FINALLY! Mythbuster, Dec 12th, MUST WATCH!

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by benyl


Again. Is the thrust being applied to the air, or the ground?

Irrelevant.

The air flowing around the wings creates a low pressure zone above them, and a high pressure zone below, since nature abhores a vacuum, the high pressure "pushes" up on the wings to try to even out the low pressure zone.

No matter where the power is coming from, no airflow around the wings means no lift. So if the aircraft is on a conveyer belt it may as well be standing still.

[Lagerstatten.ca]

Thrust from the engine will give it the force needed to move forward. But the landing gears on on the conveyor belt and if the conveyor belt is moving as fast as the landing gears then the plane will stay in one stationary place.

It won't lift off as there will be equal forces going forward (engine thrust) and the conveyor going in the opposite direction.

I drew it out...on a napkin...just doesn't work.

But we'll see...only 2 months away. Haha!

-TT

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok

No matter where the power is coming from, no airflow around the wings means no lift. So if the aircraft is on a conveyer belt it may as well be standing still.

What makes you think the conveyor belt will keep the plane from moving forward? All the people who say the plane won't take off assume that this is the case.

[Oldskool]

Benyl's got the right idea, the plane will take off, it will take off just like it would any other day, the only difference is the wheels will be spinning twice as fast......

I've got 5 in for TAKE OFF

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Nav13
Heres the thing though the plane will still require the same if not more room to take off on the conveyor belt. So if they are testing weather or not it will take off on a conveyor belt, the plane will simply move forward abit and then go onto normal tarmac and they might say it doesnt work? So unless they have a huge conveyor belt, like runway length size, I dont see how they are going to do this experiment? Guess I'll just have to wait and see.

MS Paint FTW.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Hakkola


What makes you think the conveyor belt will keep the plane from moving forward? All the people who say the plane won't take off assume that this is the case.

'

the myth is that the conveyer belt is going as fast as the plane is, in the opposite direction.

[mark4091]

It will take off.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by natejj
I got 5 bucks that says the plane DOESNT take off. I've seen planes take off the back of trucks, but that is different.

This has been solved here already. The plane takes off.


http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.p...=&pagenumber=9

[Nav13]

Originally posted by Canmorite


MS Paint FTW.

hahaha, love the drawing, but I already understand that the belt is running in the opposite direction to hold the plane in stationary. But I am from the school of thought that the plane will still take off. What I was trying to get at, is that once the plane starts moving forward after it breaks the speed of the belt, it will simply just move off the belt, that is unless they have a super long converyor belt system, which is just as long as the distance required for the plan to take off normaly, or a bit longer.

[benyl]

How is it irrelevant?

How does a hovercraft move forward? How does a Florida swamp boat move forward?

They apply thrust to the air. The surface friction is irrelevant.

Haha, this is the same argument everyone had last time... haha can't wait for the physics formulas to come out.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


This has been solved here already. The plane takes off.


http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.p...p;pagenumber=9

Ahh, after reading a few posts, I see I misunderstood the myth itself. My attention immediately turned to the physics of lift, not thrust.

[95EagleAWD]

Can you land a 747 in adverse weather?

How adverse are we talking about here?

Of course you can, what kind of myth is that?

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Nav13


hahaha, love the drawing, but I already understand that the belt is running in the opposite direction to hold the plane in stationary. But I am from the school of thought that the plane will still take off. What I was trying to get at, is that once the plane starts moving forward after it breaks the speed of the belt, it will simply just move off the belt, that is unless they have a super long converyor belt system, which is just as long as the distance required for the plan to take off normaly, or a bit longer.

The conveyor belt only needs to be big enough to fit the wheels of the plane on it. It spins around basically creating an artificial perpetual runway.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Can you land a 747 in adverse weather?

How adverse are we talking about here?

Of course you can, what kind of myth is that?

They're seeing if an untrained person could, not a professional.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok

the myth is that the conveyer belt is going as fast as the plane is, in the opposite direction.

Shouldn't matter, it isn't the wheels that are going to decide the speed of the plane, it will be the thrust of the engines. Think about a boat plane, there are no wheels to spin but the plane can still create momentum with thrust.

I think a better example would be a rocket, put it on the ground and it will still launch forward, no matter what sort of friction is placed on the bottom of the rocket, short of actually strapping it down.

Just because the wheels aren't spinning, or are even rotating the wrong way, it doesn't mean that the plane won't still be moving forward. IMO. I'm not a physics expert, but even if parts of my argument are incorrect, I don't think there is even close to enough friction to keep the plane down if it is only applied to the wheels.

Edit - LOL, I started writing this response before benyl's post was up, that's why this is late, I spent some time trying to articulate my ideas.

[Tik-Tok]

^ See previous post, my mind went straight for the lift, and not as to whether or not the engines would pull the plane forward regardless of the conveyer.

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by alloroc
Bernoulli's Theorem people.

no forward motion relative to the surrounding air = no airflow across the wings = no flight - unless they are contemplating doing this in a wind tunnel and blowing air across the wings at take off velocity.

true!


It doesn't matter how fast the wheels are spinning, it matters what the airspeed over the wings is, which the plane is relative to the ground and hence the air, has zero horizontal speed, lift will not exist

[speedracer]

Originally posted by benyl

Haha, this is the same argument everyone had last time... haha can't wait for the physics formulas to come out.

Bust out the

hahaha

It will fly.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by bvanlankvelt
Great explanation. And Drew I commend you for accepting the fact that the plane will take off - even after your arguments against the fact. It is about Newton's law - every action has equal and opposite reaction. We have to assume the conveyor is powered or it could not match speeds, the reaction to this action is the spinning of the wheels of the plane. Now since, the wheels cancel out the spinning conveyor, what is the equal and opposite reaction to over 200000 pounds of engine thrust? The answer of course is forward motion of the airplane relative to the air. The conveyor has already been cancelled out.

Articulated much better than I.

[b_t]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Wow, their really gearing the show towards kids these days, aren't they?

Without having to use any cool toys that they always use...

1) Can you safely land a 747 during adverse weather - Highly unlikely, it would be a fluke if you can. BUSTED
2) Can you catch up with someone in freefall Obviously, how else do you think aerobatic skydiving teams do what they do? 50 people all jumping out of the plane at the same time? TRUTH
3) Can you hold a conversation during freefall Why not? you can hold a conversation on a windy day can't you? TRUTH
4) Will you survive if your chute opened a few feet off the ground? Depend how many feet a "few" are, but yeah, your aren't gonna live if they mean THAT few. BUSTED
5) Can an aircraft take off from a conveyer belt No chance in hell. BUSTED

There, I just saved you guys a 2 month wait, and an hour of your life.

You are a fucking idiot

1. Yes but it would be hard as hell, so that is why they don't do it. If you can land a Hercules in a warzone, you can land a Boeing at a windy, rainy, low visibility airport - you just don't do it because of the risk. I don't think you could land in icy conditions.

2. You only can if the other person is slowing themselves down or has a lower terminal velocity. If you take two equivalent people and have one jump out five seconds before the other, the second will never catch up.

3. Have you ever tried talking in a 300km/h hurricane? You fucking moron, you don't freefall at 40 or 50km/h.

4. There are documented cases of people surviving with no parachute at all. It could happen, but it is not likely. They would say plausible.

5. I am tired of this fucking argument. The speed of a plane depends on the propeller or jets, not the fucking wheels. If the wheels AREN'T locked, the plane WILL fly.