Can an airplane fly if

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's actually a good video. Watch at 4:00. If you still think it won't take off, you're not fit for this earth.
 
my guess would be...

1.AIRplanes need lift to fly. rocket engines move the plane by "mass loss", a rocket can fly eventough it has no wings...why...because of the enormous "mass loss" at high speed produced by the engines.

2.plane wings do not restrict the plane because they are not attached to the engine components that produce the push. Like cars have.

A plane would just normally take off as if there was no treadmill. only the wheels would just have twice the angle speed if there was a treadmill.

so the answer is a definitive YES, it would fly.

but its not necessarily the same for water planes moving up drift, because the water produces friction in the skies which slows the airplane down.
 
jverne said:
but its not necessarily the same for water planes moving up drift, because the water produces friction in the skies which slows the airplane down.
Click to expand...
Well, there already is friction because the plane still is moving along the water even when it's not upstream. Moving even faster would probably be even less friction, actually. Whatever, irrelevant anyway.
 
Vegeta897 said:
Well, there already is friction because the plane still is moving along the water even when it's not upstream. Moving even faster would probably be even less friction, actually. Whatever, irrelevant anyway.
Click to expand...

of course there is friction moving in water, but moving even faster against the stream would only mean more friction not less
 
jverne said:
of course there is friction moving in water, but moving even faster against the stream would only mean more friction not less
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure there would be more friction.

Think for example if you were pushing a wooden block along a rubber surface. When it's still, it sorta sticks to the surface and it's hard to move. But once you get it going faster, it keeps going much easier.
 
Its still creating friction...you push harder to make it move, so your force applied is greater than the force opposed...

The plane will not take off on a treadmill...it doesnt matter how fast the engines are sucking in and pumping out air, its not how a plane flies...air needs to travel over the wings...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mm8raOaOIU[/youtube]
 
Vegeta897 said:
I'm not entirely sure there would be more friction.

Think for example if you were pushing a wooden block along a rubber surface. When it's still, it sorta sticks to the surface and it's hard to move. But once you get it going faster, it keeps going much easier.
Click to expand...

no it's not like that. you feel there is less friction because you aren't applying enough down force to keep the friction going so you basically let the object fly microscopically which results in less friction of course.

if i remember right friction goes up by V^2 which means you get exponential growth in friction in relation to speed.

i can't find an example where friction goes down in classical mechanics. maybe quantum...
 
BTW, on the off chance that the treadmill did manage to pull the air along and give the plane enough lift to takeoff, once it climbed only a few dozen feet, the air would be relatively still, the plane would stall, crash and burn...
 
Ridge said:
BTW, on the off chance that the treadmill did manage to pull the air along and give the plane enough lift to takeoff, once it climbed only a few dozen feet, the air would be relatively still, the plane would stall, crash and burn...
Click to expand...

The plane wouldn't be sitting still on the treadmill. The only effect the treadmill would have on the plane is the fact that the wheels will be spinning a lot quicker as the plane travels down the runway.
 
Ridge said:
BTW, on the off chance that the treadmill did manage to pull the air along and give the plane enough lift to takeoff, once it climbed only a few dozen feet, the air would be relatively still, the plane would stall, crash and burn...
Click to expand...

man think it twice and read what i wrote.

there is a plane on a not moving treadmill. when the track starts moving theoretically if there was no friction in the wheel bearings the plane body would just stand there while the wheels would move let's say at an 100s^-1 angular speed. if the plane would turn on their engine the plane body due to mass loss would start to move forward, the wheels would just go 100,120,150,...200s^-1 angular speed. but the plane body would also have a speed which would mean that the plane is moving trough the air and producing lift. just the tires would move faster.

but this is under the assumption there is no wheel friction, but in reality it would still take off just a bit harder
 
True, i had always thought of it vice versa...treadmill has bearings with 0 friction, and the power of the engines pulls the plane, which spins the wheels, which spins the treadmill the opposite way at the same speed...
 
This sounds like a job for... Mythbusters!
 
jverne said:
no need
Click to expand...

I know that. I agree the plane would take off, BUT it would be an interesting way to prove this... to end all speculation and discussion once and for all.
 
Since when were aircraft powered by their wheels?

The aircraft will fly. The wheels will spin twice as fast.

End of.

And anyway, I posted the original thread, so :P
 
You gotta take the entire treadmill out of the equation, it doesn't matter because the thing doesn't do anything. The only way it would have any effect if the friction from the wheels equals the thrust generated by the engines, then it wouldn't fly.
 
Well, it's all about the plane. I don't know the real answer but I always assumed planes rise in Y because of the wings, and air pressure being lower above them creating lift. And also the position / angle of the flaps.

So this would mean, it wouldn't take off.

However, if the engines (which i know nothing about), took in air at the front of the wing, and 'blew' it out the back and downwards - it would rise. I doubt that's the case though.

I'm going with - Cant take off. (but depends on the plane, you could easily make one that WOULD take off - eg. without any horizontal movement ever needed, a vertical turbine taking in air from above, and pushing it out underneath)

Edit:
Parrot of doom said:
Since when were aircraft powered by their wheels?

The aircraft will fly. The wheels will spin twice as fast.
Click to expand...

They aren't powered by the wheels they're powered by the engines, which give an X movement, which in turn causes air to pass, AND THAT is what causes the Y movement.

So, no air movement = no lift.
 
I always say "IT WOULDN'T TAKE OFF BECAUSE..." Because I was under the assumption that the plain is just sitting on the treadmill, and going the same speed as the tread mill, and then it just takes off with no wind. So my guess is, everybody is talking about it kicking the jets on and going REGULAR speed on the tread mill and going faster than it, and then taking off with the air. Either way, I won't ever use this theory in real life :p
 
Oh god, such ignorance.
Well, it's all about the plane. I don't know the real answer but I always assumed planes rise in Y because of the wings, and air pressure being lower above them creating lift. And also the position / angle of the flaps.

So this would mean, it wouldn't take off.

However, if the engines (which i know nothing about), took in air at the front of the wing, and 'blew' it out the back and downwards - it would rise. I doubt that's the case though.
Click to expand...
Translation: I don't know jack shit about planes and the physics behind them.

Stop it, the ignorance is making little miccy cry.




THE PLANE WILL TAKE OFF
End of story. If you say otherwise you don't know how airplanes work, at all. So stop talking, you make yourself look ignorant to people that actually know what they're talking about.
 
jverne said:
no it's not like that. you feel there is less friction because you aren't applying enough down force to keep the friction going so you basically let the object fly microscopically which results in less friction of course.

if i remember right friction goes up by V^2 which means you get exponential growth in friction in relation to speed.

i can't find an example where friction goes down in classical mechanics. maybe quantum...
Click to expand...

No.

There is literally less kinetic friction than static friction. It's such a fundamental feature of mechanics that there are two mathematical symbols for an object sliding and at rest.

The reason for this is because of small hydrogen bonds and other chemical and atomic forces between the object and the surface it is on. If the object is not moving, these bonds are able to form. To move the object you have to break the bonds between it and another surface, thus requiring a higher amount of energy.

To test this, put a block onto a wooden board. Lift it at an angle so that the block does not slide immediatley, but is very close to sliding. Right now, the static friction on the block is exactly equal to the kinetic friction on the block. Now give the block a slight nudge. By doing this you break the bonds between the block and the board, increasing the force beyond the static friction holding the block in place, and if the board is at the correct angle, the block will slide down the board at a constant velocity.

And as for the question, yes the plane will take off because it is exerting a force on the air with its engines, (which in turn is providing thrust on the plane) The treadmill merely offsets the friction int he wheels so the plane cannot move forward along the ground. At a certain critical point, the plane will take off.
 
So apparantly even a gigantic post with huge bolded font isn't enough to get people to understand that the plane IS moving through the air.

****ing idiots...
 
No.












I just want to be in the minority.
 
Vegeta897 said:
So apparantly even a gigantic post with huge bolded font isn't enough to get people to understand that the plane IS moving through the air.

****ing idiots...
Click to expand...

Large bold fonts are detrimental to physics debates.


I assumed that the plane was stationary relative to the air around it.. Yeah I think this riddle >'d me.
 
IS the plane's velocity greater than the treadmills or equal when it's taking off?
 
Immortal said:
IS the plane's velocity greater than the treadmills or equal when it's taking off?
Click to expand...
Read the OP... the treadmill is always travelling the equal and opposite velocity than the plane.

But the treadmills speed doesn't matter because all the treadmill can do is spin the wheels of the plane.

Watch the ****ing youtube video starting at 4:00 for direct god damn proof. There's your mythbusters.
 
What caught me out was, I was thinking it to be a physics question rather than a riddle :( so i assumed some stupid stuff
 
Well I've submitted this to MythBusters. We can only hope.
 
The reason i cant see how this would work is that if the velocity of the plane is ALWAYS equal and opposite to that of the treadmill there would be no air flowing (well, not enough to allow it to take off) over the wings. If you were a spectator standing off the treadmill the plane would APPEAR as if its not moving. So, if the plane is not moving towards the air it cant produce any lift to allow the plane to take off. If you stuck the whole thing in a wind tunnel it would work, but i cant see it working in a normal state.

Please try and reply with a bit of - whats the word -...humanity? I'm just trying to understand the other thought process.
 
Immortal said:
The reason i cant see how this would work is that if the velocity of the plane is ALWAYS equal and opposite to that of the treadmill there would be no air flowing (well, not enough to allow it to take off) over the wings. If you were a spectator standing off the treadmill the plane would APPEAR as if its not moving. So, if the plane is not moving towards the air it cant produce any lift to allow the plane to take off. If you stuck the whole thing in a wind tunnel it would work, but i cant see it working in a normal state.

Please try and reply with a bit of - whats the word -...humanity? I'm just trying to understand the other thought process.
Click to expand...
Then read through the thread. There's already plenty of proof. Watch the Youtube video if you dont feel like reading. Stop making people repeat the same thing over and over.
 
everyone always gets their panties in a twist over this
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
-smash-
Valve at GDC 2019
Replies
0
Views
25K
-smash-
-smash-
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Hectic Glenn
Cold Case #1: Valve Voice Actress - October Moore
Replies
1
Views
18K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
Back
Top