Will the Plane Take-Off

[Redskin in Canada]

I am beginning to worry that we have more time in our hands than we care to admit (notwithstanding the desperate claims made by everybody about the amount of work that swamps us everyday).

Well, I have an excuse: This is my way to escape reality.

[Countertrey]

This is my way to escape reality

Escape?????

I thought this WAS reality! Who'da thunk it?

[skinsfan#33]

After reading all that I have a few comments.

First counter tre and the brits are right, the plain will fly. The plain will not stay on the tread mill, because the thrust pushes on air not the ground. Imagine if you were running on a tread mill and a giant came along and kicked you right in the backside, you're coming off that threadmill.

Second a Harrier is a VSTOL (verticle/short take off and landing) and it's wings don't move. VTOL aicraft can only take off straight up and down (a helicopter).

Third, lift is created because the airspeed above an airfoil move a greater speed than the air under the foil. This makes a low preasure above the wing and sucks the plain into the sky. I know, low above or high below what's the difference. I don't really know.

I was stationed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt for her first cruise and we once lauched an S-3 at anchor outside of Naples. Don't ask me why, but we did and it made it.

If the conveyor belt is moving the plane backwards at 150 mph, there is 150 mph of wind flowing into the back jets and over the plane from the rear. These factors would counter the force from the front and cancel the plane's tendency to lift by forcing it down. The plane would come apart.

What?

Where did that 150 mph backdraft come from and I thought that the plane and tread mill were in sync so that the plane does not move. If it was possible for a tread mill to keep the relative possition of the plane still than it would not take flight. Unless it was some type of VTOL or VSTOL aircraft (helicopter or Harrier). But the simple fact is there is no way that a tread could keep the plane from moving forward and it would eventually gain enough airspeed to generate more lift than gravitational pull...

In other words the plane would fly.

Man the off season svcks!

[crazyhorse1]

After reading all that I have a few comments.

First counter tre and the brits are right, the plain will fly. The plain will not stay on the tread mill, because the thrust pushes on air not the ground. Imagine if you were running on a tread mill and a giant came along and kicked you right in the backside, you're coming off that threadmill.

Second a Harrier is a VSTOL (verticle/short take off and landing) and it's wings don't move. VTOL aicraft can only take off straight up and down (a helicopter).

Third, lift is created because the airspeed above an airfoil move a greater speed than the air under the foil. This makes a low preasure above the wing and sucks the plain into the sky. I know, low above or high below what's the difference. I don't really know.

I was stationed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt for her first cruise and we once lauched an S-3 at anchor outside of Naples. Don't ask me why, but we did and it made it.

If the conveyor belt is moving the plane backwards at 150 mph, there is 150 mph of wind flowing into the back jets and over the plane from the rear. These factors would counter the force from the front and cancel the plane's tendency to lift by forcing it down. The plane would come apart.

What?

Where did that 150 mph backdraft come from and I thought that the plane and tread mill were in sync so that the plane does not move. If it was possible for a tread mill to keep the relative possition of the plane still than it would not take flight. Unless it was some type of VTOL or VSTOL aircraft (helicopter or Harrier). But the simple fact is there is no way that a tread could keep the plane from moving forward and it would eventually gain enough airspeed to generate more lift than gravitational pull...

In other words the plane would fly.

Man the off season svcks!

The difficult with the question lies in the proposition that at the beginning of the relationship between the plane and the treadmill the plane is already going 150 mph and the treadmill is going 150 mph. That is clearly impossible. If the plane is already going 150 mph it is already flying and cannot be said to be onl a treadmill, which must be going 150 mph i the other director without the plane upon it. Therefore, the problem becomes a problem involving language rather than one that involves physics.

In order for the problem to have an answer in the world of physics, the problem has to begin with both the plane and the treadmill at 0 mph.l

[crazyhorse1]

After reading all that I have a few comments.

First counter tre and the brits are right, the plain will fly. The plain will not stay on the tread mill, because the thrust pushes on air not the ground. Imagine if you were running on a tread mill and a giant came along and kicked you right in the backside, you're coming off that threadmill.

Second a Harrier is a VSTOL (verticle/short take off and landing) and it's wings don't move. VTOL aicraft can only take off straight up and down (a helicopter).

Third, lift is created because the airspeed above an airfoil move a greater speed than the air under the foil. This makes a low preasure above the wing and sucks the plain into the sky. I know, low above or high below what's the difference. I don't really know.

I was stationed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt for her first cruise and we once lauched an S-3 at anchor outside of Naples. Don't ask me why, but we did and it made it.

If the conveyor belt is moving the plane backwards at 150 mph, there is 150 mph of wind flowing into the back jets and over the plane from the rear. These factors would counter the force from the front and cancel the plane's tendency to lift by forcing it down. The plane would come apart.

What?

Where did that 150 mph backdraft come from and I thought that the plane and tread mill were in sync so that the plane does not move. If it was possible for a tread mill to keep the relative possition of the plane still than it would not take flight. Unless it was some type of VTOL or VSTOL aircraft (helicopter or Harrier). But the simple fact is there is no way that a tread could keep the plane from moving forward and it would eventually gain enough airspeed to generate more lift than gravitational pull...

In other words the plane would fly.

Man the off season svcks!

The difficult with the question lies in the proposition that at the beginning of the relationship between the plane and the treadmill the plane is already going 150 mph and the treadmill is going 150 mph. That is clearly impossible. If the plane is already going 150 mph it is already flying and cannot be said to be onl a treadmill, which must be going 150 mph i the other director without the plane upon it. Therefore, the problem becomes a problem involving language rather than one that involves physics.

In order for the problem to have an answer in the world of physics, the problem has to begin with both the plane and the treadmill at 0 mph. To have symetry, and therefore the desired problematic effect, the acceleration of the treadmill and the plane would have to be at exactly the same rate. If this is assumed, the plane would not take off, for reasons I have already stated.l

[Hoss]

If this is a JetBlue plane then, of course, the plane will not take off.

[1niksder]

After reading all that I have a few comments.

First counter tre and the brits are right, the plain will fly. The plain will not stay on the tread mill, because the thrust pushes on air not the ground. Imagine if you were running on a tread mill and a giant came along and kicked you right in the backside, you're coming off that threadmill.

Second a Harrier is a VSTOL (verticle/short take off and landing) and it's wings don't move. VTOL aicraft can only take off straight up and down (a helicopter).

Third, lift is created because the airspeed above an airfoil move a greater speed than the air under the foil. This makes a low preasure above the wing and sucks the plain into the sky. I know, low above or high below what's the difference. I don't really know.

I was stationed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt for her first cruise and we once lauched an S-3 at anchor outside of Naples. Don't ask me why, but we did and it made it.

If the conveyor belt is moving the plane backwards at 150 mph, there is 150 mph of wind flowing into the back jets and over the plane from the rear. These factors would counter the force from the front and cancel the plane's tendency to lift by forcing it down. The plane would come apart.

What?

Where did that 150 mph backdraft come from and I thought that the plane and tread mill were in sync so that the plane does not move. If it was possible for a tread mill to keep the relative possition of the plane still than it would not take flight. Unless it was some type of VTOL or VSTOL aircraft (helicopter or Harrier). But the simple fact is there is no way that a tread could keep the plane from moving forward and it would eventually gain enough airspeed to generate more lift than gravitational pull...

In other words the plane would fly.

Man the off season svcks!

The difficult with the question lies in the proposition that at the beginning of the relationship between the plane and the treadmill the plane is already going 150 mph and the treadmill is going 150 mph. That is clearly impossible. If the plane is already going 150 mph it is already flying and cannot be said to be onl a treadmill, which must be going 150 mph i the other director without the plane upon it. Therefore, the problem becomes a problem involving language rather than one that involves physics.

In order for the problem to have an answer in the world of physics, the problem has to begin with both the plane and the treadmill at 0 mph.l

You mentioned the 150 MPH and now that's the problem with the question

Let's start over and see if we can get you back to the original question.

A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer).
The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite
direction. 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 opposite
direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not?

[Jake]

So does the plane take off or not?

[Irn-Bru]

So does the plane take off or not?

Everyone who has said that it could bases their answer on the idea that the wind speed around the wings would be sufficient for takeoff.

However, the point of the thought exercise is that the plane cannot generate any speed thanks to the moveable ground, so I don't see how the air would all of the sudden begin to swirl around the wings as if the plane was traveling quite fast. Every post making this argument had to say things like 'the plane will go faster than the treadmill can keep up with it' or other qualifiers that contradict the original question.

My conclusion from reading this thread (and the different people arguing their position) is that the plane won't take off.

[skinz74]

Whew...I'm not crazy. Though I really liked countertrey's answer, I couldn't help but hold on to my original thesis. We mutually agreed to disagree. I thought this thread was dead...

[Hoss]

If this is a JetBlue plane then, of course, the plane will not take off.

now that i have had a chance to review the question.....

if it is a jetblue plane.... then after 9 plus hours of maintaining it's takeoff position ....i'd say it'd take off.....

[crazyhorse1]

After reading all that I have a few comments.

First counter tre and the brits are right, the plain will fly. The plain will not stay on the tread mill, because the thrust pushes on air not the ground. Imagine if you were running on a tread mill and a giant came along and kicked you right in the backside, you're coming off that threadmill.

Second a Harrier is a VSTOL (verticle/short take off and landing) and it's wings don't move. VTOL aicraft can only take off straight up and down (a helicopter).

Third, lift is created because the airspeed above an airfoil move a greater speed than the air under the foil. This makes a low preasure above the wing and sucks the plain into the sky. I know, low above or high below what's the difference. I don't really know.

I was stationed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt for her first cruise and we once lauched an S-3 at anchor outside of Naples. Don't ask me why, but we did and it made it.

If the conveyor belt is moving the plane backwards at 150 mph, there is 150 mph of wind flowing into the back jets and over the plane from the rear. These factors would counter the force from the front and cancel the plane's tendency to lift by forcing it down. The plane would come apart.

What?

Where did that 150 mph backdraft come from and I thought that the plane and tread mill were in sync so that the plane does not move. If it was possible for a tread mill to keep the relative possition of the plane still than it would not take flight. Unless it was some type of VTOL or VSTOL aircraft (helicopter or Harrier). But the simple fact is there is no way that a tread could keep the plane from moving forward and it would eventually gain enough airspeed to generate more lift than gravitational pull...

In other words the plane would fly.

Man the off season svcks!

The difficult with the question lies in the proposition that at the beginning of the relationship between the plane and the treadmill the plane is already going 150 mph and the treadmill is going 150 mph. That is clearly impossible. If the plane is already going 150 mph it is already flying and cannot be said to be onl a treadmill, which must be going 150 mph i the other director without the plane upon it. Therefore, the problem becomes a problem involving language rather than one that involves physics.

In order for the problem to have an answer in the world of physics, the problem has to begin with both the plane and the treadmill at 0 mph.l

You mentioned the 150 MPH and now that's the problem with the question

Let's start over and see if we can get you back to the original question.

A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer).
The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite
direction. 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 opposite
direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not?

Sorry, I shouldn't have referred to the original statement, I was actually trying to refute some other posts which were based on the notion that at the beginning of the problem both the treadmill and plane were already moving. Returning to the actual question, I return to my original answer: No, the plane will not take off.

[DesertSkin]

It'll fly. The speed, direction, and overall existance of the treadmill is irrelevant in the overall dynamics for solving the question. The physics behind it have a pin (wheel) with no resistance. The forces the treadmill creates will only turn the wheel more once the engines start exerting force onto the plane in the opposite direction. Basic "statics and dynamics" for those college trained engineers.

Example: Replace the jet with an unicycle that has no pedals on the treadmill with the rider holding a rope (at chest level, simulates the forces of the jet engine) fixed to the wall in front of him. The treadmill can do whatever it wants at any speed or direction it wants, but as soon as the rider pulls on the rope, he will fall on his face.

This is exactly like the airplane except the airplane is on a tripod of wheels and instead of "falling on it's face" it moves forward. The wheel simply cannot transfer any of the treadmills force onto the plane because of their design and thus, cannot stop the airplane from going forward and eventually flying.

[Irn-Bru]

It'll fly. The speed, direction, and overall existance of the treadmill is irrelevant in the overall dynamics for solving the question. The physics behind it have a pin (wheel) with no resistance. The forces the treadmill creates will only turn the wheel more once the engines start exerting force onto the plane in the opposite direction. Basic "statics and dynamics" for those college trained engineers.

Example: Replace the jet with an unicycle that has no pedals on the treadmill with the rider holding a rope (at chest level, simulates the forces of the jet engine) fixed to the wall in front of him. The treadmill can do whatever it wants at any speed or direction it wants, but as soon as the rider pulls on the rope, he will fall on his face.

This is exactly like the airplane except the airplane is on a tripod of wheels and instead of "falling on it's face" it moves forward. The wheel simply cannot transfer any of the treadmills force onto the plane because of their design and thus, cannot stop the airplane from going forward and eventually flying.

I'm slow to learn, and I've just now 'realized' what this argument means.


Now I don't know what to think. . . .

[UK Skins Fan]

Irn-Bru wrote:

Now I don't know what to think. . . .

Careful - that's enough to get called a liberal around here.

Or, even worse, a moderate...

[crazyhorse1]

It'll fly. The speed, direction, and overall existance of the treadmill is irrelevant in the overall dynamics for solving the question. The physics behind it have a pin (wheel) with no resistance. The forces the treadmill creates will only turn the wheel more once the engines start exerting force onto the plane in the opposite direction. Basic "statics and dynamics" for those college trained engineers.

Example: Replace the jet with an unicycle that has no pedals on the treadmill with the rider holding a rope (at chest level, simulates the forces of the jet engine) fixed to the wall in front of him. The treadmill can do whatever it wants at any speed or direction it wants, but as soon as the rider pulls on the rope, he will fall on his face.

This is exactly like the airplane except the airplane is on a tripod of wheels and instead of "falling on it's face" it moves forward. The wheel simply cannot transfer any of the treadmills force onto the plane because of their design and thus, cannot stop the airplane from going forward and eventually flying.

I'm slow to learn, and I've just now 'realized' what this argument means.


Now I don't know what to think. . . .

If no force can be transferred by the plane's weight to the wheels and then to the treadmill by friction and weight, you should be able to pull the plane along with your pinkie. Should you not?

[UK Skins Fan]

Pinkies have never been demonstrated to exert enough force to overcome the inertia of an aircraft. Jet engines, on the other hand, are well up to the task.

Should we really still be discussing this? The season must be about to start, surely.

[xhadow]

I apologize for not reading every post but I just wanted to make a point.

If this were possible don't you think the military would be all over it, seeing as how the Osprey thingy keeps failing on its whole VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) one would think it would be easier to build a few giant conveyor belts and utilize the aircrafts we already have.

The fact is that you need air to produce lift and if a stationary object was able to get enough air under its wings then there would be no need for a conveyor belt or jet engines for that matter.

[1niksder]

I apologize for not reading every post but I just wanted to make a point.

If this were possible don't you think the military would be all over it, seeing as how the Osprey thingy keeps failing on its whole VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) one would think it would be easier to build a few giant conveyor belts and utilize the aircrafts we already have.

The fact is that you need air to produce lift and if a stationary object was able to get enough air under its wings then there would be no need for a conveyor belt or jet engines for that matter.

So you're saying you have no idea if the plane will take off or not

[xhadow]

I apologize for not reading every post but I just wanted to make a point.

If this were possible don't you think the military would be all over it, seeing as how the Osprey thingy keeps failing on its whole VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) one would think it would be easier to build a few giant conveyor belts and utilize the aircrafts we already have.

The fact is that you need air to produce lift and if a stationary object was able to get enough air under its wings then there would be no need for a conveyor belt or jet engines for that matter.

So you're saying you have no idea if the plane will take off or not

I am saying that it won't based on the fact that if you don't get air running under the wings to produce lift the plane won't... ummm lift off. A plane on a treadmil or conveyor belt would be stationary with the exception of the wheels. I use the military example more as proof of concept (or lack there of). I am pretty sure if the military could figure out a way to shorten runways they would do it.

Also I just had a co worker ask me if they shortend runways then how could planes land, which got me to thinking. They could always reverse the conveyor and the plane could decelerate that way. Although if the plane isn't straight it could cause for some horrible crashes.

So final answer taking off on a conveyor belt... NO
Landing on a conveyor belt... possible but not probable

I would love to see the guys on mythbusters tackle both of these though.

[DesertSkin]

I apologize for not reading every post but I just wanted to make a point.

If this were possible don't you think the military would be all over it, seeing as how the Osprey thingy keeps failing on its whole VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) one would think it would be easier to build a few giant conveyor belts and utilize the aircrafts we already have.

The fact is that you need air to produce lift and if a stationary object was able to get enough air under its wings then there would be no need for a conveyor belt or jet engines for that matter.

So you're saying you have no idea if the plane will take off or not

I am saying that it won't based on the fact that if you don't get air running under the wings to produce lift the plane won't... ummm lift off. A plane on a treadmil or conveyor belt would be stationary with the exception of the wheels. I use the military example more as proof of concept (or lack there of). I am pretty sure if the military could figure out a way to shorten runways they would do it.

Also I just had a co worker ask me if they shortend runways then how could planes land, which got me to thinking. They could always reverse the conveyor and the plane could decelerate that way. Although if the plane isn't straight it could cause for some horrible crashes.

So final answer taking off on a conveyor belt... NO
Landing on a conveyor belt... possible but not probable

I would love to see the guys on mythbusters tackle both of these though.

The main problem with all this is that the plane still needs to move to take of. The treadmill cannot stop the plane from moving forward no matter what it does. Thus, the forward movement of the plane will result in air flowing over the wings creating lift.

The treadmill cannot stop the plane from moving forward because there is no way to transfer the force of the treadmill to the plane. The wheels are on a free spining pin which cannot transfer force either way (There is friction, so some of it will techically transfer, but its not a lot and from an engineering standpoint its neglegable)

This would be interesting for mythbuster, but they better have a 2+mile long treadmill, cause that plane's movin forward!!!

[xhadow]

I apologize for not reading every post but I just wanted to make a point.

If this were possible don't you think the military would be all over it, seeing as how the Osprey thingy keeps failing on its whole VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) one would think it would be easier to build a few giant conveyor belts and utilize the aircrafts we already have.

The fact is that you need air to produce lift and if a stationary object was able to get enough air under its wings then there would be no need for a conveyor belt or jet engines for that matter.

So you're saying you have no idea if the plane will take off or not

I am saying that it won't based on the fact that if you don't get air running under the wings to produce lift the plane won't... ummm lift off. A plane on a treadmil or conveyor belt would be stationary with the exception of the wheels. I use the military example more as proof of concept (or lack there of). I am pretty sure if the military could figure out a way to shorten runways they would do it.

Also I just had a co worker ask me if they shortend runways then how could planes land, which got me to thinking. They could always reverse the conveyor and the plane could decelerate that way. Although if the plane isn't straight it could cause for some horrible crashes.

So final answer taking off on a conveyor belt... NO
Landing on a conveyor belt... possible but not probable

I would love to see the guys on mythbusters tackle both of these though.

The main problem with all this is that the plane still needs to move to take of. The treadmill cannot stop the plane from moving forward no matter what it does. Thus, the forward movement of the plane will result in air flowing over the wings creating lift.

The treadmill cannot stop the plane from moving forward because there is no way to transfer the force of the treadmill to the plane. The wheels are on a free spining pin which cannot transfer force either way (There is friction, so some of it will techically transfer, but its not a lot and from an engineering standpoint its neglegable)

This would be interesting for mythbuster, but they better have a 2+mile long treadmill, cause that plane's movin forward!!!

The point of the question though is that due to the treadmil the plane wouldn't have any forward inertia thus though the plane would be moving the treadmil would be going just as fast in the opposite direction. If the plane was to move forward there would be no point in the treadmil thus negating the question.

[1niksder]

I apologize for not reading every post but I just wanted to make a point.

If this were possible don't you think the military would be all over it, seeing as how the Osprey thingy keeps failing on its whole VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) one would think it would be easier to build a few giant conveyor belts and utilize the aircrafts we already have.

The fact is that you need air to produce lift and if a stationary object was able to get enough air under its wings then there would be no need for a conveyor belt or jet engines for that matter.

So you're saying you have no idea if the plane will take off or not

I am saying that it won't based on the fact that if you don't get air running under the wings to produce lift the plane won't... ummm lift off. A plane on a treadmil or conveyor belt would be stationary with the exception of the wheels. I use the military example more as proof of concept (or lack there of). I am pretty sure if the military could figure out a way to shorten runways they would do it.

Also I just had a co worker ask me if they shortend runways then how could planes land, which got me to thinking. They could always reverse the conveyor and the plane could decelerate that way. Although if the plane isn't straight it could cause for some horrible crashes.

So final answer taking off on a conveyor belt... NO
Landing on a conveyor belt... possible but not probable

I would love to see the guys on mythbusters tackle both of these though.

The main problem with all this is that the plane still needs to move to take of. The treadmill cannot stop the plane from moving forward no matter what it does. Thus, the forward movement of the plane will result in air flowing over the wings creating lift.

The treadmill cannot stop the plane from moving forward because there is no way to transfer the force of the treadmill to the plane. The wheels are on a free spining pin which cannot transfer force either way (There is friction, so some of it will techically transfer, but its not a lot and from an engineering standpoint its neglegable)

This would be interesting for mythbuster, but they better have a 2+mile long treadmill, cause that plane's movin forward!!!

The point of the question though is that due to the treadmil the plane wouldn't have any forward inertia thus though the plane would be moving the treadmil would be going just as fast in the opposite direction. If the plane was to move forward there would be no point in the treadmil thus negating the question.

I apologize for not reading every post but I just wanted to make a point.

If this were possible don't you think the military would be all over it, seeing as how the Osprey thingy keeps failing on its whole VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) one would think it would be easier to build a few giant conveyor belts and utilize the aircrafts we already have.

The fact is that you need air to produce lift and if a stationary object was able to get enough air under its wings then there would be no need for a conveyor belt or jet engines for that matter.

So you're saying you have no idea if the plane will take off or not

[DesertSkin]

The point of the question though is that due to the treadmil the plane wouldn't have any forward inertia thus though the plane would be moving the treadmil would be going just as fast in the opposite direction. If the plane was to move forward there would be no point in the treadmil thus negating the question.

For the reason previously posted, the treadmill cannot stop the plane from generating forward inertia. It can accelerate all it wants in complete correlation with the airplane speed, but it will not prevent the airplane from moving forward. If it was a car instead of a airplane, you would be correct. But the airplane creates the force by interacting only with the air and the treadmill cannot do anything to stop the plane from "pulling" on the air and moving forward. There is no resistance between the wheels touching the ground and the frame of the aircraft because the wheels are free spinning.

[skinz74]

Though some of my hog brothers will disagree..take it from an air traffic controller (aircraft lift is my life,) no wind under the wings = no lift. Period. Otherwise, the military would have a giant treadmill on all our aircraft carriers. When my CATCC team would launch sorties, the boat/and/or wind had to create at least 35 knots of wind across the deck (headwind.) There were many 'o nights that smack in the middle of launching aircraft, mother (ship) would turn sharply one way or another (chasing the wind.) Like several have mentioned, the purpose of the riddle provides that the treadmill keeps the aircraft stationary. So, if the aircraft is stationary, it's airspeed is 0 knots, regardless if the a/c in question is accelerating past 300 knots. Many of us are not going to agree on this, but I've seen what happens to a/c that do not have headwind...they crash.

$.02