*can't believe that people voted yes*. Perhaps those people have never actually been in a plane.
Poll: I was wondering....
- Thread starter Kodlak
- Start date
Recommended Videos
either that or they understand physics....MissShortosity said:
or how to read the numerous correct points posted above.
the almost negligible friction of the axle on the wheel bearing would be insufficient to retard the planes motion to below take off speed
And once again, mythbusters proves itself to be bollocks.ellimist337 said:
The wheels are only there to provide friction between the ground and the aircraft. When you run the engine they are not driven from the wheels, thus the aircraft WILL move forward regardless of any kind of treadmill under it, it will simply require more energy for the aircraft to move.
This discussion came up on /b/ the other week. That thread lasted like five hours. If you don't know /b/, five hours is enough time for a bird sharpening its beak to grind a mountain of diamond into dust. I have no idea why it's discussed at all.
Listen to xkcd [http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/], to Mythbusters and airplaneonathreadmill.com as has already been suggested. There is no argument.
Either we take a realistic interpretation, in which no conveyor belt in the world can keep an airplane from moving, or we take the hypothetis of the question which is basically "If an airplane can't move, then will it move?" Although I find that very silly even for a hypothetical question.
Listen to xkcd [http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/], to Mythbusters and airplaneonathreadmill.com as has already been suggested. There is no argument.
Either we take a realistic interpretation, in which no conveyor belt in the world can keep an airplane from moving, or we take the hypothetis of the question which is basically "If an airplane can't move, then will it move?" Although I find that very silly even for a hypothetical question.
This is not about physics, really. It's about the ambiguity in the description of the experiment.
Although Lukeje's explanation looks like he doesn't see the problem, the link he provides explains the whole thing. Basically there are two key facts:
1) An aeroplane cannot lift away from the ground without moving forwards relative to the air.
2) A treadmill cannot prevent an aeroplane from moving forwards (essentially because an increase in the conveyor speed simply makes the wheels spin faster and the friction in the bearings isn't enough to fight against the thrust from the plane's engines).
People who are saying "yes" are doing so because of 2). People who are saying "no" are doing so because of "1". In terms of the actual physics there's nothing very deep going on, the answer just comes down to what you think the question is asking.
Although Lukeje's explanation looks like he doesn't see the problem, the link he provides explains the whole thing. Basically there are two key facts:
1) An aeroplane cannot lift away from the ground without moving forwards relative to the air.
2) A treadmill cannot prevent an aeroplane from moving forwards (essentially because an increase in the conveyor speed simply makes the wheels spin faster and the friction in the bearings isn't enough to fight against the thrust from the plane's engines).
People who are saying "yes" are doing so because of 2). People who are saying "no" are doing so because of "1". In terms of the actual physics there's nothing very deep going on, the answer just comes down to what you think the question is asking.
I think the OP is talking about a HUGE treadmill, and going backwards so the plane is in fact going forwards. If so, then yes... but it will glide for about 3 feet... land... take off for 3 feet... land, Repeat untill out of treadmill. But if in relation to a normal treadmill, no. Planes don't take off backwards.
Edit: Also aircraft need constant thrust to maintain air speed over the wings to provide lift. Even more a NO it will not work
Edit: Also aircraft need constant thrust to maintain air speed over the wings to provide lift. Even more a NO it will not work
No, it comes down to the fact that WHEELS ARE ONLY TO ELIMINATE FRACTION.Dom Camus said:
You need only the power of engines. Mythbusters tested this myth twice, one time with a model, and the other one with a real plane.
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=P866XPGH
There you go, watch the parts with airplane. And stop spouting your blasphemies and ignorance.
The backwards thrust on the wheels if reached equilibrium of the engines forward thrust would mean the vehicle would not be moving. Therefore no wind would me moving over the wings except what air is being moved by the engines themselves. Negligible lift so nothing would happen.
Who cares if Mythbusters did it, they don't completely comply with the scientific method anyways. (One test=conclusive!)
Who cares if Mythbusters did it, they don't completely comply with the scientific method anyways. (One test=conclusive!)
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
You two are blind or pretending to ignore things?Darth Mobius said:
Watch the Mythbusters video.
They put a real plane on a giant treadmill-like construction, made both go at the same speed, but opposite directions. Plane was stuck in one place, then it lifted off and flew.
If you all could just stop being so hardheaded about it, you could watch the video and see - treamill won't prevent the plane from flying.