You are wrong. And anyone that argues this point is wrong. I'm not opinionated, I'm right. The ground offers no opposing force to the plane because the plane's wheels offer no opposing force to anything. They are free spinning. Therefore the motion of the pavement below the plane is irrelavent. Assume: X = RPM of airplane wheels at takeoff for a plane on a nonmoving tarmac Y = RPM of airplane wheels induced by the conveyor belt. X = Y because the rate of the conveyor is equal to the rate of the airplane through out the entire takeoff sequence. X+Y = the rate of the airplane wheels at takeoff for an airplane taking off from a conveyor belt that increases its speed at the same rate the plane accelerates. The wheels would be moving twice as fast as normal, but the plane would still take off because none of those things are offering an opposing force to the thrust of the plane. The air still moves past the plane at the same rate because the thrust of the plane still accelerates the plane at the same rate.
oh.....so you're talking about the PLANE ALSO moving forward.....ahhahah in that case, yes it would still fly. I was under the assumption that the plane was just stationary...... hA!
thought of a simpler way of putting it tonight. a car in the same situation would not move, because it applies it's force to the ground underneath it, and therefore wouldn't be moving through the air (no air speed = no lift). not applicable on a plane, because it applies it's thrust to the air, completely independent of the ground underneath it.
I just have to raise this from the dead so we all can shake our heads. 550+ post and people are still voting no after mythbusters tested it. http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1437885
the only way a plane can take off is with lift.....ok to create lift there needs to be wind force against the wings.......ok a jet engine creates thrust.....ok jet engine is used to move plane so air passes over wings....ok the wheels are ONLY there to provide "stability" and direction when on ground.ok lets say the airplane is exactly in the middle of the runwway the engine starts up the belt..or runway move in direct proportion to the speed of the plane and can move as fast as the plane can.... so we are going 5 mph on the runway and the runway is moving the opposite direction at 5 mph plane sits still....... no wind over wings..... no lift..... so we are going 20mph and the runway is moving at 20 the opposite direction plane sits still....... no wind over wings..... no lift..... ok so thrust is at max....500mph and the runway is in the opposite direction equally as fast plane sits still....... no wind over wings..... no lift..... I understand the whole thrust point but when it come down to it.......... LIFT IS WHAT MAKES THE PLANE TAKE OFF YOU NEED WIND PASSAGE OVER WINGS the wheels may be separate fine....but you NEED them to start if you hold a remote control plane while the prop is spinning on full and move the lifters the plane doesn't move......it just sits but when you let go if you DON"T throw it it drops untill it picks up enough wind resistance for the wings...... I'm sorry but it doesn't take off ok the only way i could see it working is if it overcomes the belt, or runway, or treadmill or whatever....
SORRY but you are totally wrong, the jet will only have to overcome the friction from the treadmill and the wheels, the plane is pulled foreward from it PULLING ITSELF FOREWARD USING AIR NOT GROUND!, they proved it, its done, why are you still saying no?
the only thing different from a plane taking off on a runway to the treadmill would mean the wheels (which only freewheel) are moving twice as fast, but the plane is moving the same speed through the air, pulling itself foreward the same speed. doesnt matter if the tredmill is moving 100 mph and the plane is moving foreward @ 5 mph
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok i get it....once the planes thrust is greater than the friction on the ground it doesn't matter the plane will start moving i was looking at it in the way that a plane can't 'lift' off with no forward movement....ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
yeah, its the trust from the engines that propel it forward, thus creating lift... the road and surface is a steady platform is all.
I'm a tard. I thought for a moment that we could cut down on the need for air strips, seeing as the planes only need a conveyor belt/treadmill deal to take off. That would be retarded, since these planes still need to LAND......
They can land straight into the ground and not need much room for doing so but the odds of survival aren't so great.
Who needs a runway anyway. http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=13&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
The water won't make it up to the shower head. It goes up to the outside level of the water. Edit: I fail at seeing secong page of thread
and just because the runway is moving too, doesn't mean it would take any less distance for the plane to get up to speed.
I thought of a good example for those still unable to picture it. it's like driving a car in a wind tunnel......the tires push on the stationary ground, and the car is still able to move forward. the wind may put a little resistance, but it certainly won't hinder it's forward movement.
To hell with your stinkin runway/conveyor belt BS! I got a Harrier! PS, IIRC, this is the only plane that DOESN'T require forward movement to lift off the ground!
As put by this guy http://mouser.org/log/archives/2006/02/001003.html , The plane cannot take off if sitting still, but that's not the question being asked. The plane will take off when it overcomes gravity. A plane that SITS STILL, cannot lift off the ground. A plane MUST have forward momentum to create lift, but that doesn't mean that a conveyor moving backwards will overcome a jet engine force.
WRONG Rumor has it that the USMC is convincing the Navy to give us funding to put these babies back into service by 2010. You would be right if you said it was the only jet aircraft in service capable of vertical envelopment. :biggrin:
I was just going to mention the osprey! haha.....the only one they'll admit to. Considering the fact that they still won't admit how fast the SR-71 could really go.....who knows what's out there
^my grandfather was one of the first men to catch an SR-71 on radar. It happened while on mission over I believe...korea at the time, in his P7. Says he was way above his recommended ceiling height, (something he learned when the war was actually going on,) when he picked up something at a ceiling height of 75,000 ft. He also says it was only on his radar for a few seconds, and that he radioed it in as quickly as possible, thinking it was a nuke. He was responded to by the tower with "We cant tell you what it is, because hell, we dont know what it is. We can tell you that its flying in excess of Mach three, and is at a ceiling height over 85,000 ft." He never told anyone outside of the service until after the cold war when the aircraft become common knowledge, and says he was dissapointed, because he thought it would have looked a lot neater. (keep in mind my grampa has an odd sense of humor, heh.) He has also commented that when the plane blew across his radar, he guesses it was traveling over mach 3.5, maybe even towards mach 4. He also thinks it was capable of going much higher than 85,000 feet, as when he got to poke around in one on base he said they had complete life support systems and the flight suits looked like something an astronaut would wear. I laugh every time he brings the story up. Its really the only story he's ever brought up of the over 56 combat missions he flew.
