Question: Will the plane fly? (warning: nerdy)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:00 PM
  #61  
EQ Tuning's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
PEOPLE please stop saying the plane won't take off because its stationary! Its obvious that the plane needs to achieve a certain air speed to take-off. The argument Pete and I are making is that the plane does in fact move! If someone can show me how a treadmill under the plane can stop it from moving (assuming the wheel bearings don't seize), then I'll listen to your argument.
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:01 PM
  #62  
MVWRX's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Imprezer
Lets say the plane needs to trave Xmph to generate enough lift and take off.

Lets say the aircraft carrier CAN travel at Xmph.

So lets say it is travelling Xmph NORTH.

At what speed will an airplane take off if the plane is taking off toward NORTH (same direction as the ship)?

And, will it take off at all if it is trying to take off going SOUTH?

Remember, NO WIND condition.

Now I am all confused why airplanes fly and don't need to flop their wings like birds. j/k lol
In scenario one here, (ship and plane N bound) the plane will take off but will not be moving relative to the ship, so it will hover above the ship.
In scenario two, the plane CAN take off if going south bound, but it will have to go twice as fast as the ship is moving (2Xmph) because the plane will experience an artificial wind of Xmph blowing south (and so will have to go 2Xmph to give the effect of having a speed of Xmph relative to the air around it).
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:02 PM
  #63  
MVWRX's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by EQ Tuning
PEOPLE please stop saying the plane won't take off because its stationary! Its obvious that the plane needs to achieve a certain air speed to take-off. The argument Pete and I are making is that the plane does in fact move! If someone can show me how a treadmill under the plane can stop it from moving (assuming the wheel bearings don't seize), then I'll listen to your argument.

That's why it's a trick question...it makes you think about why planes fly instead of realizing that the wheels on a plane are not doing the moving.
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:02 PM
  #64  
EQ Tuning's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3

C. I am not on drugs...
You sure about that?
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:03 PM
  #65  
dr3d1zzl3's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,159
From: The Least Coast :(
Car Info: 08 sti
ok ill sum my point up nice and simple..

Airplane no have air movie over wing. Airplane no movie into air...

you can come up with all the bull**** hypotheticals you want, short of magneto based propulsion that **** aint going no where if it cant get nuff air over and under the wing to generate nuff lift to jerk the damn thing off the ground..
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:13 PM
  #66  
dr3d1zzl3's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,159
From: The Least Coast :(
Car Info: 08 sti
Taken from a physics forum...

OK, this is how I'm figuring this:

A plane has a forward FORCE of 10,000n
My treadmill can also produce an opposing Force of 10,000n

The plane's tires have a CRF (coeffecient of Rolling Friction) of 0.006

At that force, the plane will taxi on a static runway at 9,040n
(10,000 - 60 = 9,040)

Ex1.
Put the plane on a treadmill that's in 'neutral' ie 'freewheeling'

The plane keeps it's wheels locked with the brakes. There is no rolling friction, since the tires aren't rolling.
The plane throttle's up to 10,000n. Again, the wheels do not move.

However, my freewheeling treadmill DOES start to move. The force of the plane's thrust is transmitted through the locked tires, and the treadmill starts to move forward at 10,000n.
10,000n (plane's force) - 0 (treadmill's force) = 10,000n (plane moves the treadmill's belt forward)

Now, I counteract the plane with the treadmill. I bring the treadmill up to 5,000n. The belt slows it's forward progress, but it's still moving forward at 5,000n:
10,000n(plane's force) - 5,000n(treadmill's force) = 5,000n(plane moves treadmill's belt forward)

Looks like I need more power, so I raise the treadmill's opposing force to 10,000n.
Now we have the following:
10,000(from plane) - 10,000n (opposing force from treadmill) = 0n of forward progress.

What I just did was 'freeze' the plane on the treadmill.
The plane does not move in relation to the belt.
The belt does not move in relation to the plane.
Neither the plane nor the belt moves in relation to the ground.
Both equal and opposing forces have 'balanced' each other out.
The plane's engines whine. The treadmill's motor humms...both are producing 10,000n of force, opposing each other!
Everything is 'locked up'....'Frozen in time'..so to speak.


Now for the Magic!!! Brake Release!
(keep the treadmill and the plane reved up to 10,000n!!)

The first thing that happens when the brakes are released is obvious...the 10,000n from the plane starts to turn the tires. But since the tires have a rolling resistance of 60n, the plane moves forward at only 9,040n NET FORCE. (Right?)

Now, what might NOT be so obvious, is what is happening on the treadmill.

See, the before plane's brakes were released, the treadmill's 10,000n was holding back the plane's 10,000n. But something just happened! The plane's NET FORCE was just DECREASED to 9,040n.
But the treadmill is STILL pumping out 10,000n!
Think....what affect does this have on the treadmill?

9,040n (NET Plane Force) - 10,000 (treadmill's force still) = (- 60) Belt Movement!!!!

So, now we know that the belt is moving at NEGETIVE 60n! (backwards)
This is due to the tires rolling resistance of 60n

Now, since the treadmill's belt is moving now, it is no longer pushing out 10,000n of force. The treadmill's motor is now producing a NET force of 9,040n
10,000n (from treadmill's motor) - 60n(belt's movement) = 9,040 (backwards)


But Wait! Didn't we also just say that:
The plane is moving at POSITIVE 9,040n!? (forwards)


So, now the plane has a Net forward force of 9,040n AND the belt has a NET backwards force of 9,040n.

Resultant Forces:
9,040(plane's force forward) = 9,040(treadmill's motor's force backwards)
Equal and Opposite Forces (those are the ones that create equalibrium, the plane dosn't move)


Resultant Movement
60n (plane forward) = 60n (treadmill backwards)

So, the plane is moving forward at 60n

The treadmill is moving backwards at 60n

Let's just say that at this weight, 60n is 10mph

Thus, the plane moves at +10mph in relation to the belt
The belt moves at -10mph in relation to the plane

The belt has matched the SPEED of the plane!

But the plane remains 'motionless' over the actual earth, and therefore, since the wind is calm, 'motionless' through the 'Air'.

Challenge yourself to Re-read this 4 times before responding, and try to make your rebuttals relevent to this post.

THAT is why the plane will never fly.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s...55&#entry42611



just read that post, and dude is wrong.. sorry for the bad link.. haha read it as talking about airspeed vs ground speed (misread the magic brake part).. mah bad...

Last edited by dr3d1zzl3; Jan 23, 2006 at 10:30 PM.
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:14 PM
  #67  
Imprezer's Avatar
Admin v2.0
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,965
From: Alameda, CA, USA
Car Info: 02 Black Legacy GT
Originally Posted by psoper
Alex, Alex, Alex, please read any of the postings by Ed or myself starting about midway down the first page, the correct answer is -yes it will fly!



Correct, and there is the gist of this problem- the plane will fly because there is nothing keeping it from moving forward under the thrust from its engine- nothing!



A jet or even a propeller, in either case planes get their forward momentum by displacing air from in front of them to the rear, NOT FROM THEIR WHEELS!!!!!




Why did you step off from a totally logical line of reasoning? where does it say anywhere (apart from some misguided posts from people who haven't a clue) that the plane can't move? in fact the problem statement itself says "the plane moves in one direction" the plane moves, it moves because its engines regardless of type- apply a force against the air around it, the plane moves and therefore air flows over its wings.....



Why take the wings away? what possible effect does a treadmill on the ground have on the wings?



and now I know why the Chinese are kicking the russians collective **** in science too....
Ok, let me rephase what I said in 2 sentances. If the airplane is travelling in the opposite direction of the belt and CAN archive its needed take off speed with its thrust, it will take off.

But now I cannot say for sure, haha, if the belt even matters at all or not. Because if as you all say that the wheels will spin 2x the normal speed, it means that the engines will need to produce 2x the thrust. 100% to "catch up" with the belts speed and another 100% to get to its take off speed.

Or, would the belt not affect the planes speed at all? I am not sure myself now.

As far as Chinese vs. Russians go, haha, thats why Russians invented the vector thrust technology so that your stupid conveyor belts would not stop us.
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:16 PM
  #68  
dr3d1zzl3's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,159
From: The Least Coast :(
Car Info: 08 sti
No air movie over and under wing airplane no go fly fly...
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:28 PM
  #69  
dr3d1zzl3's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,159
From: The Least Coast :(
Car Info: 08 sti
and for the record i agree, if the wheels are allowed to turn freely as they normaly would the plane would eventually speed the aircraft off the treadmill. Dont think it would be a stationary to flight transition (as i would think there would be slight forward movement of the airplane as its airspeed increased).

(i think that is more along the lines of the question as asked in teh first post correct me if i am wrong)

But i still stand by what i said in my previous posts.. if the thing aint getting airflow over and under the wings it wong go no where... (ie slap the brakes on and you aint moving)


On a normal takeoff -- no conveyor involved -- if there is a 20 mph headwind, Manfred and the J-3 will lift off at 45 mph indicated airspeed; but relative to the ground, it is only 25 mph. Should the wind increase to 45 mph and if Manfred can get to the runway, he can take off without rolling an inch. His airspeed is 45 and groundspeed is zero. It is not necessary to have any groundspeed to fly, just airspeed. Conversely, if Manfred has a lot of runway and nothing to hit, and takes off downwind in a 25 mph tailwind, the propeller will have to accelerate the airplane to a zero airspeed, which will be a 25 mph groundspeed, and then on to a 45 mph airspeed, which will have him humming across the ground at 70 mph. The speed over the ground, or a conveyor belt, when an airplane takes off is irrelevant; all that matters is its speed through the air, and unless the pilot sets the brakes, a moving conveyor belt -- under the freely turning wheels -- cannot stop the process of acceleration.
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:31 PM
  #70  
dr3d1zzl3's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,159
From: The Least Coast :(
Car Info: 08 sti
Conveyer-Belt Runway


What I learned from Old Hack was that an updated version of a question aimed at confusing folks over relative measurements of airplane motion and the medium in which it operates had shown up on the Internet, and it was causing the fracas in the Lounge.

The question that has been going around is not particularly artfully worded, and I think that has caused some of the disagreements, but I'll repeat it as it is shown: "On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?"

My comment: Notice that the question does not state that the conveyor's movement keeps the airplane over the starting position relative to the ground, just that it moves in the direction opposite to any movement of the airplane.

Initially, about a third of the folks here said that the airplane could not ever takeoff, because the conveyor would overcome the speed of the airplane and it could never get any airspeed. The rest said the airplane would fly.

The "It won't fly, Rocky" group said that the conveyor would hold back the airplane. They asked us to imagine a person running on a treadmill. As he or she sped up, the treadmill would be programmed to speed up, just as the conveyor in the problem, and the person would remain over the same locus on the earth, while running as fast as possible.

The argument was that if the airplane started to move forward, the conveyor program was set up to move the conveyor at exactly that speed, in the opposite direction, thus, the airplane would never move relative to the ground, and, because the air was calm, it could never get any wind over its wings. One of the analogies presented was the person rowing at three mph upstream in a river on a calm day. However, the current was flowing downstream at three mph, so the resultant speed with reference to the stream bank and air was zero, and thus there was no wind on the rowboat.

I watched and listened to the disagreement for a while and was fascinated to see that the argument seemed to split between those who had some engineering or math background, all of whom said the airplane would takeoff and fly without any problem; and those with some other background, who visualized the airplane as having to push against the conveyor in order to gain speed. Because the conveyor equaled the airplane's push against the conveyor, the airplane stayed in one place over the ground and in the calm air could not get any airspeed and fly.

It was an interesting argument, but as things progressed, more rational heads prevailed, pointing out that the airplanes do not apply their thrust via their wheels, so the conveyor belt is irrelevant to whether the airplane will takeoff. One guy even got one of those rubber band powered wood and plastic airplane that sell for about a buck, put it on the treadmill someone foolishly donated to the Lounge years ago, thinking that pilots might actually exercise. He wound up the rubber band, set the treadmill to be level, and at its highest speed. Then he simultaneously set the airplane on the treadmill and let the prop start to turn. It took off without moving the slightest bit backwards.

Manfred In The 21st Century


OK, let's figure out why the airplane will fly.

We'll use Manfred again. Although we're bringing him forward into the 21st Century, we'll still let him use the 65 hp J-3. It doesn't really matter what airplane he flies, but he got used to the J-3 while he was demonstrating downwind turns and this one happens to have lifting rings on the top of the fuselage. It's also been modified with a starter so no one has to swing the prop.

Manfred's in the airplane. Old Hack has the Army-surplus crane fired up and he's picking up the J-3 and Manfred and carrying them over to Runway 27, which has been transformed into a 3,000-foot conveyor belt. It is a calm day. The conveyor drive is programmed so that if Manfred can start to move in the J-3, if he can generate any airspeed or groundspeed, the conveyor will move toward the east (remember Manfred and the J-3 are facing west) at exactly the speed of the air/groundspeed. Because the wind is calm, if Manfred can generate any indicated airspeed, he will also be generating precisely the same groundspeed. Groundspeed, of course being relative to the ground of the airport surrounding the conveyor belt runway. So, the speed of the conveyor belt eastbound will be the same as Manfred's indicated airspeed, westbound.

Manfred does his prestart checklist, holds the heel brakes, hits the starter and the little Continental up front clatters to life. Oil pressure comes up and stabilizes and Manfred tries to look busy because the eyes of the world are upon him, but all he can do is make sure the fuel is on and the altimeter and trim are set, then do a quick runup to check the mags and the carb heat. He moves the controls through their full travel and glares at the ailerons, doing his best to look heroic, then holds the stick aft in the slipstream to pin the tail and lets go of the brakes.

Baron of the Belt

So far the J-3 has not moved, nor has the conveyor. At idle power, there's not enough thrust to move the J-3 forward on a level surface, so Manfred starts to bring up the power, intending to take off. The propeller rpm increases and the prop shoves air aft, as it does on every takeoff, causing the airplane to move forward through the air, and as a consequence, forward with regard to the ground. Simultaneously the conveyor creaks to life, moving east, under the tires of the J-3. As the J-3 thrusts its way through the air, driven by its propeller, the airspeed indicator comes off the peg at about 10 mph. At that moment the conveyor is moving at 10 mph to the east and the tires are whirling around at 20 mph because the prop has pulled it to an airspeed, and groundspeed, of 10 mph, westbound. The airplane is moving relative to the still air and the ground at 10 mph, but with regard to the conveyor, which is going the other way at 10 mph, the relative speed is 20 mph.

Manfred relaxes a bit because the conveyor cannot stop him from moving forward. There is nothing on the airplane that pushes against the ground or the conveyor in order for it to accelerate; as Karen -- one of our techies here at the Lounge -- put it, the airplane freewheels. In technical terms, there is some bearing drag on the wheels, but it's under 40 pounds, and the engine has overcome that for years; plus the drag doesn't increase significantly as the wheel speed increases. Unless Manfred applies the brakes, the conveyor cannot affect the rate at which the airplane accelerates.

A few moments later, the roaring Continental, spinning that wooden Sensenich prop, has accelerated the J-3 and Manfred to 25 mph indicated airspeed. He and the airplane are cruising past the cheering spectators at 25 mph, while the conveyor has accelerated to 25 mph eastbound, yet it still has no way of stopping the airplane's movement through the air. The wheels are spinning at 50 mph, so the noise level is a little high, but otherwise, the J-3 is making a normal, calm-wind takeoff.

As the indicated airspeed passes 45 mph, groundspeed -- you know, relative to where all those spectators are standing beside the conveyor belt -- is also 45 mph. (At least that's what it says on Manfred's GPS. Being brought back to life seemed to create an insatiable desire for electronic stuff.) The conveyor is also at 45 mph, and the wheels are whizzing around at 90 -- the groundspeed plus the speed of the conveyor in the opposite direction.

Manfred breaks ground, climbs a few hundred feet, then makes a low pass to see if he can terrify the spectators because they are Americans, descendants of those who defeated his countrymen back in 1918.

It's All About Airspeed


(Don't try this at home!)
(Don't try this at home!)

While the speed of the conveyor belt in the opposite direction is superficially attractive in saying the airplane cannot accelerate, it truly is irrelevant to what is happening with the airplane, because the medium on which it is acting is the air. The only time it could be a problem is if the wheel speed got so high that the tires blew out.

Put another way, consider the problem with the J-3 mounted on a hovercraft body (yes, similar things were tried about 30 years ago). The hovercraft lifts the airplane a fraction of an inch above the conveyor belt, and so no matter how fast the conveyor spins, it cannot prevent the propeller -- acting on the air -- from accelerating the airplane to takeoff speed. It's the same with wheels rolling on the conveyor belt. Those wheels are not powered and thus do not push against the belt to accelerate the airplane. Were that the case, the vehicle could not reach an airspeed needed to fly, because then the conveyor, the medium acted upon by the propulsive force, would be able to negate the acceleration relative to the air and ground.

I'm reminded of the New York Times editorial when Robert Goddard's rocket experiments were first being publicized. The author of the editorial said that rockets can't work in space because they have nothing to push against. It was laughably wrong, ignoring one of Sir Isaac's laws of physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Here the propeller is pushing against the air, as it does every time an airplane takes off. How fast the airplane is moving over the surface on which its wheels rest is irrelevant; the medium is the magic. On a normal takeoff -- no conveyor involved -- if there is a 20 mph headwind, Manfred and the J-3 will lift off at 45 mph indicated airspeed; but relative to the ground, it is only 25 mph. Should the wind increase to 45 mph and if Manfred can get to the runway, he can take off without rolling an inch. His airspeed is 45 and groundspeed is zero. It is not necessary to have any groundspeed to fly, just airspeed. Conversely, if Manfred has a lot of runway and nothing to hit, and takes off downwind in a 25 mph tailwind, the propeller will have to accelerate the airplane to a zero airspeed, which will be a 25 mph groundspeed, and then on to a 45 mph airspeed, which will have him humming across the ground at 70 mph. The speed over the ground, or a conveyor belt, when an airplane takes off is irrelevant; all that matters is its speed through the air, and unless the pilot sets the brakes, a moving conveyor belt -- under the freely turning wheels -- cannot stop the process of acceleration.

Things eventually calmed down as the number of "it won't fly" folks dwindled as they began to understand that the airplane would take off. Old Hack looked at me and suggested we depart as the few holdouts showed no sign of changing their position. So, we headed out into the night to watch the guys take the conveyor out and reinstall the runway.

See you next month.
good link...

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191034-1.html
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:32 PM
  #71  
psoper's Avatar
250,000-mile Club President
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,770
From: Bizerkeley
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
"The speed over the ground, or a conveyor belt, when an airplane takes off is irrelevant; all that matters is its speed through the air, and unless the pilot sets the brakes, a moving conveyor belt -- under the freely turning wheels -- cannot stop the process of acceleration."

Therin lies the correct answer to the question.

Now go to bed and come up with something better for tomorrows discussion
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:32 PM
  #72  
dr3d1zzl3's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,159
From: The Least Coast :(
Car Info: 08 sti
holy crap im tired.. i will prob read all that morrow and come up with an entirely different view...

haha
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:34 PM
  #73  
dr3d1zzl3's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,159
From: The Least Coast :(
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by psoper
"The speed over the ground, or a conveyor belt, when an airplane takes off is irrelevant; all that matters is its speed through the air, and unless the pilot sets the brakes, a moving conveyor belt -- under the freely turning wheels -- cannot stop the process of acceleration."

Therin lies the correct answer to the question.

Now go to bed and come up with something better for tomorrows discussion

could have sworn that was what i was saying the whole time... Just my situation and the situation of the question were a bit different...

I had my plane standing at a dead stand still no matter what thrust was being applied (push or pull)...

the plane on a tread mill allowed to "free wheel" would be the same as trying to take off up a decently steep hill, it would just take alot more force to over come the rolling resitence provided by the tread mill/hill...

**** its 130am and im trying to think.. haha work in a few horus w00t w00t
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:38 PM
  #74  
dr3d1zzl3's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,159
From: The Least Coast :(
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by MVWRX
That's a trick question. As it is stated, the plane will fly. Like others have explained, the plane will move down the runway with the wheels spinning 2x fast as if there was no conveyor.


The other thing is that, because of the way a plane works (doesn't drive the wheels at all, they turn free) if you put a plane on a treadmill or dyno style conveyor belt (reversed the motion of the belt compared to the question in post 1), it will drive off the end of it and take off anyway or crash into something.

In order to throttle a plane and have it not move (and therefore not take off), you need an air treadmill (also known as a wind tunnel).

in a windtunnel with nuff force it would still become airborne, just wouldnt move forward unless it had more thrust then the wind tunnel could muster.. but i think you are saying that as well...?!?!?!?!?
Old Jan 23, 2006 | 10:47 PM
  #75  
EQ Tuning's Avatar
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Dre, I swear you're not reading my replies. You keep saying that the plane will not fly because its at a stand still... I keep telling you its NOT at a standstill and can actually accelerate just fine because the wheels are free rolling. I think something is getting lost here... re-read that in the morning



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Top

© 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands



When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.