[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

You Know What Happens Next Cash Jordan: Half-Built Tower Abandoned… as ICE Deports Entire ‘Migrant Workforce’ Heavy rainfall causes flash flooding Tuesday night, some cars stuck in high water on Chicago's West Biden Doctor PLEADS THE FIFTH, Refuses To Testify To Congress, Biden Pardons ARE VOID Joe Rogan says FBI director Kash Patel played him for a fool and maga for fools with the Jeff Epstein files Elon's AI System "Grok" Went Rogue And Has Been SHUT DOWN in an Emergency! Earthquake Swarms at One of the MOST DANGEROUS Volcanoes in the USA Ben Shapiro Declares Epstein Case CLOSED: ‘Facts on the Ground Have Changed’ Iran receives 40 Chinese J10-C Fighter Jets China’s Railgun Is Now Battle-Ready, Thanks to Nuclear Power Chinese Hypersonic Advancements! Deadly new missile could decimate entire US fleet in 20 minutes Iran Confirms Massive Chinese HQ 9 B Missile Deal Why Is Europe Hitting 114°F And Still Rising? The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas What is quantum computing? 12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything' Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos! 'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas

Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Brainteaser: There's an airplane on the runway..
Source: Elsewhere
URL Source: http://www.someplaceelse.com
Published: Dec 1, 2005
Author: I have no idea
Post Date: 2005-12-01 01:10:02 by Jhoffa_
Keywords: Brainteaser:, airplane, runway..
Views: 2419
Comments: 202

Imagine a plane is sat on the beginning of a massive conveyor belt/travelator type arrangement, as wide and as long as a runway, and intends to take off. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation. There is no wind.

Can the plane take off?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 113.

#32. To: Jhoffa_ (#0)

Can the plane take off?

Of course! It doesn't matter what the ground is doing with respect to the wheels, because the wheels don't propel the craft down the runway. The propellor or jet engine cause the plane to move forward and they work just fine even if the ground is moving in the wrong direction. It will just cause the tires to rotate at twice the speed they would normally.

Now I'm going to read the thread and see what everyone else said and whether I've missed something. hehehe

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-12-01   16:03:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I disagree. Forward motion is what provides the wing lift required for a plane to leave the ground. Forward motion keeps a plane aloft. All engine power would be merely transferred to the conveyor belt through the wheels and there would be no forward motion by the plane and its wings, ergo, no take off.

wbales  posted on  2005-12-01   16:16:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I disagree. Forward motion is what provides the wing lift required for a plane to leave the ground. Forward motion keeps a plane aloft. All engine power would be merely transferred to the conveyor belt through the wheels and there would be no forward motion by the plane and its wings, ergo, no take off.

You are wrong on two counts, one of which is significant to the question.

1) Wing lift is created by the pressure differential created by the air passing over the airfoil surface - the top of which is longer, causing the air to move move swiftly than it does across the bottom.

2) The plane would have forward motion thanks to the thrust caused by the engines. The wheels are irrelevant, neutral, just along for the ride. The conveyor could be run at a speed 100 times that of the forward motion of the aircraft and all it would accomplish is making the wheels spin faster before takeoff. Forward motion and thereby wind speed would in no way be affected.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-12-01   18:22:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The plane would have forward motion thanks to the thrust caused by the engines.

Not if it was sitting on a conveyor belt. When taking off, the thrust from the engines propel the plane down the runway overcoming the friction between the wheels and the runway. As speed increases and the plane attains take off speed, lift on the wings pulls the plane up off the ground.

Think of running on ice--there is no traction--no friction to create forward movement despite a lot of thrust. Or think of a car wheel spinning on ice-- lots of thrust--no forward motion.

In this hypothetical, increasing thrust of the engines would only translate into higher wheel and conveyor belt counter rotation. The plane would sit spinning its wheels and the conveyor belt no matter how much thrust was being produced by the engines. The plane would not move. The wheels and the conveyor belt would be doing all the moving--the work and energy of the engines being realized there. The plane would remain stationary and would not, therefore, be able to attain lift rquired for take off.

wbales  posted on  2005-12-01   19:14:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

If the plane is a prop, it might be able to take off. It would be an unusual plane for certain. The propeller air wash over the lifting surfaces could concievably generate enough lift to get the plane airborne, even as the plane had zero velocity.

If it used a high bypass turbo fan jet for it's propulsion, as is typical for jetliners, the answer is never, assumeing there is no headwind at all.

These engines are produce very little thrust, by their basic nature, until foreward velocity begins to cram air for combustion into the nacelle, where the air is slowed down, and hence increased in pressure for the first stage of the compressors to throw into the burners. When stationary, the compressors pull a vacuum in the nacelle and very little combustion can take place.

Then, and only then do you get the massive thrust these engines are renowned for.

BTW it is easy to tell what the design speed of a jet is. If the nacelle (Front intake of the engine) is 90 degrees to the air flow, it is a subsonic design. If the nacelle if angled, supersonic, with the angle matching the sonic shock wave angle generated by the speed of the plane. In other words, the greater the angle of the nacelle, the greater the design speed of the plane.

tom007  posted on  2005-12-01   19:48:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Yet another reason this plane wouldn't take off--the jet fan engine.

wbales  posted on  2005-12-01   20:02:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

get some bottlerockets and visit your local supermarkey, see if bottle rockets care how fast conveyer belt is turning.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-12-01   20:08:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

some bottlerockets and visit

The bottle rockets would fly, no matter what the conveyor was doing. They are a self contained control system. The propellent contains an oxident. Thrust here is independent of external conditions.

tom007  posted on  2005-12-01   20:13:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The bottle rockets would fly, no matter what the conveyor was doing. They are a self contained control system. The propellent contains an oxident. Thrust here is independent of external conditions.

oh, my God

wakeup  posted on  2005-12-02   2:10:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The bottle rockets would fly, no matter what the conveyor was doing. They are a self contained control system. The propellent contains an oxident. Thrust here is independent of external conditions.

oh, my God

Adolf Hitler... "What luck for rulers that men do not think."

John F. Kennedy... "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

wakeup posted on 2005-12-02 02:10:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

Care to elaborate? Remember, we are talking about an air breathing engine here. By the way, I am using "Areospace Propulsion" by Dennis Sheppard, 1972, Cornell University, as my source.

tom007  posted on  2005-12-02   9:43:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The thrust from the engines will move the plane forward unless there is sufficient friction on the ground to offset the force. There is no indication in the question that this is the case. Thus, the plane will move forward.

Assuming the wheels maintain contact with the belt and the belt is moving in the opposite direction, the rate of rotation of the wheels is a function of the speed of the plane + the speed of the belt. Therefore, there is a flaw in the assumptions because it is impossible for the conveyor belt to move as fast as the wheels once the plane starts moving forward.

So perhaps, the trick answer is that the belt, in attempting to match the wheel rotation speed accelerates to infinity causing the wheels to fall off and the plane to crash.

Soren  posted on  2005-12-02   10:40:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Ya beat me to the punch.

Neil McIver  posted on  2005-12-02   12:10:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

LOL. Amazing how similar our thought processes were.

Soren  posted on  2005-12-02   12:17:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#143. To: Soren (#113)

LOL. Amazing how similar our thought processes were.

both of you are mistaken

wakeup  posted on  2005-12-02 20:03:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]