How smart is /b/?
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
How smart is /b/?
There's gonna be two sides, and each will think the other are degenerate dropouts
No air resistance, duh.
The answer is yes, but i wanna hear you neckbeards argue
>>713914723
this
>>713914535
i want to see where this is going...
>>713914535
George Washington
No, the speed needed to take off is relative to the speed of the air around the aircraft. Unless having a runway sized conveyor belt created some weird wind tunnel effect
You open with it is sitting on a conveyor belt. That would mean it is not moving, so no, it could not take off.
>>713914661
gr8 b8 m8. hope that wasn't a serious comment
>>713914535
Yeah but it has to be a bit windy
>>713914535
>imagine plane on a moving platform
Everytime.
this is an older one
>aged like a fine wine
Answer is yes. Wind resistance will be generate no matter what. The belt can match the speed of the plane, but there will still be the air pressure that goes through which will allow lift.
>>713914999
This isn't a car, the wheels don't drive the plane forward. Thrust of the engines do. If the plane was stationary with no thrust, and the belt was moving backwards, the wheels would spin but the plane wouldn't move.
The answer is no. You need airflow over and under the wings to create lift. If the plane's not moving relative to the air, it won't do a damn thing.
>lrn2bernoulli
something something something wheels dont move the plane.
>>713914803
/gd/ detected.
>>713915355
>>713914535
the planes thrust comes from it's engines, not it's wheels.The conveyor belt would have no effect other than to make the wheels spin faster than normal. the plane would still take off.
>>713915409
and even general discussion.
>>713915464
Winner
>>713915312
If the plane's engine was off and it was on a platform that moved backward the plane would move backward
>>713914535
Pretty sure the velocity will be zero. The plane is essentially not moving, and therefore static.
>>713915464
If the platform constantly matches the speed of the wheels, the plane would remain still.
>>713915623
Lol no, the wheels have no effect on the planes movement. This isn't a car, they would just spin
>>713915464
but lift is generated by air pressure differential on the wings, which comes from veliocity.
>>713914535
it doesn't matter how fast the wheels have to move because thats not how jet engines work
/thread
No. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking idiot.
>>713915464
What you need to understand is that speed is relative. The plane will have zero velocity, and even if the engine's thrust does increase, the situation states that the conveyor belt will match the speed, thus it will not move and create enough lift.
>>713915859
/thread
>>713915773
this....
/thread
If it's possible, why don't we do it every day with aircraft carriers?
Of course the military would know the answer to this, which is an obvious no.
>>713915464
wrong, there's no air moving over the wings because it's not moving, so no lift is generated.
>>713915947
the conveyer belt will match the speed of the wheels. jetliners don't generate velocity from movement of wheels.
>>713915761
>>713915773
>>713915414
lol this thread is hilarious
>>713915882
lol says the idiot
>>713915859
It does matter how fast the wheels have to move because the plane has to move forward to lift off. If no matter how much thrust was sent to the engines the plane remained in one position it could not lift off. It wouldn't gain any speed
>>713915312
Exactly
>>713916171
This was posted on /b/ earlier today, and i thought like you. but the answer is yes, you have to differentiate your mind from how cars generate movement (from rotation of wheels) vs how planes generate movement (thrust of engines).
you're a fucking idiot. obviously not but the wheels are what cause the plane to move on the ground, and while it's still on the ground and the conveyer belt will watch the speed of the plane, the resulting velocity is zero.
My amazing autistic skills
It doesn't matter if the plane generates movement from its engines if it's still grounded with the wheels on the conveyor belt. FUCK THIS IS TRIGGERING
>>713916452
facepalm. I'm pretty sure we're all being trolled at this point, but just in case: No, it doesn't matter how the plane generates forward velocity in this case, because the conveyor negates it. Without air moving over the wings at high speed you don't get lift. Since the plane is not moving at all there is no air moving over the wings, so lift, i.e. it does not take off.
>>713916694
>FUCK THIS IS TRIGGERING
I'm pretty sure that is the point
Med, pilot, engineerfag here. I've done two tours as a green beret and have 57 confirmed kills.
The weight of the 747 would collapse and snap the conveyor belt because it weighs as much as a 747 and you put it in a fucking conveyor belt. Fragments from the belt would be sucked into the engines causing a fiery explosion.
Therefore fill the plane with niggers, kikes and liberals.
Short answer no it would fly.
Has no one in here watched Mythbusters?
>>713916827
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo
How can the wings generate lift without airflow? The thing is going to sit still.
>>713916827
sure kid. Why don't you go hop in your 4 ferraris and head down to the gym where you bench press 4000lbs before fucking 4 super models because you clearly don't belong here with us losers.
>>713916710
Lol you're so wrong it's funny
>>713916694
>get skateboard (or other small thing with free spinning wheels)
>get treadmill
>put skateboard on treadmill
>put hand behind skateboard w/o touching the tread
>increase speed of treadmill
let us know at what speed the treadmill is going when it is too hard for you to keep the skateboard in place
protip: it will never be moving too fast for you to hold the skateboard in place
that is because the wheels, like the wheels on an airplane, are free spinning
the only thing keeping the wheels from spinning faster is the friction on the bearings
and that doesn't slow down the wheels until they are spinning about 10,000 rotation per second
>>713914535
if the speed of the belt always matches the wheels, even though the engine is what controls propulsion as the wheel begin to turn the belt would match the speed. Therefore the plane could never get enough airflow over its wings to create the appropriate amount of lift. Interesting enough, thought, the plan could land on the belt and not need a long runway...new technology for our aircraft carriers?
found all the arguments summed up https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/
>>713917084
trololololol
>>713917123
"So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels. Of course, this being the internet, there’s also a #4 crowd loudly arguing that even if the plane was able to move, it couldn’t have been what hit the Pentagon."
>>713915745
If you want to think like an engineer the plane is unconstrained along the x-axis. It is constrained along the y-axis in that y can't be negative.
That it's on a conveyor belt doesn't mean dick.
>>713916302
>It does matter how fast the wheels have to move because the plane has to move forward to lift off. If no matter how much thrust was sent to the engines the plane remained in one position it could not lift off. It wouldn't gain any speed
DID YOU KNOW A PLANE CAN ACCELERATE AND DECELERATE IN MID AIR?????????? NO WHEELS NEEDED
>>713917100
Wrong 2 times in 1 post
>>713917299
kek
>>713915254
>not moving
>no air resistance
>>713917432
the plane might not be moving but the engines create a lot of airflow. The engines are on the side wings and push an enormous force of air towards the back of the plane. As soon as the pilot puts the flaps on the tailwings up, the plane will take off at a high speed
>>713917123
thank god someone finally dug this up. it's a nonsensical conundrum meant to create nonsensical arguments, like what happens if your wish for a meseeks is for it not to die
>>713917096
thank you anon
>>713917696
While you're right that the plane will take off, this has to be one of the dumbest things in the thread.
>you are awarded no points
>may god have mercy on your soul
>>713918008
think of me when mythbusters try it and i was right all along
>>713917300
how do you figure?
>>713914535
Depends. How motivated is the plane to lose weight? Is it doing it to impress a girl plane or does it actually want to improve itself?
>>713917299
When the plane is in the air it has already reached a certain speed relative to the ground. It can increase or decrease at will. To take off, a plane must reach that speed (let's just say 500 mph) relative to the ground to get enough airflow around the wings to generate lift. The plane is sitting on its wheels on the ground--the wheels don't generate any force themselves they're there to reduce friction. If no matter how hard the plane generates forward force the platform matches, it is never moving forward. It's relative speed is 0. The wind speed is 0. The lift is 0. If the plane is going 500 mph forward and still on the platform that is going 500 mph backward, the wheels are going ridiculously fast but the plane is stationary relative to the ground that isn't the moving conveyor belt.
Put your car in neutral.
Put your car on a treadmill
On the top of your car is a giant rocket engine
The treadmill is designed to match the speed of the wheels on your car, which is still in neutral
On the end of the treadmill is a brick wall
>do you ignite the rocket?
>>713914535
needs airflow over the wings to takeoff, so no
>>713918720
Put your car in neutral with a rocket engine and NO TREADMILL.
I'll give you 1 million dollars if you can make it fly
>>713918869
With enough thrust you can make anything fly...
Answer is yes
>The wheels spin
>Engines generate thurst
>Plane moves forward anyway
>Generates lift
>Flies
>>713918784
An anon mentionned that the engines are on the sidewings and the giant air pressure made by the engines goes to the back-wings where you need air pressure to build for liftoff
>>713918940
Why doesnt my dick fly when i fuck your gf really really hard then?
>>713919127
>because I don't have a gf
>>713918940
that is what my girlfriend tells me when she wants it rough
>>713919231
yea. you should give her wings and push her off a building
>>713914535
Yes.
There is no answer because the question itself doesnt make any fucking sense.
>>713915464
The planes thrust comes from its engines but lift comes from air moving over the wings. If no air moves over the wings because the convayor matches the thrust of the engines, lift won't occur.
Imagine a wing with a fan underneath it, the fan is stationary, the wing is stationary, the fan is creating air moment, but only on one side of the wing. Lift will not occur because there is no restrictions between the top and bottom.
Thus is the configuration of the 747 on a conveyor belt.
>>713920266
best answer
>>713915645
Technically yes, there is no displacement, just the belt looping. But the wheels do move, however at a speed to match the conveyor belt. No matter how fast tbe belt moves and the wheels rotate, the plane won't move in a positive or negative direction due to the wheels matching the speed and there is no lift being produced.
>>713916001
There's displacement on those. They use slingshots to catapult planes off deck at or near take-off speed. Unless you mean something like a harrier or f35 which can do vtol but that's a jet engine's thrust being directed downwards.
>>713914535
the answer is complicated.
if the conveyor belt is somehow magically preventing forward motion of the aircraft then Vr (rotation speed) can not be achieved and it will not fly
assuming we live in the real world, the aircraft will overcome the conveyor and takeoff, provided the conveyor is long enough to be a suitable runway.
the confusion lies in the fact that the rules are kinda vague
do any of you understand the venturi effect which is pretty much how the plane generates lift. the plane will not take off if it is not moving forward on said runway. to generate lift there needs to be air rushing over the wings, this creates a low pressure zone above the wing and as we know high pressure always moves towards low pressure. therefore the higher pressure below the wing pushes up towards the lower pressure above the wing
>>713914535
Depends on how much rolling friction force is generated by the tires on the conveyor belt, and how much thrust force is generated by the engines; until you know these two things, you cannot know for sure whether or not the plane will be able to take off or not.
>>713921432
it's the Bernoulli effect , but you arent wrong
>>713918981
>sidewings
>backwings
>liftoff
you're so fucking stupid
>>713921753
ah i stand corrected.
>>713915355
This.
Unless the engine placement is in front of the wing, or the aircraft has some airflow over the wings it won't take off
If any of you truly believe the plane won't take off, you should probably study up on your mechanics (aka basic physics) but considering the place where I am on the internet right now... I guess it only makes sense
>>713918981
Holy fuck dude, take a course in aerospace or something
>>713915947
At this point I don't know who is trolling and who is just stupid or both.
>>713918981
don't ever try to be a pilot
The conveyor belt could be moving backwards at warp 8, and if the pilot even gave the slightest power to the engines, the plane would creep forward. People think of this in terms of cars. Planes aren't cars. They move forward from the engines, not power to the wheels. The wheels are essentially in neutral.
>>713914535
It's a stupidly worded question and impossible to answer as stated.
The conveyor cannot "match" the speed of the wheels because it dictates the speed of the wheels. If, somehow, you managed to have some sort of system to match the speed of the wheels moving across the conveyor, you'd create a feedback look and the wheels would accelerate up to infinite RPM, or at least until the bearings melted or the tires exploded.
The question should be asked in terms of the conveyor matching the FORWARD SPEED of the aircraft. IE, aircraft rolling forward at 10mph, conveyor moving backward at 10mph. Aircraft accelerates to 15, conveyor accelerates to match.
The plane will still take off. The wheels and conveyor may as well be considered a completely separate system.
For those of you too retarded to grasp simple concepts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY
>2/8 for making me have to go find this.
>>713914535
No. Lift is generated by the air passing around the wings. If the plane is stationary with respect to the environment no lift will be generated.
>>713922893
*Feedback loop, not look
>>713922964
>If the plane is stationary with respect to the environment
>>713914535
The plane would not take off because there is no fucking airflow over the wings since the conveyor belt keeps it stationary, you fucking mongloids.
>>713922893
Engineer?
Or just really smart?
/BSME
>>713914535
Spinning wheels isn't what makes the plane leave the ground you fucking retard. It's speed and air resistance
>>713914535
yes it will take off because the thrust of the jet engines is completely independent of the spinning of the wheels, the wheels are only there for taxiing and rolling down the runway, the plane will move forward whether its on a conveyor belt or not, most likely if the conveyor belt matches the wheels then the plane will move forward off the conveyor belt without the wheels spinning much.
>>713923221
I barely made it through high school. Just an aviation nut.
>>713914535
Myth busters has done this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY
>>713920902
The only problem is the conveyor belt said it would match speed. In this imaginary scenario the conveyor belt could reach 1,000,000 rpm, imposing serious wheel friction (reverse thrust) and overcome engine thrust
>>713923621
they fucked it up though
Airplane wheels =/= car wheels.
A car engine (very basically) makes the wheels move.
Airplane wheels are just connected to sticks. Nothing powers them. The airplane moves forward because of those huge engine-type things on the wings. They're big fans that suck air in and blow it out the back (giggidy).
The air blowing backwards is what moves the plane. Because of that, the conveyor belt could be moving a million miles an hour, the plane will still move forward, because the wheels aren't attached to anything, and eventually take off because of the Bernoolee's effect.
Got me. 10/10 troll post.
>>713923374
You're a lazy fuck.
You've got the mindset of every good engineer I've ever met.
Don't waste that talent.
>>713923722
i've already covered that scenario. glad to see the reading comprehension is on point tonight.
>>713923841
Bernoulli's principle has far less effect on aerodynamics than textbooks make out; they use a lazy explanation that almost entirely ignores Newtonian physics.
>>713914535
This is not engineering matter but psychology: you're too lazy to read the whole problem terms.
The belt is moving in THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION so the speed of the plane is not nullified but doubled.
Anyway, even if the belt goes in the same direction, jetliners are not propelled by wheels.
Fasten the seatbelts, you bunch of idiots, your flight will take off soon.
>>713914535
Anyone can see that the conveyor isn't long enough. The plane will never gain enough speed in that short distance. The engines will thrust the plane forward and then it would just fall off of the front
>>713924183
>The belt is moving in THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION so the speed of the plane is not nullified but doubled.
>speed of the plane is doubled.
u wot m8
>>713923892
Well shit, now I feel bad. Thank you though.
Probably the best answer to this question, ever written:
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/
Pilot here, the plane will overcome the conveyor belt eventually (this is assuming the wheel bearings don't melt) and take off.
funny, the captcha was select images of airplanes
/thread.
>>713923346
> not understanding aerodynamics
> thinking engine thrust alone gets you off the ground in a linear direction
> being this brain dead
Seriously. Did you graduate high school?
>>713924340
Not joking. Draw it (with arrows...) and the answer will be clear m8!
>>713924792
Thrust (in this case) provides the forward motion to get airflow across the wings, and thus, lift.
>>713924935
I would love to hear your explanation of how a backward-moving conveyor belt will make a plane sitting on it go twice as fast.
....or did you mean make the WHEELS of the plane spin at twice the speed?
>>713916658
Mate, what the fuck is that
>>713924431
>Of course, this being the internet, there’s also a #4 crowd loudly arguing that even if the plane was able to move, it couldn’t have been what hit the Pentagon.
kek
>>713925042
Not in this case anon
These engines are located Below the wings, and thus get no air flow
I think myth busters did a great episode on This
Ok fags, I'm going to try and explain this clearly.
In practical terms, the plane CAN take off.
Pic related. Vw is the speed of the wheels relative to the ground. Vc is the speed of the conveyor and Vb is the speed of the bottom of the wheels.
The thrust from the plane comes from the engines and generates Vw which in turn, generates Vb. If Vc matches Vw, this just means that Vb is doubled, it does not stop the plane from moving forward.
Think of it like this, the wheels when a plane takes off are completely free spinning. They are essentially there to imitate the plane hovering in the air so it can move forward using the engine thrust because otherwise you would have a gargantual amount of friction to overcome. The engines draw in air and fire it out the back, that's basically how a jet works right? The conveyor can move as fast as you want it to, it won't change the fact that if the engine is pushing large enough volumes of air from infront of it to behind it, the plane will move forward because the spinning of the wheels is there to allow the plane to move forward, not to cause it to move foward. It just means the wheels are going to be spinning faster than normal. The only way it could
Or you can just go read the link that the other anon posted:
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/
And if you want to argue that the engines can be powered up but the plane not move because the breaks are on or something stupid like that, that's because of the introduction of FRICTION. The conveyor doesn't cause friction or at least not enough to stop the plane moving forward.
>>713926645
......what?
Are you implying that the engine on say, a prop plane, gives the wings lift?
The engines (regardless of type) provide thrust. Thrust moves and aircraft forward. Forward motion results in air across the wings. At a positive angle of attack and at the right speed, this results in flight. The treadmill has no bearing on this aside from a little bearing friction...
>>713918954
it can't move forward. The wheels will have to slip if that were the case.
>>713927437
this is literally the only reason why floatplanes can take off upriver
The annoying part of this thread is that there are both people dumb enough to think it would fly and people who enjoy being assholes in here.
>>713927695
and then there's you.
Standing there, ignoring all of the compelling evidence which completely disproves what you think is true.
>>713927437
Wrong. The plane most certainly can move forward.
see the diagram for >>713927088
With non slip tires, Vc must be equal to Vb.
Vs is the speed of the plane relative to the ground, not the treadmill.
For the plane to not move forward, then Vc must equal Vs.
If Vs=Vc and Vs=Vc+Vb then that means that Vc=Vc+Vb, which is physically impossible unless Vb is 0, Vb can only be 0 if the wheels aren't spinning.
>>713914535
"exactly match the speed of the wheels"
There you go. Since the wheels spin freely and there is no actual torque going through them that means that the conveyor belt will eventually reach infinity speed as it speeds up to match the wheels it actually powers the wheels spinning, on top of the pulling effect of the engines!
>>713914535
Depends if muh dick is in the way
>>713914535
Is the 747 of normal size or is it a quantum packet?
>>713914535
Yes. There are experiments and films proing it. Search mythbusters plane takeoff.
>>713924340
speed of wheels are doubled, the plane body doesn't actually move any faster.
>>713914535
No, the plane lifts due to the pull from the air moving around its wings due to a phenomenon called "portance", if the plane stands still compared to the air there is no lift and the plane can't take off
What if a bunch of dirty fuckers flatulate at once while on the airplane and create speed force?
>>713927658
Completely different scenarior.
The water going against the floats on the plane creates friction that pushes the plane back, counteracting the force generated by the prop engines going forward.
Because the wheels on the 747 are freespinning, the conveyor is not pushing the plane backwards at all, there is nothing counteracting the thrust of the engines.
If the jet engine were completely switched off, the plane would not move backwards because as the conveyor belt moved backwards, it would just be spinning the wheels, not moving the plane itself. The only way it would do anything is if the brakes were applied.
>>713914535
Yes, it's not the wheels which move it.
No, the wings need lift to get off the ground. The Plane would be moving in place but it would not create lift. No wind blows in your face when you run on a treadmill. I think it's possible for a plane to land on a treadmill though.
>>713914535
There has to be airflow around the wings to generate lift. If the plane stays in the same position relative to the ground then there will also be no airflow around the wings. The plane won't go anywhere.
FFS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY
Even a tiny fucking prop-job plane can do it, why are people still arguing?
>>713927141
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ul_5DtMLhc
It needs a flux capacitor
>>713914535
wheels don't fucking matter faggot
>>713925147
Wheels would need half of the energy needed to propel the plane enough to take off. Have you ever walked on that long treadmills in airports? That's the same.
>>713929082
>Even a tiny fucking prop-job plane can do it
>even
The smaller and lighter a plane is the easier it becomes for it to take of, you dumb shit. Just because some faggy ultra light plane can do something doesn't mean a commercial airliner can do the same.
>>713914535
It will but it shouldn't
>>713929609
The jet engines on a 747 generate a quartre of a million pounts of thrust. More than enough to overcome any negligible backwards forces from the conveyor.
And yes the backwards force from the conveyor is completely negligible because all it does is cause the wheels to spin, it doesn't cause the plane to move backwards.
The point is, the same physics apply regardless of plane size in the problem posed by OP. The plane could take off.
>>713929596
....wheels do not propel the plane.
>>713930219
You know what. You are right and I hate you for that.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY
>>713915464
Wrong
>>713915579
You're a fucking idiot.
Plane needs resistance to take off. No speed = no resistance you fucking plebeians.
>>713930219
>negligible backwards forces from the conveyor
The backward force is generate by the friction within the bearings of the wheels and their moment of inertia.
SNAP!
>>713930724
That plane is clearly moving, hence the conveyor belt is slower than the plane.
>>713916658
Your fucking drawing made me want to be a hero
>>713930835
Unless you have the fucking brakes on, the friction in the wheels is completely negligible because the thrust generated by the engines is more than enough to overcome it.
Did you even fucking read what I read? I never said there was no backwards force, I said that the backwards force is negligible. Nothing in your post disproves that, unless you can prove that the friction in the wheels is enough to negate 250,000lb of thrust, you're wrong.
>>713914535
Plane isn't propelled by wheels, they're pretty much in freespin, so the conveyor belt would have no effect on planes ability to gain speed and take off.
>>713930836
>That plane is clearly moving, hence the conveyor belt is slower than the plane.
Actually for this whole bullshit to work you'd need and conveyor who can reach a speed of infinity. Because that is where the speed of the wheels is going in that theoretical scenario.
There is also the question whether slippage is possible and friction will be considered.
>>713931071
>Did you even fucking read what I read?
Did you, dip. All I stated is where the backward force is actually generated.
>>713914535
Yes because the engine's power source is so hot it can even melt steel beams
>>713931323
The SNAP tends to imply you thought you'd proven me wrong. Given that I never stated there was no backwards force, by saying there was, you were basically just stating something that was pretty much irrelevant to the discussion unless you're trying to argue that the backwards force was actually something that would have any effect in the scenario.
Wow I'm so smart I know how to google:
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/
>>713914535
anyone think this could be used as a launcher/catapult?
>>713929082
ffs that clearly showed the belt did not move faster than the wheels, we are discussing with the condition that the planes wheels match conveyer speed making the planed stationary along the x axis. we are trying to figure out how to get plane an increasing y axis
>>713914535
But the plane wont take off because the pilot is a tomato
>>713933041
If that's what you're discussing then you're a fucking moron.
It is physically impossible for the plane to not move forward unless the wheels are slipping. The planes forward motion has nothing to do with the ground moving beneath it, it's caused by the air moving around it. The wheels would just spin twice as fast as they normally do.
Read the god damn thread, this has been explained more than once.
>how many kikes fit into the engine
>>713928009
There's compelling evidence that an airfoil can generate lift with no air flow?
>>713914535
>mfw wheels on the plane aren't powered by engines
>mfw the belt speed is therefore 0
>mfw even if the belt was spinning the plane wouldn't take off because wind would be still
>mfw the plane never flies as long as it stays still
>mfw some retards still thinks the plane is going to take off because of speed and not air flow
>mfw
The only way it wouldn't move is if the plane was mounted to the ground.
>>713933600
>>713933704
Guys seriously, plenty of people have explained that the plane WILL still move forward no matter how fast the conveyor moves.
Stop making fools of yourselves and try to refute the points being made. Nobody is arguing that the plane can take off without moving forward, the argument is pretty much whether or not it will move forward.
People here actually think if you roll a ball 5mph along a treadmill moving 5mph, that the ball will instantly stop when it touches the treadmill.
It'll still roll forward along the treadmill, it will just do it rotating twice as fast.
You can try this at home
>>713914535
Yes, this is how lift works
ITT: retards who don't understand planes make up stupid shit
