File :-(, x, )
To those fuckers that were to stupid to realize that a plane on a tredmill would take off!!! i hate you retards
you people need to die in a car fire.
the wheels do NOT share the power of the engines like that of a car.
the wheels would move the same speed as the moving platform.

you following so far??

so you have a moving platform moving lets say
30 Mph & the wheels would be moving 30 Mph
so the plane would have not moved from its givin place in space.

So then if its not "moving" the once the power source starts i.e. jet propelled engines or propeller, then that would infact cause the plane to move forward & if it moved forward fast enough then there would be lift from under the wings causing flight.

hopfully you have been educated. NAO GOB2HIGHSCHOOL!!
>> Anonymous
Except the wings would hit those bars there. FAIL.
>> Anonymous
You could have just said "Speed != velocity"
>> i hate you retards
that was not the point i tried to get across...
asshole
>> i hate you retards
>>1016054
did you read the old thread? they would have never had understood that
>> Anonymous
just relax op, just let natural selection do its thing.
>> Anonymous
>>1016047
>>1016040
Same guy
FAIL!
>> Anonymous
>>1016078

it wont.. theres nothing to kill off these retarded fucks.
>> Anonymous
>>1016040
What you've basically just explained is how a plane takes of when it is not on a treadmill.

As soon as the plane moves forward, it is no longer on the treadmill. Therefore it will not take off ON the treadmill.
>> Anonymous
Stupid people are the ones with the most children because they fail to read up on about contraceptives, let alone properly use them. So natural selection won't have an effect. Have you noticed the more succesful, smart, educated, wise, etc one is the less kids they have or want? Where as trailer trash keep on having more and more because they get benefits to be breeding machines and fuck up the whole educational standing by inbreeding idiots that go to school that can't even comprehend what a fucking variable is >.<
>> Anonymous
>>1016040
Good god are you stupid.
>> Anonymous
except the wheels don't have independent power and it;s the forward force acting on the shape of the wings that causes the lifting force
>> Anonymous
since I heared about this so called myth I asked myself how anyone could really believe it could take off.

OP is stupid:
is it the wheels that let a plane take off ?
no ! think about wings, faggot.

of course, you, OP, are a troll.
but it had to be said nevartheless
>> Nomnom-kun
>>1016040

Firstly, the op's logic is flawed and retarded. "then that would infact cause the plane to move forward" Not on a treadmill anymore kthxbai

Secondly, the plane does not lift because of the speed at which the wheels roll, it lifts because of the air flow around it's wings!

An airplane suspended on a vertical rail in a wind tunnel will lift, because the shape of the wings cause turbulence that forces it upwards.

An airplane on a treadmill has no speed in relation to the air around it (in fact the airplane has no speed at all, only the wheels and the tread do). Thus there is no turbulence that causes any lift.
>> Anonymous
If you had a treadmill the length of a runway, a plane would be able to take off from it just as easily as solid ground, because all of the thrust comes from the jets, not the wheels. Anyone should be able to understand that.
>> Anonymous
I watch Mythbusters too.
>> Anonymous
>>1016152

well done sir
(>>1016147)
>> Anonymous
who fucking cares


hahaha
>> Anonymous
penis.
>> Nomnom-kun
cock.
>> Anonymous
>>1016153

The vast majority of people are utterly incapable of grasping that, which is why it's such a fucking unbelievable topic. I can understand it in the .9~ = 1 and Car-Goat-Switch riddle threads, but with these it's mindblowing the number of people who can't get it.
>> Anonymous
>>1016152
>>1016147

fags failed to see its the turbines on the plane that creates the forward drag and the wings only creates the upward lift.
>> Anonymous
>>1016040
congratulations, youve watched mythbusters!
>> i hate you retards
>>1016136
>>1016143
>>1016147
>>1016152
i have had enough.
THE WHEELS DO NOT EFFECT THE TAKE OF IN ANYWAY!
FUCKING WATCH IT MAYBE THEY CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU RETARDS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9STo3fjfGg
>> Anonymous
I would have have an easier time agreeing with you calling a lot of people idiots if you didn't write like one.
>> i hate you retards
>>1016182
atleast someone is smart
>> i hate you retards
>>1016188
I fail to see how i am writing like an idiot. i have far more advanced grammar skills than many in this place
>> Anonymous
>>1016136
>>1016143
>>1016147
>>1016152
haha retards are retards
everyone knows that it will take off.
>> i hate you retards
>>1016198
yay! one more who can understand basic plane construction
>> Anon
Anyone who thinks the plane won't take off is fucking stupid.
>> i hate you retards
>>1016136
>>1016143
>>1016147
>>1016152

Well, you CAN'T MAKE THE PLANE STATIONARY with a conveyor belt. That's the whole point. The propeller drives it forward, regardless of the wheels. The conveyor belt does nothing to hold the plane back. It just turns the wheels. & sence the wheels are not apart of the power train it would have no effect on the movement of the plane nor that ability of the plane to take off.
boo-yah.
>> A-non-e-moose
+1 zing.
Take that George Washington!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I LIKE TRAINS! TRAINS MOVE ON THEM THANGS RIGHT!?
>> Anonymous
wow. people need to graduate fucking highschool.
basic physics people!!! the plane would most definitely take off.
>> Nomnom-kun
>>1016185

In fact, you have opened my eyes. The truth of this myth is in fact that it is stupid. I will not take 15 minutes to write why, but basically there are two possibilities answers to this myth.

If you are right, the force of the jet engines/propellers will push the plane forward, as the thrust is delivered against the air rather than through the wheels.

In this situation, the plane will not be static anymore, and it runs off the treadmill. If you have a long enough treadmill it might lift off, but that is just like lifting off from any movable area (like a carrier ship, and thats obviously possible). I do not agree that this is what the myth is about, but you may disagree.

The second possible answer is that by making the treadmill match the speed of the airplane it can be kept static. In this situation no upward thrust can be generated, and the myth is correct.

I'll be quite honest and say that I do not know which is correct. What I do know is that the mythbusters cocked that one up rather badly.
>> Nomnom-kun
>>1016213

In fact, the reason this myth is so widely contested is that it is so badly defined. I believe the original myth was intendet to be along the lines of "can an airplane that runs at take-off speed but is kept static by a conveyor belt take off".

Since, everyone seem to have their own version. It is no wonder we can't agree since we are not talking about the same myth.
>> i hate you retards
>>1016224
well the plane would not be static in the second scenario
the wheels are independent of the power train
therefore the plane would move forward with assistance from the propeller of the jet engin
>> Anonymous
nobody ever seems to understand the confusion...

the confusion isn't that the wheels moving affects the ability of the plane to get to speed and take off.

the confusion is that some idiot once told some other idiot that the plane won't lift off just because the wheels are moving...

if you put a plane on a treadmill, and the belt is moving at liftoff speed, nothing will happen. Of COURSE, if you turned on the turbines, it would accelerate the plane to takeoff speed, and it would lift off...
there's no debate or confusion there.

the original "myth" was that the plane won't hover just because the wheels move fast enough.
this is also indisputable fact.

jeesus, guys, everyone understands what goes on here on 4chan by now, they just get confused by the wording you jackasses use to describe the situation.

FUCK
>> Anonymous
>>1016224The second possible answer is that by making the treadmill match the speed of the airplane it can be kept static. In this situation no upward thrust can be generated, and the myth is correct.

the thing is... the plane will just continue to accelerate until the air along the wings lifts the plane, or resistance in the wheels becomes too great and they fall off.
>> Anonymous
>>1016231"can an airplane that runs at take-off speed but is kept static by a conveyor belt take off"

if this were the myth, the answer would be that the plane cannot be kept static by a conveyor belt. the thrust is independant of the wheels, and therefore the conveyor belt.
the belt would have to spin at 1/0 speed to keep the wheels from moving off of it.
>> Anonymous
plane would fall off the front of the treadmill and therefor not fly

/thread
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
So...you don't believe in magic?
>> Anonymous
To explain on the level of a retard. An aircraft on a treadmill, no matter if it has a fucking jetengine or whatever as a source of acceleration, will not take off as long as it doesn't move forward. If the engines makes the aircraft move forward at 60 mph and the treadmill is at 60 mph that sums up to zero. Zero is not going to make anything lift.
>> Anonymous
think about it.

as soon as the jet engines fire, the plane will move forward, and the wings will hit the arms of the treadmil.

so it won't take off.
>> Anonymous
>>1016397

Yup. Definitely an explanation coming from the mouth of a retard. Right on. I loled at you.
>> Anonymous
>>1016397
Wrong. You are an idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>1016397

protip: the wheels move as fast as necessary as a byproduct of friction. the engines make the plane move forward and when the plane moves forward the wheels will be spinning faster than the treadmill. plane takes off
>> Anonymous
>>1016153

So where does the LIFT come from...
>> Anonymous
>>1016152

The OP is saying it's NOT the damn wheels. Oh dear god.
>> Anonymous
Any thrust the plane provides from it's engines will immediately counteract the opposing force that the conveyor belt provides. Because forward motion is derived from air being drawn in through a vacuum and shoved out with great force rather than through wheels spinning along the surface, any forward thrust from the plane's propeller or jet engine would be forward motion relative to the air. The wheels are irrelevant.
>> Anonymous
>>1016459
Exactly, its the same situation as if the plane were magnetically levitated above the ground.
>> Anonymous
Discussing the mechanics of this is for 10-year olds? Wow stay in school.
>> Anonymous
ok i think there is a disconnect on the logic here. the people saying it will take off are assuming the treadmill is only matchng the speed that the wheels are being propelled by any sort of engine. wheels may only move 15 mph, so the treadmill will run at 15 mph. but as the engines start, and the plane speeds up, will the treadmill speed up as well, to match the now greater speed of the wheels? thats the question. if the track does not keep up, the plane will take off due to the imbalance of speeds. if the track does keep up, then the increased velocity will be canceled out, and the plane wont move, therefore no air being passed over, therefore no flight.

you're all fucking idiots for not understanding the two different sides
>> Anonymous
A plane can not take of from a tredmill because a plane doesn't even fit on a tredmill
>> Anonymous
The wheels are the power, how do you think it moves forward?
>> Anonymous
>>1016476
It doesn't matter how fast the treadmill turns, there's no way (in this idealized case) for any of the force to be transfered to the plane.

If the treadmill speeds up the plane's wheels spin faster, but no lateral forces are transferred from the treadmill to the plane, so the thrust produced from the plane's engines is not canceled out by anything and the plane goes forward. It's easier to visualize if you replace the wheels with imaginary frictionless point sources of contact.
>> Anonymous
>>1016487
Or oiled babies.
>> Anonymous
omg you guys are still at it, here's a simpler explanation:

planes = turbine/propeller/jet = gets drive from air = NOT relative to the ground.

cars = engine power transfer to the wheels = gets drive from the friction between the tyres and the road = VERY relative to the ground.

tl;dr planes =/= cars
>> Anonymous
too stupid*
>> Anonymous
The whole "plane on a treadmill" question has been twisted from its original intent. The "plane on a treadmill" idea is a visual way of asking the following question :

If a plane is generating enough forward thrust to provide enough forward velocity to achieve takeoff and an equal but opposite force is opposing the forward thrust, causing the plane to be stationary, will the plane take off?

The answer: No. Although the plane has enough thrust to take off, there is no air moving under the wings. A plane lifts off due to a difference in pressure above and below the wings. If there is high pressure below the wings and low pressure above them, the plane can lift off. In order to get this pressure difference, air must be moving above and below the wings, which is not happening since the plane is stationary.

TA FUCKING DA!

In other words the "plane on a treadmill" is a perfect example of someone who reads too much into the analogy and not the question itself.
>> Anonymous
>>1016508
You're an idiot and that was never the point at all.
>> Anonymous
>>1016513
Yes, I think your alternate point that you definitely gave was much more compelling.
>> Anonymous
a plane can take off on a treadmill the size of its normal takeoff length: true

a plane can take off on a treadmill only as long as the plane: false

"will it take off?": no the wings hit the things holding up the console
>> Anonymous
>>1016508
Planes don't fly due to the pressure difference, that's a side effect of all the air that's coming off their wings and going downwards.

Still, your post is probably correct. A better choice would have been a plane with sleds instead of wheels, because wheels completely change how the problem works and a clever/over-thinking student will solve this problem differently than a lazy one.

Even better would have been a plane on the edge of a cliff, held back by a cable that goes over a pulley and is attached to a weight that pulls down with exactly as much force as the engines provide.
>> Anonymous
>>1016527
try flying a plane with wings that have a rectangular cross section
>> Anonymous
If they really wanted to cause headache they would have used a Channelwing plane.

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/index.html
>> Boros !9kbJjvwmwE
It was a poorly worded thought experiment.

from what i gathered, the airplane would have a velocity of 0 relative to the ground at all times, which, if true, wouldn't allow it to take off.

You seem to be quite smug about your very fragile interpretation of the question.
>> Anonymous
>>1016508

you retard, how can the treadmill produce "an equal but opposite force is opposing the forward thrust" of the turbine?

A better question would be: will a plane take off when placed in a wind tunnel, when the tail is facing the fan.
>> Anon
Here is the easiest way for simpletons to understand how this actually works: Put on a pair of rollerblades. Stand on a treadmill and turn it on max while holding on to the front of the machine. Pull yourself forward. ZOMG FUCKING MAGIC.
>> Anonymous
>>1016527

How is it possible that heavy airplanes (some
weighing almost half a million pounds) are able
to be supported by air high above the ground?

Because of the shape of the wings, the air
under the wings pushes up more than the air
on top of the wings pushes down. This difference
in air pressure is called LIFT. What's
really amazing is why this happens. If we
look at an airplane's wing from the side, we
can see that it is a special shape called an
airfoil.

As airplanes fly, air is pushed above and
below their wings. The air passing over the
wing reaches the back of the wing at the same
time as the air passing under the wing. The air
moving over the wing - which has further to
travel around the curved surface - has to go
faster than the air moving underneath.

Air that moves slowly (the air going under
the wing) creates MORE pressure than air that
moves quickly (the air going over the wing).
This creates LIFT.
>> Anonymous
>>1016563
No, the air over the top isn't forced to meet up with the air traveling under.

See http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html
>> Anonymous
turbine engine make plane move...
tredmill make wheels roller faster...
plane takes off...
wheels stop spinning...
plane still flies...

Kronk wonders why?
>> Anonymous
you do not understand simple aerodynamics.
>> Anonymous
You're all retarded. The plane has a minimum takeoff velocity. Because of shitty wording and your inability to consider all possible scenarios, let me play it out for you. Assume the treadmill is held at a constant speed. If the plane is powered (yes, using its engines) to go the same speed as the treadmill, it will have a groundspeed and airspeed of zero. No lift occurs, no flight occurs. If the engines are further throttled up to counter the treadmill as well as gain enough forward velocity (assuming the engines have the kind of capacity to exceed their maximum power since they are pretty much at max during takeoff) then there will be sufficient lift and subsequent flight. Now, other scenario, assume the treadmill can be adjusted to exactly counter the forward momentum of the aiplane. Again, no airspeed, no lift, no flight.
>> Anonymous
Mythbusters proved the plane can take off of a moving tread mill
>> Anonymous
I didn't see that episode but now I really want to. Still though, the only way it's possible is if the plane was able to move itself faster than the treadmill (completely plauisble). If the treadmill goes at 50mph and the minimum takeoff speed is 150mph, the plane must propel itself at 200mph in order to take off. That's the only way. Physics, bitch.
>> Anonymous
>>1016622
They did it wrong.
>> Anonymous
Having been through pilot training, I can tell you why the treadmill won't work.

The planes I fly have a takeoff airspeed of 75 knots. This represents the amount of air flowing over the wings, so the tires rolling has no effect on this. This is why the Navy is smart enough to have catapults to throw the planes forward.
>> Anonymous
>>1016633
No, you're just an idiot.
>> Anonymous
YOU'RE ALL WRONG

THE PLANE WON'T TAKE OFF BECAUSE THE WINGS WILL SMASH AGAINST THE TREADMILL'S SUPPORTS THERE
>> Anonymous
Something was troubling me earlier, but now it's been corrected.

1. In a perfect world, the wheels on the airplane would be frictionless. That means that when the treadmill starts and accelerates, the plane does not move at all. This, then, would be just like the rocketeer movie, where the rocket can push the pickup regardless of the car engine.

However, the confusion here is about what actually visually happens. In a frictionless world, the treadmill cannot counteract the velocity gained from engine thrust, no matter how fast it is spinning. So the plane will zoom down a treadmill just like a runway somewhat faster than normal because of the absence of friction from the wheels. Of course it will lift.


However, in the real world, the speed of the treadmill does matter, but the engine governing the wheels need not be running. A treadmill spinning insanely fast will create enough friction in the wheel mechanism to prevent certain real engines from gaining enough acceleration to take off. In fact, the airplane can actually fall off backwards into the set of weights behind it while the other more experienced planes laugh and continue their random height stamina routine while the jets increase the reps on their deadlifts.
>> Anonymous
Oh yeah

2. ...
3. Profit
>> Anonymous
>>1016617
>>1016631

No. The speed of the treadmill has no effect on the plane, because there is no lateral force transfered between the treadmill and the plane. If the treadmill clockwise at 100 rpm, then the planes wheels spin counter-clockwise at some fixed ratio of that, and that is all.
>> Anonymous
god i hate people so much. It will only work with propellers because they will move air over the wings.
>> Anonymous
false, frictional forces will cause the plane to move backward somewhat
>> Anonymous
The real question is (which shouldn't be the real question) "can a plane take off if stationary relative to a fixed point?"

Assuming the plane isn't stationary along the Y-axis, the answer is yes, if someone is standing in front blowing hard enough.
>> Anonymous
Just to reiterate, without friction, it would be like the treadmill is not even there (leaving the plane in the air, in which case duh), even if it spins faster than the speed of light.
>> Anonymous
Honestly, an easier way to think about this issue is a comparison with a kite or glider. If you're running on a treadmill and "dragging" a kite along, it's not going anywhere since you're not moving through the air. It's not about how fast you run, per-say, it's about moving *through* the air. The whole point of the treadmill is that it allows something/one to create the illusion of moving forward while they remain effectively stationary.
>> deleted
"The real question is (which shouldn't be the real question) "can a plane take off if stationary relative to a fixed point?"

Assuming the plane isn't stationary along the Y-axis, the answer is yes, if someone is standing in front blowing hard enough"
I fucking love that guy^
that was the dirtiest thing ever said in relation to airplanes
anyways

the plane can only take off from the treadmill if it DOES A BARREL ROLL!!
>> Anonymous
okay ultimate explanation:

think of the extreme, ideal example:
treadmill runs at the speed of infinity and wheels of the plane may turn at the speed of infinity, there is no friction while turning the wheels.

now you can hold a plane on the treadmill. you don't need to be strong for it because the treadmill doesn't transfer any force to the plane. in fact it would just stand there while the wheels and the threadmill run at the speed of infinity. it's only the wheels that are turned. now you can move the plane forward. move it forward fast and long enough and it takes off. now think you hand is a jet turbine or propellor attached to the plane.
>> Anonymous
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode97

END OF DISCUSSION

FUCKING RETARDS
>> Anonymous
sage imo

plane takes off
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
ROLLING FRICTION < SLIDING FRICTION
That's where the myth comes from. Case closed.
>> Anonymous
Are you retarded? If you're talking about Mythbusters, the plane was moving faster than the tarp = it was moving, you blind fuck
>> Anonymous
>>1016749
No shit, dumbfuck. The whole point was that the tarp did not prevent the plane from taking off, nor did it even change the take-off distance.
>> Anonymous
Think of a hovercraft on a river. the river flows at 10mph and the hovercraft has a top speed of 10mph. the hovercraft is pointing upstream and fires up its engines.

now how many fucktards actually think the hovercraft stays stationary compared to someone on the bank of the river?
>> Anonymous
it takes off.

please become an hero if you think otherwise.
>> Anonymous
>>1016138

Yeah, I saw Idiocracy too.
>> i hate you retards
>>1016483
The power comes from the engine!! FAGGOT NOT THE FUCKING WHEELS!!
>> AnotherAnon
Don't feed the trailer trash trollfag. But I do need to say one thing to OP:

>>1016040
'hopfully' 'infact' 'lets' 'its' 'givin'. If you're trying to educate us, be educated yourself.
'NAO GOB2HIGHSCHOOL'? NO U
>> Anonymous
I'm not a expert on this matter but when looking at the video of mythbusters the plane is moving forward (surely we can agree to that)? This means the forward force from the engine is greater than the backward force of the treadmill (or tarp in this case). This sort of defeats the purpose of the myth as the forward force (engine) needs to equal the backward force (the treadmill) for the plane to be in a fixed position i.e. stationary/not moving (which is clearly not the case in the video). This explains why the plane is able to take off as the forward propulsion of the engine is greater than the backward force of the tarp meaning the plane was able to accelerate and take off.
>> i hate you retards
>>1016932
You're yelling at me for a few forgotten apostrophes & a few letters? "U" are no better your self.
>> i hate you retards
>>1016953
the backwards force of the treadmill was exactly proportional to the forward force of the wheels
>> Anonymous
>>1016960
proportional does not mean equal. So it possible for the engine's propulsion to be greater than the treadmill's opposite and still be proportional. To make this fit the idea the proportion should be a factor of 1 otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.
>> Anonymous
>>1016955
Aaaaaaw.. Now you've gone and hurt the kid! -_-
>> Anonymous
You fucking idiots.

Lift is generated by AIR SPEED not GROUND SPEED.

THe fucking treadmill could be going at 5000mph and the plane wouldn't take off because it would still have 0 air speed.

If the airplane generates enough air speed by defeating the treadmill, then it will take off. However, the wings would promptly be sheared off by the uprights and etc etc.

You guys are fucking morons. God.
>> i hate you retards
>>1016968
thats the point. the engine is a variable.
once started up it will cause more push forward. even if the treadmill is moving 60 Mph & the engine was outputting a speed that is equal to 60 Mph the plane would still move forward because the planes wheels are not apart of the power tran
>> Anonymous
The thing that always cracks me up is this:

If it really worked, why haven't they incorporated this in airports?
>> Anonymous
OMG YOU FAGGOTS, LIFT CANNOT BE GENERATED BY GROUND SPEED ALONE.

It MIGHT work if you had two blowers on each side of the plane as well that increased volume as the plane picked up speed, in order to generate enough lift over the foils of the wings.

It's the same concept as blowing on a car to make it go faster. It just has nothing to do with the car's drivetrain.
>> Anonymous
You gotta be pretty fucking stupid to think it would take off.
I never understood the fascination since the answer is pretty fucking obvious.
>> Anonymous
>>1016749

If the plane was moving faster, then the take-off distance wouldn't have been the same as it was without the moving tarp, because it would have taken longer to accelerate enough to compensate for the moving tarp. Therefore, the tarp had no effect on the take-off of the plane.

Dumbfuck.