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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

BREAKING! DEEP STATE SWAMP RATS TRYING TO SABOTAGE TRUMP FROM THE INSIDE | Redacted w Clayton Morris [Livestream in progress] The Media Flips Over Tulsi & Matt Gaetz, Biden & Trump Take A Pic, & Famous People Leave Twitter! 4 arrested in California car insurance scam: 'Clearly a human in a bear suit' Silk Road Founder Trusts Trump To 'Honor His Pledge' For Commutation "You DESERVED to LOSE the Senate, the House, and the Presidency!" - Jordan Peterson "Grand Political Theatre"; FBI Raids Home Of Polymarket CEO; Seize Phone, Electronics Schoolhouse Limbo: How Low Will Educators Go To Better Grades? BREAKING: U.S. Army Officers Made a Desperate Attempt To Break Out of The Encirclement in KURSK Trumps team drawing up list of Pentagon officers to fire, sources say Israeli Military Planning To Stay in Gaza Through 2025 Hezbollah attacks Israeli army's Tel Aviv HQ twice in one day People Can't Stop Talking About Elon's Secret Plan For MSNBC And CNN Is Totally Panicking Tucker Carlson UNLOADS on Diddy, Kamala, Walz, Kimmel, Rich Girls, Conspiracy Theories, and the CIA! "We have UFO technology that enables FREE ENERGY" Govt. Whistleblowers They arrested this woman because her son did WHAT? Parody Ad Features Company That Offers to Cryogenically Freeze Liberals for Duration of TrumpÂ’s Presidency Elon and Vivek BEGIN Reforming Government, Media LOSES IT Dear Border Czar: This Nonprofit Boasts A List Of 400 Companies That Employ Migrants US Deficit Explodes: Blowout October Deficit Means 2nd Worst Start To US Fiscal Year On Record Gaetz Resigns 'Effective Immediately' After Trump AG Pick; DC In Full Blown Panic MAHA MEME noone2222 and John Bolton sitting in a tree K I S S I N G Donald Trump To Help Construct The Third Temple? "The Elites Want To ROB Us of Our SOVEREIGNTY!" | Robert F Kennedy Take Your Money OUT of THESE Banks NOW! - Jim Rickards Trump Taps Tulsi Gabbard As Director Of National Intelligence DC In Full Blown Panic After Trump Picks Matt Gaetz For Attorney General Cleveland Clinic Warns Wave of Mass Deaths Will Wipe Out Covid-Vaxxed Within ‘5 Years’ Judah-ism is as Judah-ism does Danger ahead: November 2024, Boston Dynamics introduces a fully autonomous "Atlas" robot. Robot humanoids are here.

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: 919
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 # 145.

#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  

I'm back to my original conclusion that the plane in this scenario could not fly since it would not be moving. If the conveyor belt is turning at exactly the same speed as the wheels, then by definition the plane is standing still and thus could not get airborn. Of course this could never happen, but that's the way the question is phrased.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-12-02   10:35:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

If the conveyor belt is turning at exactly the same speed as the wheels, then by definition the plane is standing still and thus could not get airborn. Of course this could never happen, but that's the way the question is phrased.

That is the way I see it. Also many do not realize the difference between rockets and air breathing jet engines.Understandable as some of the jargon is not strictly accurate. A jato (jet assist take off) for example is a rocket, though its name implies it is a jet.

tom007  posted on  2005-12-02   20:04:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#151. To: tom007 (#145)

For the purpose of this thread jet vs rocket doesn't matter, we have very few runways higher than 80,000 feet anyway, and only a couple of them are testing conveyor belt technology.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-12-02 20:14:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm re-thinking this. Whatever thrust is produced by the engines would be applied to the mass of the plane, seems the wheels and conveyor are immaterial.

tom007  posted on  2005-12-02 20:15:33 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]