wheels, this has been said numerous times, other people have realized its true, i dunno why some of you are still so stubborn. your car example does not work because the car is driven by the wheels.
some people can be easily persuaded to believe anything. havent you ever heard of propoganda?
why does it matter what drives the plane? velocity is velocity no matter what force is acting upon the object to get it up to speed. any speed will be counteracted with an equal and opposite accleration of the belt.
btw- congrads on the new car martin!
Teds89IROC
12-02-2005, 12:17 PM
some people can be easily persuaded to believe anything. havent you ever heard of propoganda?
why does it matter what drives the plane? velocity is velocity no matter what force is acting upon the object to get it up to speed. any speed will be counteracted with an equal and opposite accleration of the belt.
btw- congrads on the new car martin!
So you're saying that this experiment would be the same with a car or a plane because power being supplied by wheels or jets is negligable, that it doesn't matter where the force is being applied?
~Ted
qwikz28
12-02-2005, 12:41 PM
i think my theory only applies to a plane at constant speed.
GP99GT
12-02-2005, 12:48 PM
youre saying that hte plane wont move at all right?
if the plane doesnt move, the conveyor doesnt move. therefore, in order for the conveyor to move, the plane must be able to move forward
qwikz28
12-02-2005, 01:25 PM
i confused myself. and im going back to f the plane status.
Dark_Knight7096
12-02-2005, 04:58 PM
btw- congrads on the new car martin!
Thanks, I appreciate it!!!
I agree with the f the plane status, but i emailed my physics friend about it and when i get his answer i'll post it.
qwikz28
12-02-2005, 05:04 PM
Thanks, I appreciate it!!!
I agree with the f the plane status, but i emailed my physics friend about it and when i get his answer i'll post it.
[ahem] foff667 [ahem] :)
BigAls87Z28
12-02-2005, 07:14 PM
This is a job for the Myth Busters. Without air flowing over the wing, there can be no lift. Tell me where the wind is coming from, to cause lift, and then I will tell you if its gunna lift or not.
Engines are just there to push the plane through the air at a certain speed to where it will eventualy lift, due to the air going over the wing. Its physics, you need air flow in order to produce lift, or you are using a Harrier type air plane.
BigAls87Z28
12-02-2005, 07:30 PM
It would have to be a very big convery belt system for this to happen.
The plane would still need to build up air speed for it to take off, just like a regular run way.
qwikz28
12-02-2005, 09:07 PM
It would have to be a very big convery belt system for this to happen.
The plane would still need to build up air speed for it to take off, just like a regular run way.
not unless you scale it down with a rc plane
GP99GT
12-03-2005, 12:04 AM
im still waiting for tsar to put a skateboard/fan on his treadmill....maybe he did it and realized hes wrong?
and Al...i thought you were smarter than this. the plane is moving forward! none of you seem to understand that it HAS to be able to move forward. if it cant move forward, then the conveyor doesnt move either. if the conveyor moves, the plane is moving, which means its going to make lift and eventually take off.
BigAls87Z28
12-03-2005, 02:24 AM
Yes, it will take off.....after traveling down a this runway, conveyor or not. The way I thought of it, and probably how many people do, is that the plan is sitting on a belt about the same aprox. size of the plane, to which if it moves, it will just roll off the belt, and onto wherever the belt is sitting.
I understand it, its just stupid. No **** it will take off, its gunna travel down the runway, but the fact of the matter still stands that the plane must be moving foward in order to create lift. The belt system is just some extra info that is thrown in to **** with your head and play on what you already know about conveyer belt systems.
The belt and the wheels cancel eachother out. Its just as if ithe plane was taxing down the runway, and taking off. This is not some sort of modern mirical, cause NASA or the Goverment would have done it already. Dont think too hard.
GP99GT
12-03-2005, 07:43 AM
now im confused. are you saying it will take off, no matter how fast/long the conveyor is? or are you still being stubborn :-P
How about we do this... next time someone is at a shopping center, grab an old matchbox car and while the conveyer is moving, just nudge the car in the opposite direction. Its basically the same thing cuz the wheels on the car arent being powered.
im still waiting for tsar to put a skateboard/fan on his treadmill....maybe he did it and realized hes wrong?
i didnt do it yet. i came back lae yesterday so i had no time. if im wrong ill post it anyways no need to worry about that.
BigAls87Z28
12-03-2005, 08:33 AM
Im saying that it will take off, but the conveyor deal is just information that has zero to do with the plane taking off. As long as the plane moves foward under its own thrust, it doesnt matter whats under it, as long as the plane can pick up air speed to cause lift, and take off.
Im saying that it will take off, but the conveyor deal is just information that has zero to do with the plane taking off. As long as the plane moves foward under its own thrust, it doesnt matter whats under it, as long as the plane can pick up air speed to cause lift, and take off.
actually whats under the wheels matters alot, if the surface is not smooth it will cuz drag therefot it will take very long to gain a needed speed. I have stories of people landing in the field and not being able to take off again if you interested (thats from when i used to go to school)
GP99GT
12-03-2005, 08:49 AM
Im saying that it will take off, but the conveyor deal is just information that has zero to do with the plane taking off. As long as the plane moves foward under its own thrust, it doesnt matter whats under it, as long as the plane can pick up air speed to cause lift, and take off.
which is exactly what ive been saying this entire time
at least some people get it :)
GP99GT
12-03-2005, 08:50 AM
actually whats under the wheels matters alot, if the surface is not smooth it will cuz drag therefot it will take very long to gain a needed speed. I have stories of people landing in the field and not being able to take off again if you interested (thats from when i used to go to school)
thats a bumpy field with lots of brush and stuff...this is a flat conveyor belt with nothing on it. big difference
thats a bumpy field with lots of brush and stuff...this is a flat conveyor belt with nothing on it. big difference
he was saying that whats under the wheels doesnt matter, and thats why i typed my reply.
So theres a little problem with my experiment.
the threadmill has a slight incline which makes the skateboard fall of everytime. Plus skateboard is ****ing heavy. im very bored right now so i was thinking can take the wheels off and try to mount them on the fan directly :lol: and try to make the treadmill even with the surface. if i do it ill post the results if not then **** it.
Ok. **** you guys. I put it to the ultimate test. I took one of my dads RC airplaines and put it on our treadmill. I had my dad slowly increase the speed of the treadmill with the speed of the plane. At full throttle (or close to it) guess what? It didnt take off. It was just hopping a bit from the propeller generating wind force to move under the wings.
Yes, why do you ask?
If you were to spraypaint an X on the ground next the the plane it would never move away from the X. Thus creating now windforce over the wings.
BigAls87Z28
12-03-2005, 09:06 AM
Ok, let me correct myself so that the Commie can understand me.
As long as its a long, flat, solid platform, it will take off, doesnt matter if the long, flat, solid platform is moving or not.
Ok. **** you guys. I put it to the ultimate test. I took one of my dads RC airplaines and put it on our treadmill. I had my dad slowly increase the speed of the treadmill with the speed of the plane. At full throttle (or close to it) guess what? It didnt take off. It was just hopping a bit from the propeller generating wind force to move under the wings.
well i guess we win then
Ok, let me correct myself so that the Commie can understand me.
As long as its a long, flat, solid platform, it will take off, doesnt matter if the long, flat, solid platform is moving or not.
um...you dont want me to start making fun of a white overweight male, come on its too damn easy...
GP99GT
12-03-2005, 09:34 AM
most treadmills are adjustable i thought, but i guess you could put something underneath the back end of it to even it out
most treadmills are adjustable i thought, but i guess you could put something underneath the back end of it to even it out
yea i adjusted it so its suppose to be straight, but when i just put the skateboard on top of it it rolls off. :shrug: so i guess its not straight...
Teds89IROC
12-03-2005, 10:07 AM
Also realize this, the plane must have enough power to overcome friction between the wheels and the ground. Also, if the wheels don't have bearings, there is a tremendous amount of friction that is being generated which takes power away from the forward movement.
~Ted
so now we gonna hear how he did it wrong? um...isee...we should go rent a C172 and maybe do it with that thing. Ill get the plane if u get the big enough conveyeer belt.
Teds89IROC
12-03-2005, 10:21 AM
so now we gonna hear how he did it wrong? um...isee...we should go rent a C172 and maybe do it with that thing. Ill get the plane if u get the big enough conveyeer belt.
no, its simple fact that the plane must have enough force to overcome the frictional force provided by the wheels, which is related to how you were saying stories of how planes that land in fields can take off again because of uneven/unsmooth surface. It's the same concept.
~Ted
Teds89IROC
12-03-2005, 10:23 AM
The whole idea that the plane will take off is based on the fact that real planes can clearly provide enough force to overcome the frictional force caused by the wheels and their wheels have bearings and are designed to psin as freely as possible. They do this because the less friction, the less thrust they need to get the plane to move which equals better fuel mileage.
~Ted
The whole idea that the plane will take off is based on the fact that real planes can clearly provide enough force to overcome the frictional force caused by the wheels and their wheels have bearings and are designed to psin as freely as possible. They do this because the less friction, the less thrust they need to get the plane to move which equals better fuel mileage.
~Ted
um..you should see what some RC planes can do. they can do things like real planes cant. like hovering for example. They clearly have enough thrust to take off.
Teds89IROC
12-03-2005, 10:38 AM
Some can, but not all....how do we know what kind of plane koll used? we don't until he replies. I'm not arguing all R/C planes aren't capable, I just put it out there that the type of plane also has an effect on the experiment. Just like different cars, some are built better and perform better/different than others and if you can't agree to that, then there is no point in discussing this further with you.
~Ted
12secondv6
12-03-2005, 10:40 AM
I say..... suck it Treveck!
Some can, but not all....how do we know what kind of plane koll used? we don't until he replies. I'm not arguing all R/C planes aren't capable, I just put it out there that the type of plane also has an effect on the experiment. Just like different cars, some are built better and perform better/different than others and if you can't agree to that, then there is no point in discussing this further with you.
~Ted
ohh i can agree with it, but what are we gonna do now, request specific airplane from some one? What if the experiment succeded would you be saying that the type of airplane matters? NO! bit it could've been one of those "moded" planes that will take off in 2 feet and hover above ground all day long? am i wrong?
12secondv6
12-03-2005, 11:07 AM
At the rate this thread is increasing..... we should have it archived.....
:rofl:
To add fuel to the fire....
What if it was a light weight air plane?
What if the tires were flat?
What if it was a cargo plane.... and cargo fell out?
What if the plane had live stock in it.... and they ran forward really quick?
What if a gust of wind came across the plane/ conveyer belt sideways?
What's the clearance Clarence?
What's the vector Victor?
At the rate this thread is increasing..... we should have it archived.....
:rofl:
To add fuel to the fire....
What if it was a light weight air plane?
What if the tires were flat?
What if it was a cargo plane.... and cargo fell out?
What if the plane had live stock in it.... and they ran forward really quick?
What if a gust of wind came across the plane/ conveyer belt sideways?
What's the clearance Clarence?
What's the vector Victor?
lol you enjoying this arent you? :lol:
Dark_Knight7096
12-03-2005, 12:51 PM
What's the clearance Clarence?
What's the vector Victor?
I am serious, and stop calling me shirley. I just wanted to let you know, we're all counting on you!
After this I did it again. One was with a stunt plane. It has a 3 foot wingspan. The other one was "Yellow Belly". 5 Foot wing span. Runs off of gas and not RC Nitro.
After this I did it again. One was with a stunt plane. It has a 3 foot wingspan. The other one was "Yellow Belly". 5 Foot wing span. Runs off of gas and not RC Nitro.
and they didnt take off right?
jims69camaro
12-03-2005, 03:42 PM
What's the clearance Clarence?
What's the vector Victor?
what's the frequency, kenneth?
i tried to tell you guys the plane wouldn't take off. once you get something firmly affixed in your head and you can justify it, nothing will change your mind. i bet if someone rigged up a huge conveyor and used a 747, you still wouldn't believe it if the plane didn't take off.
now, all of the hair splitting is just incredibly stupid. it doesn't matter what kind of aircraft it is, as long as under normal circumstances it can achieve flight under its own power. leave it alone, already.
The next time I take a ****, this thread is getting printed out. That is all.
The next time I take a ****, this thread is getting printed out. That is all.
:rofl:
we need a poll!
Fasterthanyou
12-04-2005, 03:03 PM
The plane will take off because the conveyor is tracking the plane SPEED (not velocity) but since the wheels (friction or not) have no influence on the plane position then they are out of the "system of influences."
It says the plane moves in a direction. Well where does it say what moved it from a standing? Was it by it's OWN power? If it moved in a direction then it must be under it's own power and it must be moving no matter WHAT the ground is doing :) . Hence it will move along the runway and fly. In a real world you could say most planes wouldn't take off because the tires would blow-out or the friction in the bearings of the wheels would seize... but this is a theoretical question so those things are neglected and even if they weren't there are planes that take off at very low speeds.
In other words, the wheeld don't do **** so stop talking about them as if they are an influence.
You need to know the difference between speed and velocity for any of this to make sense.
i was wrong.
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191034-1.html
/end thread
GP99GT
12-04-2005, 07:39 PM
i was wrong.
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191034-1.html
/end thread
thank you.
everyone that argued it...get on your knees
...and join the F the plane club!!!! :D
Brando56894
12-05-2005, 04:53 PM
i was gonna say it wouldnt fly, when i first read it i immeadiately thought of ians idea with the tread mill. now that i read the (main part of the) article, it will fly :(
With a prop. whatabout a jet?
jims69camaro
12-08-2005, 07:11 AM
With a prop. whatabout a jet?
why not just give up. it was proven. prop or jet, results would be the same. stop kicking a dead horse.
Teds89IROC
12-08-2005, 01:21 PM
thank you.
everyone that argued it...get on your knees
:werd:
~Ted
Kojak
12-09-2005, 04:30 PM
The plane will take off. But in light of the recent snow, I’ve been wondering. If the wheels do not relate to the tires how come a plane's efficiency of slowing down is greatly reduced when even a light snow covers the tarmac, such as the case in Chicago, in which it skidded into the street. Why not slow the plane down with the Jet Engine?
Since the friction of the tires do not relate to the plane because the thrust will break through it going foreword, why cant’ the thrust be reversed for a landing to slow the plane down without the tires help? And if it was reversed would it work in a real life situation?
I’m only asking the question because we all now understand why the plane will take off on the conveyer, so why not ask ourselves another question and keep this, “F’en” plane thing going. I know that pilots gun the engines foreword on landing, and all of that jargon but just what if..?
The plane will take off. But in light of the recent snow, I’ve been wondering. If the wheels do not relate to the tires how come a plane's efficiency of slowing down is greatly reduced when even a light snow covers the tarmac, such as the case in Chicago, in which it skidded into the street. Why not slow the plane down with the Jet Engine?
Since the friction of the tires do not relate to the plane because the thrust will break through it going foreword, why cant’ the thrust be reversed for a landing to slow the plane down without the tires help? And if it was reversed would it work in a real life situation?
I’m only asking the question because we all now understand why the plane will take off on the conveyer, so why not ask ourselves another question and keep this, “F’en” plane thing going. I know that pilots gun the engines foreword on landing, and all of that jargon but just what if..?
you do know that they have breaks on the wheels and they use those too. So when your airplane starts to skid there's not much you can do, you just there for a ride. High speed landing + snow covered runway = no good.
12secondv6
12-09-2005, 05:57 PM
lol you enjoying this arent you? :lol:
My god yes!
We should send emails to airline manufacturer's!
Savage_Messiah
12-09-2005, 08:07 PM
F
the
effin
PLANE!!!!!!!!
Rob WS6
12-09-2005, 10:11 PM
LET IT DIE! :lol:
12secondv6
12-09-2005, 10:28 PM
TTT!
oh one ls1 SS
12-13-2005, 02:46 PM
so the plane wount take off? :-P
Savage_Messiah
12-13-2005, 03:18 PM
GO F YOURSELF
sorry, i had to, some new members may like to think about this and form their own conclusions, and yes im an ass for bringing the thread back to life, deal with it, haha
...btw i think this is the longest post on these boards
turbo96z28
01-24-2006, 06:10 PM
not if the buddy list thread keeps going.
and this was one of the first threads i read when i got here.
make it go away.
Savage_Messiah
01-24-2006, 06:28 PM
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
IT MUST DIE
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
IT MUST DIE
you just made it live 2 posts longer, by saying that and by making me comment to what you said... to let it die would mean to resist posting here at all, post on the buddy list one, i wanna get it to 1,000 posts...:-D
WayFast84
01-24-2006, 06:31 PM
If it was on the belt side ways would it take off? what about upside down?
trashman01
01-24-2006, 07:45 PM
If it was on the belt side ways would it take off? what about upside down?
would a peice of wood hold ur car back by itself on a 90% grade?
Brando56894
01-24-2006, 09:49 PM
90% grade wtf?
wayfasts car is being held in place by a piece of wood.
turbo96z28
01-24-2006, 10:57 PM
if wayfasts car was on a runway, would anyone really care???
and by that post i have cntributed once again to making this thread live even though i wish it wouldn't.
peep the sig....
F THE PLANE!!!!
turbo96z28
01-24-2006, 11:00 PM
peep the sig....
F THE PLANE!!!!
and by doing that you have contributed to this once again and forced me to retort by contributing myself to point out how you contributed to this.
and F the plane!!!!!!!!!!!
Tru2Chevy
01-25-2006, 12:14 AM
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 !!!!!ONE!!!!
- Justin
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.