Lets see how smart /b/ is.
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.
Lets see how smart /b/ is.
>>707608261
No, because Steel is heavier than feathers
Yes, the plane uses jet engines so the thrust will be provided by them instead of the wheels
OP is a faggot.
This version of the question can actually be answered since you specify that the belt is as long as a runway.
Then the answer is yes.
No, you can clearly see on the drawing that the high-lift devices are off. The plane will never take off.
>>707608411
This
/thread
>>707608261
No.
Do you understand how a wing creates lift?
>>707608558
Found the nerd
>>7i hope this is bait
>>707608676
Found the nigger
>>707608558
Correct, next thread
>>707608261
Needs air to go under the wings, second to, the jets aren't powerful enough to just propel the plane into orbit. and sollow.
>>707608261
No because jet fuel can't melt steel beams
>>707608261
because the treadmill is stationary the plane would go past the end of it. also this is a logical fallacy.
>>707608411
If the belt is designed to always match the speed of the plane then the plane won't actually move. Since the plane doesn't move, the air around the wings doesn't move either, so no lift is generated. The plane can have more thrust than any other plane ever built but without lift it will never fly
>>707608261
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/
> The practical answer is “yes”.
> A 747’s engines produce a quarter of a million pounds of thrust.
> That is, each engine is powerful enough to launch a brachiosaurus straight up (see diagram).
> With that kind of force, no matter what’s happening to the treadmill and wheels, the plane is going to move forward and take off.
>>707608261
No, but it WOULD be interesting to see what would happen if you blew a wind turbine at it with a 200 mph wind speed, would it hover?
>>707609246
Agreeing with this guy.
>>707608261
Yes it can
A quick google search shows that the average speed it takes a plane to take off is 63mph. Once the wheels hit that speed, or roughly that speed since it's an average, it will take off. simple question is simple. #letmegooglethatforyou #doingyourhomeworkforyou #mootisacuck
show me a jumbo jet that is propelled forward by its wheels being driven, and you've got one that wont take off.
any other aircraft, the propulsion creates forward thrust regardless of the speed the wheels roll at. the only reason it might possibly not take off is if the wheels were unable to take the extra groundspeed, and tyres or hubs mechanically failed.
>>707608261
>>707608558
Yes, but how do they fly upside down then?
>>707608261
plane fell off, conveyor too short
>>707609637
in theory, yes.
would have to be a fucking huge blower - or more probably, several in a line.
>>707608261
air must be moving across the wings to produce lift. without lift the plane cannot take off.
>>707610067
> if the wheels were unable to take the extra groundspeed
Are you fucking retard ? That's why they're made for, no one would make a plane that can't do that.
>>707610081
by creating reverse lift with the ailerons.
>>707610081
ailerons
>>707610081
by using the ailerons, besides that image's wing is way to exaggerated.
Do ha reely wan see me liftin a plane?
I will jack it off THA land in a: "SINGLE COLT ACTION ARMY! U PRO BRO me sory newb soldit snake"
I think we need anodder spider hijacking thread..or maybe sugar us some good Supper Mon he better at saving flyin saucerz!
AMAZING GOIN OOOOOONNNN
>>707609246
>if the belt is designed to always match the speed of the plane then the plane won't actually move.
This isn't a car. The thrust comes from the jet engines, working against air. The engines don't drive the wheels. The plane will move forward and the wheels will just slip on their axles, not restraining the plane.
>>707608261
its a logical fallacy. physics say the wheels would just turn faster than the treadmill. but there is an arbitrary rule saying they cant.
>>707610594
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=64908&start=92
I love xkcd
>>707608261
Is the friction of the extra speed on the wheels enough to slow the plane to the point that it doesn't achieve lift? I'm going to pretend the answer is yes, since I'm not sure.
The plane throttles up for take off. The conveyor begins spinning. As the planes engines push it forward the conveyor accelerates to match speed. Soon the wheels are spinning at 600mph. They weren't designed for this. After a few minutes, the lubrication in the bearings is on fire. The bearings are really heating up and there are sparks flying everywhere. One of the bearings explodes, shooting a wheel off the runway and causing the plane to lurch sideways. This causes the other bearings to go almost immediately, dropping the plane to the ground, which is moving at 600mph. I hope there were no people on that plane.
>>707610344
jumbo jets takeoff speed is roughly 150 knots, or 173MPH.
if the treadmill's going back to match the speed, if its doing 5mph forward, the treadmill's also going back at that speed, even though it doesnt stop it moving forward. So the wheels are turning at 10mph. 100mph forward, wheels are doing 200. and so at 175, they're doing 350mph.
that is WAY above the maximum speed for landing, and that puts a huge amount of extra centripedal force on the tyres in particular, and the wheel hubs that are spinning far faster than designed.
the parts are designed with a big margin of error, but I honestly dont know if they're designed to be able to take a 350mph rotational speed - that's way outside their operational parameter in any normal use.
Fr-friction?
Some is horny here..
No there is no relative speed for the wings to the wind so no take off at all
This is why I hate the plane on a conveyor belt problem. How about this. I have 2 envelopes, 1 has twice as much money as the other. You pick one to open, and once you've opened it you're stuck with what you've got, but you're allowed to switch the envelope you choose however many times you want with the other. You pick an envelope. Do you switch it or not?
>>707608261
no, there is nobody piloting the plane
>>707610924
One of the issues with the space shuttle was the landing speed ... not because of wind or flight characteristic ... but because tires and wheels go from 0 to 225mph instantly ... then rools along at that speed. The whole process of landing and breaking at those speeds was a challenge for the materials designers.
225mph is only 30% more than the typical airliner landing speed. You're asking the gear/tires/wheels to hold up at 200% of the typical landing speed. Bad shit would happen.
>>707611233
No, the answer is 50/50 either way since no extra information is revealed. If there are 3 envelopes and once you pick one, one of the others is revealed to have less money, THEN you switch.
This was answered in a roosterteeth podcast by a real scientist.
Cmon man pickin envelops.. Buy your used cards.
Stop being lured by FLYING CAR-PETS
>>707611233
It doesn't matter they both got money, and if one doesn't have money 0x2 is still 0 so no lost.
Yes. Each of the four engines creates around 250,000 pounds of thrust, so assuming that none of them have failed, you'll reach rotation speed quite quickly.
>>707608261
The 747 generate forward momentum by using jet turbines on the wings. The wheels are not attached to motors. The wheels do not propel the aircraft forward. The plane would simply skip off the treadmill and then (assuming the pilot didnt stop to inspect the landing gear for damage) would continue forward.
The wheels and treadmill if perfectly matched would keep a car from moving forward, since the wheels generate momentum in a car, but a plane, or hovercraft, or rocketcar, etc that uses the atmosphere to generate momentum would not be deterred by the treadmill.
Doesn't matter, it'll just crash into the towers anyways.
>>707612715
a treadmill equivalent for a plane would be a wind tunnel, and then the plane would still achieve lift, it would just arrest forward momentum.
>>707608261
No one has yet mentioned the fact that the wheels don't have to move at all. You could leave the wheel brakes on, and the treadmill, with the wheels stuck to it, would move forward (ie in the opposite direction to a normal treadmill) until the plane reached takeoff speed and the plane pulls up and wheels leave the treadmill.
>>707608558
WRONG MOTHERFUCKER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY
>>707609246
dont forget that the belt will move the air above it, basically shove air into the plane's wings
if the experiment was done indoor, you could argue it being a windtunnel - yes, it depends how wide the belt is and such, but the factor is clearly there
So the conveyor matches the speed of the plane but in the opposite direction, so no movement at all?
/thread
>>707609246
Fucking nailed it bro.
I actually have an aviation techinicians license in power plants and airframes you could have said it better
>>707612869
Their conveyor was moving at a fixed speed though. We're discussing a conveyor that adapts and accelerates.
>>707609978
so youre basically telling me, on average, if i go faster than 63 mph with my car and open the doors, ill take off? or if you were able to run that fast on a treadmill you would float into space? cool story /b/ro
>>707612869
Except that, the plane obviously was not stationary in the video
>>707613158
Do you think the conveyor would destroy the landing gear?
![close-up-of-jet-engine-on-tarmac[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tsGNAah.jpg "close-up-of-jet-engine-on-tarmac[1].jpg")
>>707613067
This is what moves the plane. Not the wheels. If the treadmill matches the wheels they just spin faster, while air pressure pushes the plane forward. A plane doesnt even need wheels to take off. some of them have pontoons.
>>707613418
Wing shape + Bernoulli's principle = lift
>>707613570
im talking about even when the plane is stationary. as long as there's wind flowing over the plane, there will be lift
eventually the plane will gain vertical thrust even without any horizontal movement, like a windtunnel
>>707608360
Underrated post
>>707613539
That would depend on the landing gear and the conveyor
>>707608261
I would stomp on all the puppies in the entire fucking world for a million dollars
No the plane takes off because of lift. Lift is generated when the air going over the top of the airfoil shape of the wings moves slower than the air moving under the bottom of the wings creating a low pressure pocket on top of the wings and higher pressure pocket under the wings. The higher pressure pocket under the wings pushes up on the wings. No airflow means no lift. No lift means the aircraft is just on a treadmill with the wheels spinning and nothing else.
>>707613901
The landing gear of a 747, the conveyor going 400+ mph
if this was true then there would be no runways and the airplanes would just have a treadmill to take off on, ofcourse you can't take off its a fucking airplane not a helicopter, you ever see an airplane not moving forward or backwards and up/down in the air?
How much magma is in the plane?
No, the lift off fairies don't like moving ground.
>>707608480
but the speed of the plane will always be 0 so it cant take off
>>707614106
A 747's take off speed would only need a speed of roughly 170 mph to take off.
Assumming millions of dollars were spent on a treadmill big enough and fast enough to produce these speeds safely and support the wieght of a 747. Then I don't see any reason why it would break the landing gear.
Ofcourse thats all theory I'm sure they would break several 747's and treadmills by the time they got it to work just once.
Would the plane take off from the treadmill though?
No.
The treadmill and plane are all that exist. Gravity is negligible, plane takes off easily since by spinning the treadmill it adds rotational velocity to it and eventually it rotates off of it
>>707608261
yes, the plane turns 90 degrees, drives off the conveyor, then takes off on normal ground
>>707608261
no wind, no lift
>>707614606
ok, but what if the 747 just went full throttle and the conveyor accelerated to match speed?
The wheels are not conbected to anything. They can turn as fast as they want or stand still, it does not matter. So yes the plane can take off.
Fucking morons
Treadmill begins to move forward on the ground like a tank tread attached to the plane. The plane eventually generates enough lift to take off
>>707608817
Found the NEWFAG
>>707615435
found the summerfag
>>707610829
This
/thread
>>707608261
Yes the plane will take off because if jet fuel melts steel then it will melt the conveyor belt thus allowing the plane to touch the ground and accelerate and take off.
>>707613158
you should be fired for writing that
>>707615639
/ thread
Lift is generated by wind being pushed over and under the wings, correct? So while the plane would be moving in place on a conveyor, it would not have any relative wind on it. The point of the engines isnt to make the plane fly, but to give it enough speed to generate the relative wind on the wings.
Why are you guys even talking about this? The plane is not moving. It's not going to fly since no wind is going under and over the wings.
Do you feel a breeze when you run?
Do you feel a breeze when you run on a treadmill?
If this thing was in a wind tunnel it would achieve lift. But with no wind no lift no flight.
All you fags doing math, forgetting physics.
Are people stupid?
Teh engines provide the forward momentum, not the wheels, this is a plane not a car, the plane would drive along the conveyor and take off, the wheels would spin twice as fast as the would on still ground, but seeing as they are freewheeling that would not matter.
>>707613570
Then why don't rocket powered cars fly anon.
Jets push forward, but no air pressure forms under the wings. No lift, no flight. The jet pushing forward will move the wheels because all that weight wants to move, and the wheels are there to move it. which will match the treadmill.
Spooky isn't it.
>>707615471
Found the betafag
>>707616386
Found the wanna be Alphafag
The plane takes off because Joe Biden calls from Kenya and tells the pilot that Bush can't wait any longer for his poll ratings to improve, since that Uzbekistani Obama is still somehow beating him even after he shot up Sandy Hook elementary last week with help from 3poc and 4poc
>>707615639
At least this anon is clearly baiting. In other cases I am not convinced if it is bait or simply written by retards.
PS: The plane will take off
"Matched to the speed of the wheels" is meaningless.
>>707608411
I'm a pilot and this is the right answer. Since the thrust is generated by the engines and not by the wheels like a car, it doesn't matter if the belt beneath is moving back or forth. It will not make a difference, it will only change the wheels RPM.
>>707616749
You must have read the xkcd
No, it doesn't have any fuel
>>707615927
>>707615934
>>707615260
>>707615215
>>707614606
>>707614064
If you had a toy car on top of a conveyor belt and were physically pushing the car forward, it would go forward regardless of the speed of the conveyor belt; this is the same scenario, but the turbines are pushing the plan rather than you pushing the toy car. The speed of the conveyor belt is not related to the speed of the plan because the speed of the wheels are not related to the speed of the plan. There would be lift because the thrusters would cause the plan to move forward, generating relative windspeed, and causing a semi-vacuum above the wings, just like taking off from stationary ground.
>>707616232
Let's say the jet takes flight at 200mph
The Jet wants to move forward, let's say 50 then 100 then 200mph across 3 minutes, it's engines exert the amount of force to move it said speed.
The jet is going to move across the treadmill with it's wheels, since it's not going fast enough to form lift yet.
The wheels are now spinning to match the speed the jet is pushing forward 50, 100, then 200mph
The tread mill is now matching the wheels.
The jet is holding position on the treadmill.
Even at the speed required for flight, since the entire plane is not moving.
No air is flowing across the wings to create lift.
No flight.
>>707616772
You're right about the plane taking off, but I know plenty of people who drive cars every day and couldn't answer a simple question about why the drive shaft spins; you being a pilot is cool, but it definitely doesn't mean I trust your answer.
tl:dr - this guy's right, not because he's a pilot, but because he's not a moron.
>>707616980
The speed of the treadmill doesn't affect the speed of the plane. It just makes the wheels spin faster, but since they spin freely, unrelated to the speed of the plane, the plane's speed is entirely dependent on its engines.
>>707610829
it needs to roll forward before it can take off
the conveyor belt prevents it from ever rolling forward
>>707616772
Private pilot here, and exactly right.
>>707616938
Then the wheels would be spinning twice as fast as the treadmill, breaking the set rules, since the treadmill goes as fast as the wheel.
To correct your example, you hold your finger on the back of the car so it doesn't fall back, that's your engines pushing forward vs the treadmill rolling back
>>707617432
>Implying the engine directly rotates the wheel
>>707617432
No, the treadmill would be constantly accelerating, because the engines would be pushing the plane forward, causing the wheels to spin faster, causing the treadmill to spin faster.
I suppose an alternative viewpoint would be to consider that the only scenario in which the treadmill could constantly match the speed of the wheels is one in which the engines are not providing thrust, and then, the plane would not take off.
>>707617341
Wait, I see the problem.
You think the tread mill is going to roll the wheels, it's a fucking plane, with weight, those wheels are not free. They will stand still until a force is exerted on them, aka the engine pushing forward, which when then let them roll against the flow of the treadmill, now that the wheels match the treadmill, the plane will not move, it will not fly.
>>707616980
was going to type basically this but anon nailed it for me. yes the engines push the jet not the wheels, but the thrust goes to the wheels while the plane is unable to take flight from lack of airflow to the wings. as he said, as long as the plane remains basically stationary, there is no airflow to the wings, the engine thrust is all transferred to the wheels, and no flight happens.
>>707617703
If you throw a ball does it not roll when it hits the ground?
>>707608360
>aluminum alloy
>>707617754
Until the engine maxes out the throttle
Which will max out the wheels.
Which will be matched by the treadmill.
>>707613570
Ding ding ding
/thread
>>707608261
Yes, it can.
/thread
>>707617910
Thanks anon.
I don't get how they forget how weight and force work.
I know half the people here haven't seen a treadmill, let alone been on one. But still.
>>707616938
This
>>707617703
They basically do if you consider they don't spin until a force is enacted on them in this case the thrust of the engines push the aircraft and makes the wheels rotate. The wheels are basically free spinning without the brakes applied. You can push smaller aircraft around by hand if you want to.
>>707618214
>>707618182
Newfag(s)
>>707608261
it should take off yes. it is about plane speed in relation to wind speed not plane speed in relation to ground
>>707618433
Autism
>>707618526
But their isn't any wind speed since it's standing still relative to the wind.
So no.
>>707617910
While you are correct that the weight of the plane increases the friction the tires create, it still will not be enough to slow down the plane.
>>707608261
Yes, the speed is accumulated through the turbines, not wheels.
Run way is necessary for turbines to gain sufficient power
>>707618627
Damage control
A very Newfag thing to do.
Get >>>/out/
>>707618526
No wind flow over the wings, no lift. No lift and the plane stays on the ground.
>>707617845
so, just musing on this a bit.
a plane w/ its engines off on a treadmill: the wheels and treadmill are not moving, therefore, they match speed.
if the engines start pushing the plane forward, then the treadmill speeds up to match the speed of the wheels. Now, the scenario is broken, because for a brief period the treadmill did not match the speed of the wheels.
If you consider the limitations on the speed of the plane caused by the friction in the wheels, it is conceivable that the treadmill could spin so fast that the wheels were unable to spin fast enough, causing the plane to be dragged backwards by the treadmill, offsetting some, if not all of the force of the engines.
But, then further consider that the friction provided by a couple dozen wheels on the treadmill is not enough to prevent those wheels from being dragged forward against the spin of the treadmill, resulting in forward movement of the plane without an increase in the rotational speed of the wheels. It is then conceivable that, with a big enough engine, it could achieve lift, because the internal friction of the wheels would cause them to skid along and no longer increase their rotational speed.
BUT... if we're considering the friction of the wheels spinning and the wheels dragging, why not consider the friction that would be inherent in the treadmill, preventing it from being able to match the speed of the wheels.
Furthermore, consider that we are limited by the problem definition to the exact specifications of a 747 while the conveyor belt can be fairly imaginary in its capabilities.
Ultimate conclusion: this is a stupid fucking question.
>>707608261
Yes it does take off
>>707619020
Or just realize it's quite simple: no airflow over the wings means no lift and it will sit on the gigantic treadmill all day. All other factors are tertiary to the main point that there will be no lift generated during this experiment and thus it will stay in the ground.
The amount of dumb people in this thread is too damn high.
>>707619300
As I very clearly explained, there could be airflow. See point 4 in my previous post; if it doesn't make sense to you, I'm not going to waste time explaining it further. If you think it's incorrect, please elaborate. I'm always willing to be wrong.
No there wouldn't be enough airflow over the wings to achieve lift. The wheels are just spinning nothing else.
>>707619538
No there wouldn't be. How much wind do you experience running on a treadmill? You remember having wind blast you in the face almost pushing you off the treadmill? No? Then there's no airflow over the wings and no lift generated.
>>707619020
Allowing a small moment where the wheels and treadmill do not match by a small amount are more realistic, but this is a stupid fucking question.
Also those wheels are made to to spin extremely fast, I'm unsure their limitation but yeah, at a point it would break down or slide back.
>>707619300
>>707619538
This wasn't me, but I don't understand point four. I don't get how this plane in any way, would be able to move forward unless something was wrong with the treadmill. I can only picture the wheels not spinning fast enough and the plane falling off the back
>>707619701
how much wind do you experience when your brakes lock up on ice and your car keeps skidding forward? If the wheels start to slide because they can't spin any faster and the engines continue to increase their thrust, they will eventually slide forward, causing speed over the ground, which, in still air, is equivalent to relative airspeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY
>>707620096
>>707619953
OH that's what you ment.
Meh, that seems like trying to take off without wheels, I doubt the plane would get enough forward force to cause lift and would probably start slowing down, causing the same effect over and over as it slows down enough for the wheels to spin, and then speeds up enough to skid, the weight of the plane is still pushing down.
>>707619953
Yea, I lied, I will explain more since I really like the ice analogy. If you brake on ice in a car, your wheels slow down, but sometimes you start to skid, because there's not enough friction between the tires and the road. Same idea here with the plane; the internal friction of the wheels prevents them from spinning faster, but the friction between the wheels and the treadmill is not enough to offset the force of the thrust provided by the engines, causing them to skid forward along the treadmill without increasing their rotational speed.
But, again, it's a stupid question. We're probably talking about solid state rocket engines, because I don't see even the largest commercial airliner turbines putting out that much thrust (not to mention the imaginary treadmill).
>>707619953
It doesn't matter even if the plane stays on the treadmill there's no airflow over the wings and there's no lift generated. Lift is the reason planes fly not because the planes wheels are moving. If you don't have wind flowing over and under the wings at great speeds it will not fly. a stationary plane in a windstorm will lift off of the ground and the wheels aren't spinning and the engines aren't on. If you somehow ran an airplane in a vacuum it would also not fly because there is no airflow.
>>707620557
Yeah, plus going along with your ice analogy, at that point you're at the will of the forward force and gravity, if that were to happen going up a hill versus down one, you'd have two very different outcomes.
But yeah, this is a stupid fucking question with a lot of "ifs".
>>707620465
Yea, the landing gear would break off and the plane would skid along on it's belly. But it's theoretically possible for the plane to take off; probably as theoretically possible as the treadmill that OP proposed. Also, that amount of thrust would probably rip the wings off of the plane long before the wheels started skidding.
side note: once the landing gear broke off, the treadmill would come to a pretty quick stop as the wheels quit spinning, making the plane go really fast really quickly.
>>707620096
Then it would run off of the treadmill and would be on the ground where the thrust of the engines would be pushing the aircraft through the air generating airflow over the wings this generating lift. As long as the aircraft is stationary on a treadmill there is no airflow over the wings and no lift generated.
>>707621081
Problem doesn't state that the aircraft has to remain on the treadmill, just that the treadmill has to match the speed of the wheels.
>>707619020
>>707619953
>>707620096
>>707620465
>>707620557
>>707620855
>>707620928
Well, feels like we've thought this one to death. someone make a new question we can pick apart and tell you how stupid it is.
>>707620713
That's a given. Frankly the conversation I'm having with the other anon is taking steps into aeronautical physics, I only graduated high school man, don't hurt me.
>>707620928
>side note
But if the plane wasn't moving relative to the ground, wouldn't it NOT go fast?
Like if I was running on a tread mill and I lost my legs and it stopped dead in the same instant. My torso would drop on the now still ground.
>>707621279
The wheels have no speed. There's no drive wheels on aircraft. They are free spinning and only rotate when an outside force is acted upon them. Same as you pushing a toy car around. You stop pushing and the car will eventually slow to a stop. Newtons laws at work
mythbusters did this once
turns out it flies
to everyone's surprise
>>707621401
Yea, but the plane scenario is closer to if you had a jetpack on, lost your legs, and the treadmill stopped. the jetpack would keep pushing you forward.
>>707608261
if were talking can it take off just with the treadmill and no movement of the plane save the wheels, no.
if were talking can the thrust of the plane get the plane to takeoff velocity in relation to the ground/air and has a long enough treadmill? in theory yes, but the question then becomes, can the wheels functionally handle the added stress of the surface the plane sits on effectively moving twice as fast as it normally would.
>>707621477
Outside force?
>like a jet engine.
>>707621557
Citation needed.
>>707621739
Eh, there isn't any "wheels" there, since I wouldn't be using my legs.
Maybe a jet powered wheelchair?
>>707621557
I don't need to see the episode to know that they fucked it up somehow
those guys are donkeys
>>707616938
Wrong my friend. You would have to apply more force in the forward direction of the car to overcome the force that would be applied by the teadmill. This would mean that the car / plane would actually be moving faster than the treadmill and would this not meet the requirements of our original condition. It is impossible for the plane to move forward while the thrusters are on if the treadmill is matching the speed that would be generated by the 747's thrusters.
If the plane overcame the opposite force of the treadmill enough to reach take off speeds then yes those speeds would allow the wings of the 747 to genrate lift. Yet, this is simply not the conditions set forth in this example.
If I took the wings off of the fuselages of the 747 and attached the engines to the fuselage the plane would be unable to generate much more than an ambigous amount of lift regardless of it's thrust.
Therefore it is the wings and the air that flows under them do to thrust that generates lift. Not the thrust itself. The thrust is vectored parallel to the fuselage so as long as the fuselage is in a horizontal position it will be unable to produce lift without wings and the wings need airflow beneath then in order to generate lift. A stationary object such as the 747 reffered to in this example cannot generate lift.
Checkmate faggot
>>707621557
ib4 mythbusters != rigorous experimentation
I know it's off-topic, but if you can get ahold of a copy of their work on any given task (especially the explosion ones), you'll see that those guys or whoever they have consulting for them do a LOT of math for prediction purposes and even more statistical analysis. Yea, it probably wouldn't hold up under peer review, but it's way more intense than what they put on the show because they know most people wouldn't watch it.
>>707621739
But that's more like a rocket than an airplane. Rockets are propelled by extreme amounts of thrust from a stationary position. When the engine stops the rocket falls down. It's the difference between throwing a rock and throwing a paper airplane.
>>707616938
Also your stupid arguement leads me to believe you would vote for Hillary. Just a hunch though
>>707622128
Yeah they often knew the outcome of some of the more "obvious" myths.
Before any testing.
>>707622046
>the car / plane would actually be moving faster than the treadmill
That's the whole schtick of this thread; the problem doesn't relate the speed of the treadmill to the speed of the plane; it states that the speed of the WHEELS matches the speed of the treadmill. I guess if you wanted to say linear speed of the wheels, then that would be equivalent to the speed of the plane, but I think the discussion has been focused on rotational speed.
Also, you shouldn't say 'Checkmate faggot' whe you're wrong. It makes you look like more of a moron than saying it when you're right.
>>707608261
The plane would become lighter due to airflow on the wings making life.
It'd need thrust from the engines to take actual flight, thought.
>>707608360
>>707622546
No airflow.
You don't go anywhere when you run on a treadmill.
>>707608261
This is autistic. That doesn't increase the airflow over the wings at all. Without this increase in airflow there is no lift generated.
>>707621906
The engines of the airplane wouldn't generate enough thrust to make the airplane fly with no lift. That's not how it's designed to operate. If you maybe attached a shit ton of rockets to it that might be the case. The most you could accomplish is generating enough thrust where the airplane jumps off of the front of the conveyor and then operates normally before it was on it. The thrust pushes the aircraft forward, with wheels underneath it because it's easier and less damaging to push a bunch of wheels than to drag tons of sheetmetal across the ground. When the airplane is moving fast enough that the air is generating lift with the wings then the airplane takes off. As long as that aircraft is stationary with the wheels spinning below it there's no windflow and thus no lift.
>>707622497
Do phycisits measure th speed of a car relative to a wheels rotational speed or linear speed? I think when you answer that question you'll undertsand how retarded you are. Don't try to fucking get into the symantics of a word to try to weasel your way out of being wrong.
Checkmate faggot
>>707622889
Yeah I know.
>I was arguing the plane would not fly.
>>707622211
I don't understand your analogy; the thrust from throwing a rock and throwing an airplane are basically the same. Granted, the flight path is different because of the momentum and aerodynamics of the two.
But, if it helps my previous treadmill comparison, replace the jetpack with a huge fanboat fan instead. That's the same principal as a plane engine (well, it's a little different, but they both work by propelling wind opposite the direction of thrust).
No.The plane goes no where and everyone is stupider for having tried to put a fucking plane on a conveyor belt :/
>>707608261
It would be physically impossible to create a treadmill capable of running at 200mph at that scale.
You could never match the speed of the plane up with the belt properly. The plane also would have no momentum and would drive off the belt and crash.
No. it's not possible. No lift.
>>707622959
Argument. Not to be confused with being an asshole trying to prove his point.
I agree with you're side, but I don't want to anymore.
>>707608261
Don't planes need air around the wings to move in order to achieve lift-off?
>>707610852
This anon gets it.
>>707622959
>Checkmate faggot
Doubling down, I see...
When engineers test for safe maximum speed of a wheel, they calculate it in terms of rotational speed; then they translate it into linear speed because that's what the average idiot (you) can understand.
>>707623199
It would be a pretty fun weekend project though, wouldn't it anon?
>>707623321
I'm glad you agree
Faggot
Welcome to 4chan
>>707623175
The only way a giant fan will work is if you put that fan on the wings at a speed where the necessary thrust is generated to lift the weight of the airplane off the ground. helicopters spin their "wings" around in a circle fast enough that they generate enough lift to take off. Rotors are basically wings that are whipped around in a circle to generate lift. Now if you put an airplane on the back of a truck and drove fast enough through the wind (that's the important part) then it would also take off.
>>707623616
The only people who actually say that are newfags.
>lol its ebin 4chin
Kill yourself.
>>707623483
Strawman arguement. I didn't ask about how engineers check the safety of a wheel.
>>707623757
>mad as fuck
>I would be too if I was wrong
>>707623806
Not that anon.
That's not what strawman means, stop using buzzwords and actually think through your argument. Otherwise you make your side look like retards wagging their dicks about.
Is this what americans are challenged from?
Jesus you guys are stupid
it won't take off cause it's just exercising.
>>707623748
>The only way a giant fan will work is if you put that fan on the wings at a speed where the necessary thrust is generated to lift the weight of the airplane off the ground.
But what would we call such a fan? A fan that propels an airplane forward with enough force that the speed of the plane causes the wings to generate lift... a propelenator maybe?
>>707623896
I'm the one on your side.
Refer to this post, also mine.
>>707623969
No, seriously. Kill yourself.
>>707608261
No, the air won't be moving over it's wings so they can't generate lift.
Now if it was a harrier...
>>707623597
i mean, you could have fun with a plane and a conveyor belt, I wouldn't put them together, but separately....
Just take off in the opposite direction, problem solved.
What is lift and aerodynamics
>>707611233
if it is a big sum of money you could probably tell which one has more by weight, unless it is something like 50x50 50x100 but it would depend on which currency.
>>707608261
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY
>>707624017
kek
>>707623969
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
He tried to refute my argument where I asked him how the speed of cars are measue in relation to it's wheel. He ignored my arguement and created his own by talking about how engineers check the safety of wheels. Which does not acknowledge nor refute my orginal propostion.
That by literal definition is a straw arguement
Faggot
the plane will take off if it wants to. don't be oppressive bro
>>707624055
It's not about the forward movement of the airplane it's about moving forward fast enough that the air is forced over the wings this generating lift. If you had a 200 MPH windstorm and faced the airplane into it then it would take off without an engine of any type. The engines are there to push the aircraft through the air generating lift. Lift and thrust are different forces of physics. Engines generate thrust while windflow over an airfoil geneates lift. Thrust moves the aircraft fast enough through an airstream to where the airflow over the wings generate lift. Again no airflow over the wings no lift. If you run on a treadmill you will not feel the same wind on your face as if you would go run down the street.
>>707624347
He was explaining how rotational speed is translated to linear by mechanics before hand, to explain a portion of your argument as flawed, diminishing the value of it. Also known as a rebuttal.
>>707624347
>He tried to refute my argument where I asked him how the speed of cars are measue in relation to it's wheel.
What does the speed of cars have to do with the thread's assumption that OP's question was referring to the rotational speed of the wheels? Doesn't your original post meet the requirements of a strawman argument? I mean, you didn't ask how the speed of car wheels was measured, so what does the way we measure the speed of a car have to do with measuring the speed of a plane's wheels?
troglodyte
>>707624754
A straw man is generating an opponent out of thin air in lieu of someone actually opposing you. Like saying "some people say that veterans shouldn't have healthcare" when nobody actually said that. It's still not a straw man
>>707624594
That would never work with a 747. Not the same situation as OP. The scale is different.
>>707624945
I was saying it wasn't a strawman.
>>707625009
the concept is the exact same. If you could in theory, put it on a treadmill, it will take because the torque doesnt come from the wheels.
>>707609246
except that the trust is generated by the engine instead of the wheels so it will just skid over the belt it might not get enough speed to lift off because the ground resistance is much bigger but it will still move forward
I am a physisist working at the ULMG and i can confirm that the plaine can take off. Back in 1998 we tested it for the first time, we layed down a 1000 meter long carpet like matereal and had a machine drag it as fast as the plane could move. It was succesfull but it crashed. And then in 2001 we did the experiment again on multiple plaines and 3 out of 7 plaines were succesfull. But the plaines that were succesfull all took off in Manhattan. And they lost controll and crashed into the twin towers. At first we panicked but then Bush himself came to us and told us to get down on the floor now everybody do the dinosaur.
>>707625160
It does come from the wheels, from the engine, from combustion, from fuel.
It wont.
>>707624714
Sorry; I was using 'forward' assuming still wind. I'll rephrase: What could we call a fan that moves a plane in a direction anti-parallel to the surrounding air such that it's relative airspeed is enough to cause the wings to create thrust?
That just feels like a mouthful when 'forward' gets the point across to any anons who understand the difference between airspeed and speed over the ground.
>>707625160
It's not torque it's thrust. Its twisting a screwdriver versus throwing the screwdriver across the room.
>>707625160
I guess wheels on a treadmill work differently than feet but I mean from an engineering point of view such a device would be incredibly difficult to build and maintain. If I were politifact I would rate it mostly false.
>>707625304
A car’s wheels are its means of propulsion—they push the road backwards (relatively speaking), and the car moves forward. In contrast, a plane’s wheels aren’t motorized; their purpose is to reduce friction during takeoff (and add it, by braking, when landing). What gets a plane moving are its propellers or jet turbines, which shove the air backward and thereby impel the plane forward. What the wheels, conveyor belt, etc, are up to is largely irrelevant. Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground—and more importantly the air—regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane’s wheels spin madly.
No, jet fuel doesnt melt steel beams
>>707625354
english is my 2nd language. I couldnt think of the right word.
>>707608261
well the wheels don't propel the craft forwards, so it depends on the maximum speed the wheels can take before they break
>>707625292
>It was succesfull but it crashed.
Man, you guys really set the bar low at ULMG, huh?
Also, did you really try it in '98, or were you walking the dinosaur the whole time?
>>707610902
>Soon the wheels are spinning at 600mph. They weren't designed for this
yes they were, It's in the question
>>707625354
You can't throw a screwdriver because OSHA and stuff.
>>707625655
where in the question? it just says a 747, so I'm assuming it's stock. the treadmill was designed to match the speed of the wheels, but you can't assume the other way around. A=>B is not equivalent to B=>A
>>707608261
a more interesting question is, if I put a shit ton of fans in front of a plane, is there a way it could take off vertically?
but in this situation it would make the wheels turn faster but the plane is propelled by jets so the conveyor belt wouldn't affect it... unless you had a car with wings trying to take off...
>>707625307
Yeah but it's still a bit off. If you had a giant throw the airplane at 200 mph it would fly. If you attached rockets to it and achieved 200mph it would fly. It's not about the method used to get 200mph of windflow over the wings but the 200mph of windflow over the wings. The engines are a roundabout way of generating the 200mph of windflow over the wings not the method of actually generating lift. Engines generate thrust, thrust pushes the aircraft through the air and the air going over the curved top of the wing while also flowing over the relatively flat underside of the wing makes the air on top travel faster to catch up to the air that had a more direct route underneath the wings creating a low pressure area on top of the wings. Pressure likes to equalize due to the laws of physics and the higher pressure below the wing pushes on the bottom side of the wing in an attempt to equalize. When the pressure on the bottom of the wings is greater than the weight of the aircraft then the aircraft lifts off of the ground. Same reason hot air balloons work. The same reason gliders work.
>>707608261
Pilot here.
A plane has to fucking move forward through the air to fly.
It would not take off standing still, no matter how fast the wheels are spinning.
>>707608831
>>707608558
Lol faggots who think they're smart but are actually dumb.
>>707608261
As the belt approaches some ridiculous speed the air stream created by the belt will lift the jet off the belt. At that point the belt will no longer retard the jet's forward progress and it will take off fast enough to kill every occupant.
>>707608558
>>707608831
>>707608918
>>707609246
>>707609645
>>707610334
>>707611204
>>707613128
>>707613158
>>707613289
>>707613721
>>707614064
>>707614146
I'm not gonna respond to every anon who's wrong, so we'll have to do with your posts. Planes have freely spinning wheels. Cars, which propel themselves forward through their wheels, can sit on a conveyor belt device while getting tested and not move because it rotates in the opposite direction. Planes operate differently. Planes propel themselves forward through their jet engines, or their propellers. The wheels are there so the plane can "slide" over the landing strip. When the jet engines turn on and start creating the jets, they move the plane forwards, regardless of the surface of the landing strip, be it snow, water, gravel or backwards moving belt. If the conveyor belt moves back, the wheels will rotate faster, but the plane itself is pushed forwards by its engines. That pushing force allows it to gain speed relative to the air around it, to the appropriate speed of lifting it up into the air.
To those who talk about actual implications of wheels turning way too fast for mechanical and material tolerance factor, remember that the faster the plane moves, it creates more lift which decreases the stress on the wheels. Half a plane's weight is easier to handle at high rotation speeds, compared to landings where the stress on the wheels is incredible, at basically liftoff velocities.
>>707626790
In addition to that, the plane equivalent of a car on a conveyor belt is a plane in a wind tunnel, not a plane on a conveyor belt.
>>707617347
this is what i was thinking but I realized something.
the wheels are totally meaningless. think about if the plane is levitating. the engines push the wings forward. so the plane cant stay stationary unless the conveyor is pulling it actively backwards and then you have to factor in the friction of the wheels and the heat they generate.
basically, the plane would take off if the conveyor was only trying to match the wheels.
>>707626901
Exactly! That's why they have airplanes with skis or pontoons instead of wheels. The wheels are there because it's impractical and inefficient to drag the belly of the aircraft on the ground.
>>707608261
i wouldn't think so, Since the wing isn't moving no lift is being generated therefore the planes weight remains on its wheels.
>>707608261
doesn't the plane get propelled by the engines? The wheels are irrelevant, as soon as the plane gets enough speed to generate enough uplift (it's aerodynamic shit is made to get it up, duh), it will get off.
>>707627459
Yes but the drag from the brakes will be too much.
>>707626790
You are awsome dude, just imagine it with sliding on skids like you said . makes it so much clearer
>>707608261
Pilot here. You are all idiots. Yes it will take off. Yes it can fly upside down because the flaps are there to change the flux of the wind. Yes op is a faggot.
Ffs, your all as thick as fuckin shit warmed up. The plane needs to move forwards so's that the plane can become airborne. If the conveyer belt is moving in the opposite direction to the forward speed of the plane then the plane is static. It con not take off when static.
>>707628812
Except that propulsion is provided by an external source...
>>707626306
I agree with everything you said. I was just poking fun at you for saying
>The only way a giant fan will work is if you put that fan on the wings at a speed where the necessary thrust is generated to lift the weight of the airplane off the ground.
when we have those.
>>707628613
>>707626379
>>707617367
Go back to 9gag
Go fug youerself this thread will never fly.
>>707628812
read the thread, specifically >>707619020
anon put way too much thought into it, but the tl:dr is that the speed of the plane is only tied to the speed of the conveyor belt by the problem statement. irl, the plane would just move forward and take off while the wheels spun extra fast
You people are so retarded.
It's not a fucking car. The wheels have no effect on the question.
Lift comes from air currents. If the plane isn't moving forward, it won't take off.
It's on a treadmill, so it's not moving forward. The wheels may be spinning, but if the plane itself doesn't move against the wind, there's nothing to give it lift.
>>707608360
And no amount of jet fuel will make that steel lighter via melting either, so no. Planes can't fly.
>>707616772
>I'm a pilot and this is the right answer.
I like that you're a pilot, I'm getting my license myself, but your answer is wrong.
The belt matches the rpm of the engines, therefore when the engines spool up the conveyor belt moves faster negating the engines thrust.
>>707608261
If they could then why dont we have conveyors at airports and on aircraft carriers?
>they cant
>>707613418
My car doesn't have wings. Cool that yours does.
>>707631576
get a DeLorean
>>707614341
An evenly balanced amount to the ice in it.
>>707626790
Except that the rule disallows "sliding" dummy
>>707631730
Got me... they are gull WING doors after all.
Say, have you ever tried driving with them open? Maybe it would work like that car in M.A.S.K.
NO YOU DUMB FAGGOTS IT WONT FUCKING TAKE OFF
THE FUCKING PLANE GOES FUCKING UP BECAUSE THE FUCKING AIR PUSHES AGAINST THE FUCKING WINGS AS IT'S MOVING FORWARD
IF THE TREADMILL IS DESIGNED TO GO EXACTLY THE SPEED OF THE PLANE, BUT REVERSE, THEN THE PLANE DOESN'T GO UP BECAUSE THERES NO FUCKING AIR PUSHING AGAINST THE FUCKING WINGS TO MAKE IT FUCKING GO UP
HERES AN EASY WAY FOR YOU TO FUCKING TEST THIS
GO TO THE FUCKING GYM, TURN THE TREADMILL UP TO MAX, AND THEN JUMP ON IT AND GET SHOT OFF BACKWARDS LIKE A DUMB FAGGOT BECAUSE YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK IT CAN TAKE OFF
BUT WHILE YOU'RE STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP WITH THE TREADMILL BECAUSE YOU'RE FAT AND YOU CAN'T, NOTICE HOW THERES NO FUCKING AIR RUSHING AGAINST YOUR BODY
THIS IS BECAUSE NO MATTER HOW FAST YOU'RE FUCKING RUNNING ON A TREADMILL, YOU'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE, AND YOUR POSITION STAYS THE SAME, MEANING THERE IS NO AIR TO BE RUSHING PAST YOU
SHUT THE FUCK UP
>>707632197
https://youtube.com/watch?v=o2Z1yLO9C-Q
Watch the red car. Clear demonstration of how gull wing doors can allow a car to fly.
I like pie
>>707632247
Alright Ramsay, calm down.
If conveyor belt is moving, they implies that the plane (the engines) exert a force against the air....
BUT, the plane will take off ONLY IF the air flux arround (the plane) produces the lift force
Fags!
>>707632757
The stop sending out fucking RAW bait you shitstain
No? If the the treadmill counters the vehicle rolling forward then the awnser is no. But if we take into acount that the thrust of the aircraft will be constant then the wheels are going to keep speeding up infinitely to the point where the frictions blows the tires or the conveyor snaps. But if we arnt taking that into a count then technically I beleive it should stay in the same place. Which means no. Because the wings arnt producing lift.
>>707608261
Brah. Brah.
Do you even LIFT?!
>>707632247
>not knowing anything about aerodynamics
Kill yourself retard
>>707632247
The plane doesnt move forward because of its contact with the ground, like a car or a person. It moves forward because a jet or a propeller push air behind it. Planes don't even need wheels to move forward. The wheels arent attached to engines. The wheels dont move the plane, the fucking propellers and turbines do. which means what the ground is doing does not effect the plane.
yes
They tested this on Mythbusters. The plane would take off, and did when tried it. Google it you sluts.
guys, i invented the fucking airplane and of course it'll take off because the wings are lighter than air!
>>707608261
No.
Lift is not achieved.
>>707610902
This made my laugh hard enough to wake up neighbours. .
>>707633166
BUT ITS GOING
>NOWHERE
ITS NOT MOVING FORWARD
YES THERE IS PROPULSION, BUT ITS CANCELLED OUT BY THE FACT THAT THE PLANE IS ON A TREADMILL THAT IS MOVING THE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE DIRECTION
IT WILL NEVER TAKE OFF BECAUSE IF THE PLANE HAS MOVED EXACTLY 0 INCHES FROM ITS START, THEN THERE HAS BEEN NO AIR TO PUSH ALONG THE WINGS FOR IT TO TAKE OFF
PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THIS MYSTERY AIR IS COMING FROM, RUSHING PAST THE PLANE AS ITS MOVING NO WHERE
>>707633318
Wtf in that episode the plane could still move forwards even as it was on the conveyor belt. That's exactly why it doesn't prove anything because the forward movement still created lift.
>>707609246
>If the belt is designed to always match the speed of the plane
Read the image again. The belt is designed to match the speed of the wheels which don't move on their own.
>>707608261
It will because the wheels do not drive the plane forward, and the jet engines will just push the plane forward regarless
>>707608558
do YOU even lift?
>>707608360
/thread?
>>707608261
One thing to take note of, The plane tires would be spinning twice as fast as usual when the plane takes off. I don't think they are built to withstand the heat that would generate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TWAR1KtYJU
>>707633855
Airplane wings creat lift by moving through the air real fast. If the airplane stands still relative to the ground, there is no lift.
>>707608360
But they're both a kilogramme
>>707633520
ok, so imagine a hot wheel car with a tiny fan on top of it. the fan blow air and the car moves away. The movement is generated by the press on the AIR not on the GROUND. the little wheels will spin and spin but it doesnt matter because the ATMOSPHERE is what moves a plane. the treadmill will only make the wheels spin faster as the plane glides forward from air pressure.
this question cannot be answered as defined. either you describe a system wherein the laws of physics cause the airplane to break before lift is achieved; or you describe a system where a moving object has zero speed, which is an impossibility.
yes, the plane will take off. but not for the reasons the assholes above are explaining.
>>707608261
It's irrelevant how fast the wheels and/or belt is going. Air speed is all that matters, the planes' engines pull air through themselves moving the plane forward generating lift, it's not that difficult to understand.
Wow this thread is still going? Basic physics don't change. When you are stationary on a treadmill it doesn't matter how fast you run you are going nowhere. A plane on a giant treadmill will have no wind going over and under the wings and there will be no lift generated. The airplane will remain stationary on the treadmill with the wheels spinning to keep up with the treadmill and nothing else will happen. If start the engines and run them up high enough to make the plane move faster than the thread mill it will skip off the front of the treadmill and will be ok solid ground. When on solid ground with the engines running the airplane will now operate normally. That is all
/thread
>>707634062
I think the question here is if the airplane would take off if it were standing still relative to the ground but with the engines at full throttle. Not if it could move faster than the elevator belt it was standing on.
>>707608261
The speed of the aircraft's wheels has nothing to do with the speed of the air flowing over the wings. Lift is obtained by air passing over the wings which are shaped and angled to produce lower air pressure above the wing than below.. No air flow = no lift = no takeoff.
Let me add a detail: IF such thing were possible, then we would no need airports
>all these people thinking the wheels propel the plane.
Wheel speed is irrelevant. The treadmill is unable to cancel out any thrust generated by the engines because the wheels provide no resistance.
>>707634266
this is only true in a vacuum. jet propulsion uses the atmosphere to create momentum. The speed of the treadmill will not negate the force generated by the atmosphere ones the turbines begin spinning. The treadmill is moot. the plane moves via air pressure, not ground traction.
>>707634182
you're an idiot
you keep trying to tell me how a plane works, i know how a fucking plane works
i'm not under the impression the the fucking wheels are whats making the plane go forward, i never said the wheels did, i never said the ground did
if the plane is moving on a treadmill and has remained stationary relative the the actual ground, then there HAS BEEN NO AIR TO PRESS AGAINST THE WINGS FOR THE PLANE TO GAIN LIFT
idk what a fucking hotwheel car has to do with a plane, but if you try to tell me one more time if will take off, i'll fucking scalp you
>ITT people casually glance over 1 out of 3 sentences in OP's post
humanity is fucked
>>707608261
first off, the airtug that pulls the plane around will need an engine at least twice as powerful so it can pull it down the runway really fast. but because the plane's wheels are too small to spin that fast, they need to be made twice as large.
the problem is that this would add too much weight, and so the plane can't actually take off at all.
>>707634297
If the plane didn't move relative to the ground, it couldn't take off.
It would move relative to the ground unless the treadmill somehow affected air pressure.
>>707634563
Why does the plane remain stationary relative the the actual ground?
>>707634563
You didnt read the question carefully. No where does it say the plane has to remain stationary. It simply says that the conveyor belt will match the wheel movement. That's only relevant if the wheel motion was what generated forward momentum. It isn't. the turbine generates momentum. when the turbines turn on the plane will roll forward no matter how fast the treadmill goes. even if the wheels break off the plane will drag across the ground because the turbines will continue to generate momentum.
Read the fucking question again. The treadmill is as long as a runway. The plane isn't going to just fall off when it starts moving forward.
>>707633582
Yes, because the plane pushes itself forward with the propeller instead of thw wheels you fucktard
The formula for flight is actually fairly simple
Thrust > Drag and Lift >Gravity = flight.
Anything else = no flight. OP's post uses the conveyor belt to generate thrust, but no lift, because lift is generated by the airfoils passing through the air creating a low pressure air system above the air foil and a high pressure system below it. Without movement forward through air, this is impossible.
>>707634787
My thoughts exactly. Lift can only be created from wings moving through the air. Not just by having your engines running.
>>707635218
the conveyor belt described doesn't generate thrust, it opposes wheel motion. Thrust is generated by the turbine, which acts independently of the wheels, and the conveyor.
>>707635039
If the treadmill and the wheels are moving at the same speed, the plane is stationary. If the plane moves, the wheels would be spinning much waster that the treadmill. I know that has nothing to do with the propulsion of the plane but it's a dumb fucking question designed to bait arguments like this.
>>707635146
Yeah, duh. But the OP literally describes a conveyor belt moving at EXACTLY the same speed as that of the wheels. That would counteract any forward motion from the propeller as well, because the propeller is the only thing that makes the wheels move. Who's a fucktard now, fucktard.
>>707635301
But the engines force air past the wings, creating movement. How do you think a plane usually takes off?
FUCK MY ASS WITH 10000 lbs of jumbo jet thrust in my my bright brown sphincter you complete bunch of gormless fuck witted mongoloid poorly performing wanktards. LIFT COMES FROM the air pressure ABOVE the wing being LOWER THAN the air pressure BELOW the wing. THE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL can only be created by forward movement of the wing through the air. IF THE PLANE IS STATIC ON A FUCKING TREADMILL THEN THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY LIFT.
>>707608261
Physics student here, i hate to ruin the thread but just because the wheels and the belt match. The wheels can still slide on the belt and therefore the plane can accelerate and get lift.
>>707635453
the wheels are only there to make sure the plane doesnt drag across the ground. the wheels are not attached to motors. the wheels do not move the plane like wheels on a car do. The wheels only move when the Turbine pushes the plane forward. If the ground happened to be moving that would just mean the little dangly wheels would spin faster, it doesnt mean the plane would stop moving. the wheels could spin backwards at any speed and the plane still move forward.
>>707635698
Not really. The engines move the plane forward, and the wings turn the forward movement into lift. The plane in OP's pic doesn't move forward. It just stands still relative to the ground.
>>707635426
Irrelevant, no movement through air = no lift generated.
>>707635698
No, engines generate thrust, propellers push air towards the wings, but OP's plane doesn't have propellers.
Also, physics wise the wheels would always be moving faster than the belt
>>707635880
I agree. But I'd use more insults. I like you, self-controlled Anon.
![7[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/w3zLudO.jpg "7[1].jpg")