Pick 5 posters you'd like to have dinner with.

[chiefbowe82]

Just select 5 and only 5 people you'd like to have dinner with.

1.StevieRay-love the elvis gear, and seems like a good guy
2.Mecca-love the overall football knowledge, I'd enjoy picking your brain
3.GoChiefs-I don't think theres a minute where he doesn't think about kc football.
4.XFactor-like the custom die hard fan. Your river falls updates etc.
5.Simply Red-great guy

[DaFace]

I give up on this one. I've never understood why such a simple physics question is so often misunderstood.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by DaFace

That would only make sense if the plane were being propelled by its wheels.

No, it wouldn't.

Originally Posted by DaFace

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]

Originally Posted by stevieray

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]

Originally Posted by Donger

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]

Originally Posted by DaFace

And were its wheels spinning when it took off?

Yes, because it was moving relative to the ground.

[Buck]

Originally Posted by Donger

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]

Originally Posted by Donger

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.

Originally Posted by DaFace

And were its wheels spinning when it took off?

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, because it was moving relative to the ground.

And you don't see a problem here?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding

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]

Originally Posted by Donger

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]

Originally Posted by Donger

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]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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]

[Buck]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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]

I never do well in these popularity contests.

And I failed physics. Badly.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding

Thats what I thought we were arguing at first too.

I didn't even know there was a question about his version, honestly.