ChiefsPlanet
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3456
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Life Pick 5 posters you'd like to have dinner with. (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=212553)

Jenson71 08-25-2009 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000601)
****.

I do have to admit, you personally created the thread that caused me to "miss" out on the most work ever, during the work week.

I'm afraid if you and I ate dinner together we'd argue over whether or not a plane with its wheels spinning on a treadmill could take off.
My face was like this: :spock: reading that thread. I had no idea what was going on.

Frazod 08-25-2009 03:59 PM
I'll limit this to people I haven't met:

Guru
JOhn
Flopnuts
Dane
Hamas

There's more, but that's the first five I thought of.

Sofa King 08-25-2009 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 6000603)
That could be anybody that you've beaten.
i specifically looked for your name, i apparantly forgot to copy your name with it...



and how did i forget to mention Mr.Plow? that guy is as cool as the other side of the pillow.

Demonpenz 08-25-2009 04:01 PM
dinny blues can play some blues drums

Demonpenz 08-25-2009 04:02 PM
i bet there are some that would like to have one big ole dinner with logical again

Donger 08-25-2009 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000601)
I'm afraid if you and I ate dinner together we'd argue over whether or not a plane with its wheels spinning on a treadmill could take off.
Of course it wouldn't.

88TG88 08-25-2009 04:05 PM
Of the people I havent met

Simply REd
Pest
Buck
Mr Plow
and Smed

I would put Demonpenz on the list, but I think he would be to cool to hang out with me. Being from Lenexa and all

stevieray 08-25-2009 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000613)
Of course it wouldn't.
mythbusters disagree.

Buck 08-25-2009 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000613)
Of course it wouldn't.
Exactly....or wait, did I think it would? I don't remember.

unothadeal 08-25-2009 04:07 PM
.Daedalus.
chemimblc
chiefshabs
cowboy_big_rich
lazepoo

Demonpenz 08-25-2009 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88TG88 (Post 6000618)
Of the people I havent met

Simply REd
Pest
Buck
Mr Plow
and Smed

I would put Demonpenz on the list, but I think he would be to cool to hang out with me. Being from Lenexa and all
i'm IN lenexa, but I am straight

Simply Red 08-25-2009 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000602)
Is there some reason that you have that specific exchange in your signature?
yes, because, to me; it may be the funniest thing i've read on here all yr.

Donger 08-25-2009 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 6000619)
mythbusters disagree.
Then they did not use the same criteria described above.

If the planes wheels are spinning, then the aircraft has no relative ground speed. If if has no relative ground speed, no air is flowing over the aircraft's wings. If no air is flowing over the wings, there is no lift. If there is no lift, the plane will not fly.

JOhn 08-25-2009 04:08 PM
2rival fans I would like to meet
RNR aka Karen
OverHead

007 08-25-2009 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000563)
Damnit I hate these threads.

I feel like a douche now for narrowing down to 5 people.

Any of the following would be cool.

Gonzo, Pestilence, Sofa King, Flopnuts, Hamas, Admiral Crunch (Crush I think?), Buzz, D2112, Frazod, Fritz88, Gadzooks, Goapics1 (apics1), joey (I think hes in prison), Nzoner, Oceanic815Survivor, Simplex3, Smed1065, Sure-Oz, TinyEvel, and xbarretx

Those are all the people that are on my friends list...except Pestilence, wtf man?

Also if you are like top 25 in rep score that'd be cool too. Now rep it up bitches!

Oh, also anyone who watches the Wire or Lost.

Off the top of my head: Reaper16, Brock, UP, KcMizzou (?), Baby Lee (both - superbadass) , keg in kc (both), ZootedGranny, Miles, irishjayhawk (he watches both I think, so hes super badass), SportsRacer, DaneMcCloud, arrowheadnation, BigRedChief, and the last one I can think of is Red_brooklyn (I think thats his name, not sure).
Nobody can truly narrow it down to only 5 people. Don't worry about it. There are others I want to meet just as much as my five too which is why I just said everyone.

this is one of the reasons I always hit Joe's Bash now. Every year I meet somebody new.

Simply Red 08-25-2009 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by unothadeal (Post 6000624)
.Daedalus.
chemimblc
chiefshabs
cowboy_big_rich
lazepoo
you forgot Mr. Kotter. :doh!:

stevieray 08-25-2009 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000629)
Then they did not use the same criteria described above.

If the planes wheels are spinning, then the aircraft has no relative ground speed. If if has no relative ground speed, no air is flowing over the aircraft's wings. If no air is flowing over the wings, there is no lift. If there is no lift, the plane will not fly.
they proved it could be done.

Simply Red 08-25-2009 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOhn (Post 6000631)
2rival fans I would like to meet
RNR aka Karen
OverHead
wait, so RNR IS a girl? I thought she was, then she said she wasn't, so...

007 08-25-2009 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOhn (Post 6000631)
2rival fans I would like to meet
RNR aka Karen
OverHead
I would add Taco and Garcia to that as well.

JOhn 08-25-2009 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Red (Post 6000643)
wait, so RNR IS a girl? I thought she was, then she said she wasn't, so...
ROFL

no he's a dude...well as far as I know. but his nickname is Karen. :D

Or maybe he/she is? :doh!:

Buck 08-25-2009 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000629)
Then they did not use the same criteria described above.

If the planes wheels are spinning, then the aircraft has no relative ground speed. If if has no relative ground speed, no air is flowing over the aircraft's wings. If no air is flowing over the wings, there is no lift. If there is no lift, the plane will not fly.
But what if the plane uses a propeller to push the wind? Or does the propeller not do that?

CosmicPal 08-25-2009 04:13 PM
I'd have dinner with anyone who wants to have dinner with me. Which, in this case, none.

With that said, I'd honestly have dinner with any Chiefs fan who doesn't drink all my liquor, throw up on my couch, rape my dog, and end up on the roof naked and having incoherent conversations with Jesus of the eternal moonlight.

If you can behave like a gentleman, provide engaging and intelligent conversation, not trash my jazz collection, and drink like an old man going over the hill singing, then you're all right at my table. For the chicks, you're all invited as long as you're topless and don't talk much. :D

Simply Red 08-25-2009 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guru (Post 6000645)
I would add Taco and Garcia to that as well.
Taco is a 'hands-on' mod over at the Orange Mane, also, he's a neanderthal, i'd rather hang w/ Buff or Vailpass.

Donger 08-25-2009 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 6000642)
they proved it could be done.
If the wheels were locked (not spinning), and the treadmill was accelerated to the speed required for flight, then yes, it would take off. If the wheels were free to spin, the plane would not move forward relative to the ground and would therefore have no lift.

Simply Red 08-25-2009 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPal (Post 6000649)
I'd have dinner with anyone who wants to have dinner with me. Which, in this case, none.

With that said, I'd honestly have dinner with any Chiefs fan who doesn't drink all my liquor, throw up on my couch, rape my dog, and end up on the roof naked and having incoherent conversations with Jesus of the eternal moonlight.

If you can behave like a gentleman, provide engaging and intelligent conversation, not trash my jazz collection, and drink like an old man going over the hill singing, then you're all right at my table. For the chicks, you're all invited as long as you're topless and don't talk much. :D
I've always like you, no buttsechs, though. But yeah, I also could get your input on my being an addict.

Buck 08-25-2009 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000653)
If the wheels were locked (not spinning), and the treadmill was accelerated to the speed required for flight, then yes, it would take off. If the wheels were free to spin, the plane would not move forward relative to the ground and would therefore have no lift.
See my propeller question

Jenson71 08-25-2009 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000653)
If the wheels were locked (not spinning), and the treadmill was accelerated to the speed required for flight, then yes, it would take off. If the wheels were free to spin, the plane would not move forward relative to the ground and would therefore have no lift.
I always thought the treadmill would be going the opposite way of the plane's forward motion (or attempt at motion).

Donger 08-25-2009 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenson71 (Post 6000657)
I always thought the treadmill would be going the opposite way of the plane's forward motion (or attempt at motion).
Again, if the wheels were spinning, it would make no difference.

Donger 08-25-2009 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000648)
But what if the plane uses a propeller to push the wind? Or does the propeller not do that?
A plane uses a propeller to provide thrust, yes.

Buck 08-25-2009 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000662)
A plane uses a propeller to provide thrust, yes.
So ignoring friction, if the planes wheels were just spinning, and the plane remained still relative to the ground, and then the propellers turned on and spun fast enough (theoretically), that would not create enough lift for the plane to take off?

MIAdragon 08-25-2009 04:21 PM
What no one want's to dine on South Beach with me!?

Buck 08-25-2009 04:22 PM
I would eat w/ MIAdragon, and then kick him out for his avatar for the after party.

BigVE 08-25-2009 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIAdragon (Post 6000668)
What no one want's to dine on South Beach with me!?
Have you ever figured out who that chic in your avatar is?

The Franchise 08-25-2009 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofa King (Post 6000607)
i specifically looked for your name, i apparantly forgot to copy your name with it...



and how did i forget to mention Mr.Plow? that guy is as cool as the other side of the pillow.
Damn....I totally forgot Plow. I gotta add him to the list. Sorry Dane....you're out.

DaFace 08-25-2009 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000629)
Then they did not use the same criteria described above.

If the planes wheels are spinning, then the aircraft has no relative ground speed. If if has no relative ground speed, no air is flowing over the aircraft's wings. If no air is flowing over the wings, there is no lift. If there is no lift, the plane will not fly.
That would only make sense if the plane were being propelled by its wheels. And even then, you could still take off (in theory) if the wheels are moving more quickly than the treadmill.

Donger 08-25-2009 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000667)
So ignoring friction, if the planes wheels were just spinning, and the plane remained still relative to the ground, and then the propellers turned on and spun fast enough (theoretically), that would not create enough lift for the plane to take off?
No, it would not. Air flowing over the wing creates lift. However, if you ever played with a rubber band aircraft, you'll remember that if you really cranked the rubber band up, you could hold the plane with the propeller facing the sky and the propeller would create enough lift (briefly) for the plane to increase altitude. Not unlike a helicopter's rotor.

MIAdragon 08-25-2009 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000670)
I would eat w/ MIAdragon, and then kick him out for his avatar for the after party.
LMAO

RNR 08-25-2009 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOhn (Post 6000646)
ROFL

no he's a dude...well as far as I know. but his nickname is Karen. :D

Or maybe he/she is? :doh!:
There are several on here I would still like to meet, and would enjoy seeing those I have met again. That list used to include JOhn :shake:



:)

MIAdragon 08-25-2009 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigVE (Post 6000673)
Have you ever figured out who that chic in your avatar is?
Sadly no.

stevieray 08-25-2009 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000660)
Again, if the wheels were spinning, it would make no difference.
they used a plane and a 1oooft tarp being pulled the opposite direction.

the pilot said before the attempt didn't he think it would work either. maybe you're related ;)

DaFace 08-25-2009 04:28 PM
I give up on this one. I've never understood why such a simple physics question is so often misunderstood.

Donger 08-25-2009 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000678)
That would only make sense if the plane were being propelled by its wheels.
No, it wouldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000678)
And even then, you could still take off (in theory) if the wheels are moving more quickly than the treadmill.
If the wheels were moving more quickly than the treadmill, then there is some other motive force being applied (say a propeller). The simple fact is that without sufficient airflow over the wings, teh wings aren't going to produce lift.

Of course, a plane's wing can produce sufficient lift for take-off if a gust of wind flows over it at the velocity for take-off.

Donger 08-25-2009 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 6000684)
they used a plane and a 1oooft tarp being pulled the opposite direction.

the pilot said before the attempt didn't he think it would work either. maybe you're related ;)
Yes, I just watched it. You'll note that the plane was moving relative to the ground, which of course caused air to flow over the wings and produced the requisite lift.

DaFace 08-25-2009 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000688)
Yes, I just watched it. You'll note that the plane was moving relative to the ground, which of course caused air to flow over the wings and produced the requisite lift.
And were its wheels spinning when it took off?

Donger 08-25-2009 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000689)
And were its wheels spinning when it took off?
Yes, because it was moving relative to the ground.

Buck 08-25-2009 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000693)
Yes, because it was moving relative to the ground.
Do you know why in that video the plane was moving forward relative to the ground?

I guess if the you could say if a plane is not moving forward relative to the ground then it cannot take off. But I thought the question was worded saying if the wheels were spinning at the same rate as the conveyor belt.

DaFace 08-25-2009 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000629)
Then they did not use the same criteria described above.

If the planes wheels are spinning, then the aircraft has no relative ground speed. If if has no relative ground speed, no air is flowing over the aircraft's wings. If no air is flowing over the wings, there is no lift. If there is no lift, the plane will not fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000689)
And were its wheels spinning when it took off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000693)
Yes, because it was moving relative to the ground.
And you don't see a problem here?

Donger 08-25-2009 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000696)
Do you know why in that video the plane was moving forward relative to the ground?

I guess if the you could say if a plane is not moving forward relative to the ground then it cannot take off. But I thought the question was worded saying if the wheels were spinning at the same rate as the conveyor belt.
Because it is not an accurate test of the theory, as I said earlier. If the plane's wheels are not locked and free to spin, the treadmill underneath the plane would simply spin the plane's wheels and the plane would not move forward at all. If the plane is not moving forward (that's how planes generate enough speed to move enough air over the wings to produce lift), the plane will not take-off.

Buck 08-25-2009 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000706)
Because it is not an accurate test of the theory, as I said earlier. If the plane's wheels are not locked and free to spin, the treadmill underneath the plane would simply spin the plane's wheels and the plane would not move forward at all. If the plane is not moving forward (that's how planes generate enough speed to move enough air over the wings to produce lift), the plane will not take-off.
Ahh, gotcha. That makes sense to me now.

DaFace 08-25-2009 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000706)
Because it is not an accurate test of the theory, as I said earlier. If the plane's wheels are not locked and free to spin, the treadmill underneath the plane would simply spin the plane's wheels and the plane would not move forward at all. If the plane is not moving forward (that's how planes generate enough speed to move enough air over the wings to produce lift), the plane will not take-off.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're arguing (like everyone else apparently). Are you saying that a treadmill couldn't essentially "launch" the plane by moving in the same direction because the wheels would spin and the plane wouldn't move? That's a very different argument than the one I think everyone else is talking about - that a plane could take off under its own power while a treadmill was under it and moving in the opposite direction.

Donger 08-25-2009 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000700)
And you don't see a problem here?
No, I don't, because the theoretical test and the one Mythbusters performed were not the same. In the case of the treadmill, the wheels are only spinning because the treadmill is moving underneath them. In the Mythbusters test, the plane is moving forward relative to the ground. So, of course the wheels are spinning, but they are spinning because the aircraft itself is moving, which wouldn't happen in the above scenario.

salame 08-25-2009 04:48 PM
http://www.theyrecoming.com/extras/p...RibsOrgans.jpg

Buck 08-25-2009 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000710)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're arguing (like everyone else apparently). Are you saying that a treadmill couldn't essentially "launch" the plane by moving in the same direction because the wheels would spin and the plane wouldn't move? That's a very different argument than the one I think everyone else is talking about - that a plane could take off under its own power while a treadmill was under it and moving in the opposite direction.
Thats what I thought we were arguing at first too.

Bearcat 08-25-2009 04:48 PM
I never do well in these popularity contests. :sulk:

And I failed physics. Badly. :sulk:

DaFace 08-25-2009 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000720)
Thats what I thought we were arguing at first too.
I didn't even know there was a question about his version, honestly.

JOhn 08-25-2009 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider (Post 6000682)
There are several on here I would still like to meet, and would enjoy seeing those I have met again. That list used to include JOhn :shake:



:)
ROFL

Donger 08-25-2009 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000710)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're arguing (like everyone else apparently). Are you saying that a treadmill couldn't essentially "launch" the plane by moving in the same direction because the wheels would spin and the plane wouldn't move?
I'm saying that a plane sitting on a treadmill with its wheels unlock and free to spin would not take-off if the treadmill were accelerated to a speed normally required for lift-off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000710)
That's a very different argument than the one I think everyone else is talking about - that a plane could take off under its own power while a treadmill was under it and moving in the opposite direction.
That wouldn't work, either.

Titty Meat 08-25-2009 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000475)
I would literally eat dinner with anyone on this site, excluding: RoR and MV.

Since the only two people from CP I've met in real life are TinyE and Bill Parcells (D2112 / BP [whatever hes calling himself now]) I would have to put them on top of my list though since I can vouch for them being real cool guys.
haha you didn't list me. Raised On Riots must be a big douchebag if you would rather have dinner with me then him.

JOhn 08-25-2009 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 6000721)
I never do well in these popularity contests. :sulk:

And I failed physics. Badly. :sulk:
OK, yet another person to add to my list

Buck 08-25-2009 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000723)
I didn't even know there was a question about his version, honestly.
Me neither, but his answers make a whole lot more sense when you realize what hes arguing.

Pretty much the wheels could be moving forward at lets say 50 mph, while the treadmill moves backwards at 50 mph, but that doesn't mean the airplane is stagnant, its still moving forward.

I think...

This is too damn confusing. Sorry for jacking your thread

Halfcan 08-25-2009 04:54 PM
did anyone pick me yet-young single girls.......... anyone??..........










crickets

Buck 08-25-2009 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by billay (Post 6000728)
haha you didn't list me. Raised On Riots must be a big douchebag if you would rather have dinner with me then him.
Yesterday you said that I was ok with you, so you are okay with me. Just because we don't agree on rappers or football teams doesn't mean we cant be civil.

Halfcan 08-25-2009 04:54 PM
I can actually fit 12 for dinner at my place.

DaFace 08-25-2009 04:57 PM
I give up. Too many things to do.

Buck 08-25-2009 04:57 PM
I don't know why I'm still going.

If the plane had a rolling start, then the treadmill caught up to the speed of the wheels, technically the wheels and treadmill could be moving at the exact opposite velocity of eachother, yet the plane would still be moving forward due to momentum, right?

Donger 08-25-2009 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000732)
Me neither, but his answers make a whole lot more sense when you realize what hes arguing.

Pretty much the wheels could be moving forward at lets say 50 mph, while the treadmill moves backwards at 50 mph, but that doesn't mean the airplane is stagnant, its still moving forward.

I think...

This is too damn confusing. Sorry for jacking your thread
I may have confused people by mentioning the wheels, but I did so for good reason. If the wheels were locked and the treadmill accelerated to lift-off speed (and the plane didn't slide off or skid), then the plane would fly, becuase it achieved enough forward velocity to provide sufficient lift for flight. Essentially a catapult.

If the wheel are free to spin, the plane would not move at all and therefore the wings would produce no lift.

Buck 08-25-2009 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000744)
I may have confused people by mentioning the wheels, but I did so for good reason. If the wheels were locked and the treadmill accelerated to lift-off speed (and the plane didn't slide off or skid), then the plane would fly, becuase it achieved enough forward velocity to provide sufficient lift for flight. Essentially a catapult.

If the wheel are free to spin, the plane would not move at all and therefore the wings would produce no lift.
I was assuming the treadmill was going the opposite direction of the way the plane was trying to go.

Baby Lee 08-25-2009 04:59 PM
ROFL - some sites have banned all discussion of the AoaT question. The fundamental ambiguity at the heart of the controversy is below.

http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-...amn-treadmill/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/treadmill_diagram.png

Quote:
2. vC=vW: That is, if the axle is moving forward (relative to the ground, not the treadmill) at 5 m/s, the treadmill moves backward at 5 m/s. This is physically plausible. All it means is that the wheels will spin twice as fast as normal, but that won’t stop the plane from taking off. People who subscribe to this interpretation tend to assume the people who disagree with them think airplanes are powered by their wheels.

3. vC=vW+vB: What if we hook up a speedometer to the wheel, and make the treadmill spin backward as fast as the speedometer says the plane is going forward? Then the “speedometer speed” would be vW+vB — the relative speed of the wheel over the treadmill. This is, for example, how a car-on–a-treadmill setup would work. This is the assumption that most of the ’stationary plane’ people subscribe to. The problem with this is that it’s an ill-defined system. For non-slip tires, vB=vC. So vC=vW+vC. If we make vW positive, there is no value vC can take to make the equation true. (For those stubbornly clinging to vestiges of reality, in a system where the treadmill responds via a PID controller, the result would be the treadmill quickly spinning up to infinity.) So, in this system, the plane cannot have a nonzero speed. (We’ll call this the “JetBlue” scenario.)

But if we push with the engines, what happens? The terms of the problem tell us that the plane cannot have a nonzero speed, but there’s no physical mechanism that would plausibly make this happen. The treadmill could spin the wheels, but the acceleration would destroy them before it stopped the plane. The problem is basically asking “what happens if you take a plane that can’t move and move it?” It might intrigue literary critics, but it’s a poor physics question.
So basically, those in the 'won't fly' camp read the conditions to require that the axle -->wheel -->airplance have no forward momentum, otherwise the treadmill isn't actually 'mirroring' the airplane's efforts. They aren't concerned with the practical side, where the jet engines will accelerate the wheel/treadmill apparatus to infinite speed [not fast, not really fast, but infinite, as in increasing exponentially without end], and the system fails.

Buehler445 08-25-2009 05:00 PM
DUDE. Donger. If you put a plane on a treadmill and engaged the engine, it will create thrust and move the body of the plane, regardless of WTF the wheels are doing, off of the treadmill, and take the fugg off.

The plane DOES NOT get it's speed from the wheels. It gets it from thrust created by the engines (prop, turbo prop, or jet, typically). When the engines are engaged, the wheels would just spin faster than the treadmill and taxi off.
Posted via Mobile Device

Donger 08-25-2009 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000743)
I don't know why I'm still going.

If the plane had a rolling start, then the treadmill caught up to the speed of the wheels, technically the wheels and treadmill could be moving at the exact opposite velocity of eachother, yet the plane would still be moving forward due to momentum, right?
It would immediately begin to decelerate until its ground speed became zero. It's the same basic concept as DaFace's scenario above:

"that a plane could take off under its own power while a treadmill was under it and moving in the opposite direction"

In that scenario, the forward motion of the plane is precisely the opposite of the force being applied by the treadmill. Therefore, they cancel each other and the relative ground speed of the plane is zero = no lift = no flight.

go bo 08-25-2009 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wild1 (Post 6000566)
it should be bannable to start any post with the words "You do know". Invariably what follows is pompous and makes you want to kick the person in the shin...
you do know, don't you? really...

btw, you want to kick someone in the shin?

with a little better aim you could kick their family jewels into the next county...

as for pompous, how long have you been around here?

Donger 08-25-2009 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 6000756)
DUDE. Donger. If you put a plane on a treadmill and engaged the engine, it will create thrust and move the body of the plane, regardless of WTF the wheels are doing, off of the treadmill, and take the fugg off.
Yes, we've established what is required to produce lift.

Bearcat 08-25-2009 05:07 PM
For great conversation.... Rain Man, FAX, Phobia, TinyEvel, HC_Chief

For just football... stevieray, hismaque (whatever), OTW, Mecca, keg

For dinner and a show... frazod, KcMizzou, Zach, irishjayhawk, Laz



People left out, not enough chairs, etc.

Buehler445 08-25-2009 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000767)
Yes, we've established what is required to produce lift.
Don't be an ass. That is what will happen regardless of what the wheels are doing. Another good example is that the wheels will move at a slower speed with a tailwind, which illustrates that it doesn't matter what the wheels do. If the engines are creating enough thrust to creade lift, the ****er's flying.

Baby Lee articulated it much more effectively than I did.
Posted via Mobile Device

Buehler445 08-25-2009 05:21 PM
As far as the OP, its too hard of a question. Too many good posters here.
Posted via Mobile Device

Donger 08-25-2009 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 6000781)
Don't be an ass. That is what will happen regardless of what the wheels are doing. Another good example is that the wheels will move at a slower speed with a tailwind, which illustrates that it doesn't matter what the wheels do. If the engines are creating enough thrust to creade lift, the ****er's flying.

Baby Lee articulated it much more effectively than I did.
Posted via Mobile Device
Actually, the wheels in the treadmill scenario are very important. As I said, if the wheels are locked, then the treadmill basically acts as a catapult. The plane would quickly achieve sufficient ground speed (or air speed over the wings, if you prefer) required to achieve lift and flight. If the wheels are free to spin, that makes thing a bit more complicated.

seclark 08-25-2009 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOhillbilly (Post 6000562)
get outta my head sec.
SHUT YOUR COCKHOLSTER OR I'LL STAB YOU IN THE FACE WITH AN ICE PICK!!!
sec

Buehler445 08-25-2009 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000785)
Actually, the wheels in the treadmill scenario are very important. As I said, if the wheels are locked, then the treadmill basically acts as a catapult. The plane would quickly achieve sufficient ground speed (or air speed over the wings, if you prefer) required to achieve lift and flight. If the wheels are free to spin, that makes thing a bit more complicated.
The wheels don't matter. The thrust does.

You need to read Baby Lee's post.

Donger 08-25-2009 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 6000790)
The wheels don't matter. The thrust does.

You need to read Baby Lee's post.
If the wheels are locked and the treadmill moves, the wheels most certainly do matter. Because the plane will move in the direction the treadmill is moving, regardless of any other motive force.

Donger 08-25-2009 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 6000790)
The wheels don't matter. The thrust does.

You need to read Baby Lee's post.
Look at it this way:

A plane is sitting on a treadmill

The wheels are free to spin.

The plane's propeller is not moving (so it has no forward thrust).

The treadmill begins to move in the direction opposite the plane's normal direction (forward).

In that scenario (and assuming a lack of friction), what would happen to the plane?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 AM.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3456
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.