It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will it take off?

page: 15
1
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


hey, take off, eh?

did i already do that? i can't help it... it's my hoser roots showing through, eh.






posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Classic



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
...
Has anybody here watched mythbusters? specifically the episode where they put an airplane on a conveyor belt and the plane took off? ohh
check this out
hk.youtube.com...
That should answer all your questions.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
...
Has anybody here watched mythbusters? specifically the episode where they put an airplane on a conveyor belt and the plane took off? ohh
check this out
hk.youtube.com...
That should answer all your questions.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
of course it can not take off because there is no lift......... it does not matter how fast wheels move. its the wings and the air. no lift... no flight



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
There is only one way that plane would take off...

..if it were a VTOL type aircraft, Harier type, yes it could take off.

But otherwise....its a wet dream that dries up faster than the wind blowing.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Do you think people are stupid or what?

That plane is IN MOTION, forward MOTION, which is creating lift under the wings, creating LIFT.

Now if that plane were stationary as indicated by the stationary pilons, then that video and mythbusters might have a point.


Otherwise..as I said before, a wet dream that dried up before the wind blew.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
If the speed of the wheels is irrelevant, how bout a speed of zero? Can a plane take off from being stationary?

No, but the speed of the ground moving beneath a plane taking off is irrelevant, because it's the propellor that drives the plane forward to take-off speed, not the wheels.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by undermind]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by undermind
 


Sure..if there was enough wind blowing past the wings to create the lift, or if the plane had vertical thruster capability such as a VTOL.

Only other thing that would make the plane lift off the ground without forward motion and no VTOL thrust capability would either be a crane lifting it off the ground or anti-grav...the latter being a bit out of our capability at this point in time.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
That Mythbuster's episode was a very poor scenario. First the plane had forward motion from the perspective of the camera. It's obvious that the rpms of any plane will be higher in such a scenario due to lack of air friction which may have caused their confusion. Another issue is that the propeller was in front of the wing which is causing air to be pushed toward the wings which may be causing some lift. If the conveyor belt truly matched forward velocity (relative to an observer on the ground), and the engines were below or behind the wings, and the engines pointed horizontally to the ground: the plane will not go up.

Its funny how this is a debatable topic but I guess not everyone understands the mechanics of the world.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Ignoring the conveyer belt, and ignoring the propeller spinning pushiing air backwards towards the wings, the fact is that the airplane is in forward motion when viewing both the plane and the pilons on the deck. And I did not notice any windsock to indicate the direction of wind nor was there any wind speed indicator on the video.

Quite simple, if that airplane had lifted off the ground standing completely still like the pilons on the deck, then that would be enough to convince me of this conveyor belt nonsense.

But that is not what happend in the video. Oh and btw, the flaps on that airplane were fully extended too, so if there was sufficient headwind and enough rpm's on the prop, with the right forward speed, the airplane can take off in what is known as "short run takeoff", meaning the airplane would not require a full run to get into the air.

What was that airplane's weight? Was it fully loaded with fuel and passengers/cargo? That too plays a role in how the result of the experiment turns out. None of those factors are noted in the video either.

Oh well its another interesting, and highly debatable topic!


Cheers!!!!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by obsidience
First the plane had forward motion from the perspective of the camera.


Of course it did, and that's why the plane was able to take off.

The only "trick" to the riddle is that it plays on people's biases regarding wheel torque and tire friction when it comes generating forward movement. From an outside perspective a conveyor belt can "hold" a bike, car, motorcycle, walking/running person, ATV, etc. "in place". These are all modes of travel that people are quite familiar with, and they are all dependant on friction with the ground to generate their forward movement.

When it comes to a plane the wheels are without torque. They're free-spinning instead. The forward movement of a plane is generated in the relationship between the prop and the surrounding air. A conveyor belt has no way to significantly interrupt/negate that thrust; so the plane will still move forward in relation to an outside observer. If the plane can advance, then the wings will generate lift and it will take off. There is no significant "lack of air friction" to overcome, and the prop's location doesn't matter as long as the plane's design is structurally sound for flight. Don't let yourself get sidetracked by insignificant details.; it's far simpler than many choose to believe. The plane will take off.


Originally posted by obsidience
Its funny how this is a debatable topic but I guess not everyone understands the mechanics of the world.


It's only debatable because people's pre-existing biases get the better of them. Whether it's the soles on your shoes, or the tires on your car; people are so ingrained with the notion of forward momentum being generated with friction against the ground that they don't stop to think about the ramifications of a thrust being independant of that relationship. A conveyor belt cannot significantly interrupt/negate a forward thrust that's being generated by a prop and its surrounding atmosphere.

Put a plane in a vacuum chamber and it won't move an inch; however, it'll take off from a conveyor belt just fine.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   
The conveyor does have a way to negate the thrust, through the weight of the aircraft. The force of the plane's mass pushing on the conveyor gives it enough friction to have a DIRECT force on the aircraft. This is crazy that people don't understand this.

This can only be negated by an equal or greater force of lift, produced by the aircraft. However, this can only be achieved through air flowing over the wings. Why are people dismissing the wheels? The plane is not floating over the conveyor. All of it's weight is resting on the conveyor. The engines are interacting with the air, yes, otherwise they wouldn't work, but the thrust produced by them is countered by the conveyor moving in the opposite direction (ie. backwards). The aircraft's weight will be resting on the landing gear, and being in direct contact with the conveyor, UNTIL enough lift is achieved by enough air flowing over the wings. But there won't be any air flowing if the conveyor is moving in the opposite direction in a direct correlation to the thrust produced from the aircraft's engines.

This is not a trick question either, just a genuine one from a young guy who was slightly confused about airfoil physics.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The biggest problem is this...
How long is the conveyor?... because if it dont have enough lift by the end of the conveyor then it WILL hit the ground.

Problem solved
Nothing more to see.

Mungo



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The plane will take off - no ifs, no buts, no maybes.

The wheels will be rotating at twice the plane take-off speed.


(It is assume that the wheels do not burst at 2 times Vr)



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The plane will take off - no ifs, no buts, no maybes.

The wheels will be rotating at twice the plane take-off speed.


(It is assume that the wheels do not burst at 2 times Vr)


You mean to say the wheels will be tavelling at the speed of the conveyor PLUS the ground speed of the aircraft right?

Mungo



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jabejaha
The conveyor does have a way to negate the thrust, through the weight of the aircraft. The force of the plane's mass pushing on the conveyor gives it enough friction to have a DIRECT force on the aircraft. This is crazy that people don't understand this.

This can only be negated by an equal or greater force of lift, produced by the aircraft. However, this can only be achieved through air flowing over the wings. Why are people dismissing the wheels? The plane is not floating over the conveyor. All of it's weight is resting on the conveyor. The engines are interacting with the air, yes, otherwise they wouldn't work, but the thrust produced by them is countered by the conveyor moving in the opposite direction (ie. backwards). The aircraft's weight will be resting on the landing gear, and being in direct contact with the conveyor, UNTIL enough lift is achieved by enough air flowing over the wings. But there won't be any air flowing if the conveyor is moving in the opposite direction in a direct correlation to the thrust produced from the aircraft's engines.

This is not a trick question either, just a genuine one from a young guy who was slightly confused about airfoil physics.




If an aircraft carrier could do 200 knots, and the aircraft was stationary, it wouldnt be on the deck for long.

Hang-gliders dont need a bloke running at speed if there is enough wind to give lift.

Get it?

The wheels are just the platform for the the vehicle unless they DELIVER the forward momentum.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jabejaha
 


It's a trick question in that it's a long held riddle that preys on people's biases when it comes to how more familiar forms of transportation generate/transfer their forward thrust.


The force of the plane's mass pushing on the conveyor gives it enough friction to have a DIRECT force on the aircraft.


You cannot significantly hinder (let alone negate) an independant forward thrust with the downward force of mass/gravity, and a perpendicular/"backwards" force that is reliant on attempting to transfer its effect on the plane through freely spinning wheels. Due to freely spinning wheels, the static friction of the downward force would make the conveyor act similar to pulling a silk tablecloth out from under a table setting without the dishes being disturbed at all. Just like the smoothness of the silk, the freely spinning wheels dissipate the "hindering friction" you're expecting from the conveyor.

Imagine this. You're in a go-cart inside a hallway that has a conveyor for it's floor. You accelerate to 10mph as the conveyor does the same in the opposite direction. If the hall had glass walls it would look like you were being held stationary to an outside observer because your forward movement would be reliant on the friction between the tires and the conveyor. The conveyor is able to negate the effect of the torque being transfered to the wheels. Now imagine you're on a skateboard.

At the end of the hall is a door that's just off of the conveyor. It has a doorknob with a rope attached, and you're holding the other end of the rope. You now have freely spinning wheels, and a method of independant thrust that's not reliant on the transfer of power through your wheels to the conveyor's surface. If you begin to pull yourself forward down the hall will an outside observer see the conveyor "hold you in place" by it starting to move in the opposite direction, or will you be able to easily overcome the effect of the conveyor by continuing to pull on the rope?

[edit on 11/17/08 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mungodave
You mean to say the wheels will be tavelling at the speed of the conveyor PLUS the ground speed of the aircraft right?

Mungo


That's absolutely correct.


Looking at the origional riddle "This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction)"; so the wheels would be spinning twice the plane's take-off ground-speed.

[edit on 11/17/08 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
When you hear a pilot talk about V1 and V2 those are the speeds required to safely lift off... while its true we are talking about a speed what were really saying is at that speed were moving a sufficient volume of air across the wing surface to achieve flight.

The conveyor would never work...but if you place one bigass fan in front of the plane!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join