Giordano Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 It wouldn't take off. The threadmil is on the same spot as the plane, and if the plane is going at the same speed as the threadmil is, then it should stay at the same spot. Thus there is no airflow. Without airflow you cant reduce the pressure above the wing. Therefore no lift. Unless of course it's a magical moving threadmil and it makes airflow under the plane wings. Then it can take off. "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 If the jet engines can provide enough air flow over the wings (probably need to increase angle of attack to increase vertical velocity and hence lift), it will lift off the ground, whether it is stable enough to remain in the air is another question. Aeroplanes require a pressure differential across the wings (which jet engines provide), they have nothing to do with wheel speed or engine thrust (acceleration relative to the ground). It's a really stupid question, it's physically infeasible (can a treadmill even physically compensate any changes in speed of an aeroplane) and has a lot of hidden assumptions; so any answer is ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrash-boy Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 no i dont think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodWarrior6 Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 If the plane was going faster than the treadmill, then surely it would be able to take off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konnan4444 Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 The plane would take off. the wheels have NOTHING to do with the plane taking off. The action is against the AIR the jet engine will create thrust and move the plane forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainkidd Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Depends, how fast the trad mill is going, if it gose as fast as the plane is going then no, if not then yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikercool Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Planes use airspeed not groundspeed! They "Jet" moves air so the ground moving doesn't mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart_0 Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 I asked my physics teacher today, he said no. i couldn't really get why though. Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 You people arguing that the plane would take off are nothing short of mentally disabled, and scientific looking pictures do nothing to disprove that. I happen to own a treadmill, so I'm one of the few here that could actually put this theory to test if I had a little scale plane. I don't, so I'll use an analogy instead! If I am running on a treadmill, I am not actually moving. The ground is. I can run 10 miles on it and go NOWHERE. The ground itself moves 10 miles. The bottom line and easiest way to say this is that you guys are saying the plane could go from dead-stop to forward-take-off because the ground was moving...Airplanes cannot do that. It would have ZERO forward momentum and ZERO lift. That is all. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 You people arguing that the plane would take off are nothing short of mentally disabled, and scientific looking pictures do nothing to disprove that. I happen to own a treadmill, so I'm one of the few here that could actually put this theory to test if I had a little scale plane. I don't, so I'll use an analogy instead! If I am running on a treadmill, I am not actually moving. The ground is. I can run 10 miles on it and go NOWHERE. The ground itself moves 10 miles. The bottom line and easiest way to say this is that you guys are saying the plane could go from dead-stop to forward-take-off because the ground was moving...Airplanes cannot do that. It would have ZERO forward momentum and ZERO lift. That is all. I think you are being sarcastic, but at the end there it kind of sounds like you weren't. Ignore this next part if you were being sarcastic. A person walking forward on a treadmill doesn't go anywhere, just like if you were driving a car on a treadmill, it wouldn't go anywhere. Airplanes are different though, their jets are their means of movement. The jets don't move with relation to the ground, they move with relation to the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 You people arguing that the plane would take off are nothing short of mentally disabled, and scientific looking pictures do nothing to disprove that. I happen to own a treadmill, so I'm one of the few here that could actually put this theory to test if I had a little scale plane. I don't, so I'll use an analogy instead! If I am running on a treadmill, I am not actually moving. The ground is. I can run 10 miles on it and go NOWHERE. The ground itself moves 10 miles. The bottom line and easiest way to say this is that you guys are saying the plane could go from dead-stop to forward-take-off because the ground was moving...Airplanes cannot do that. It would have ZERO forward momentum and ZERO lift. That is all. No. We're saying that the treadmill matching the speed of the wheels is irrelevant, since the drive from the jets isn't going ot the wheels and is simply sucking in air and dumping it out the wheels are almost irrelevant, they just spin faster as the plane begins to accelerate and eventually take off. But thanks for calling us mentally disabled, you should really watch that arrogance of yours. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumonde Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Simply, no. A plane wing has a curve at the top of it. As it passes through air, the air moves faster and a lower pressure area is formed above it. Eventually, the high pressure below the plane pushes the wing(and the plane) up into the low pressure area, and that is when the plane leaves the ground. If there is a treadmill that matches the opposite speed of the plane, there is no low pressure being formed above the plane. In fact, the low pressure point is below the wings, right above the treadmill. The plane will never lift off. The plane is stuck, in fact it wouldn't even be moving really. Stat Progress | Stat Averages | Stat Records Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 You people arguing that the plane would take off are nothing short of mentally disabled, and scientific looking pictures do nothing to disprove that. I happen to own a treadmill, so I'm one of the few here that could actually put this theory to test if I had a little scale plane. I don't, so I'll use an analogy instead! If I am running on a treadmill, I am not actually moving. The ground is. I can run 10 miles on it and go NOWHERE. The ground itself moves 10 miles. The bottom line and easiest way to say this is that you guys are saying the plane could go from dead-stop to forward-take-off because the ground was moving...Airplanes cannot do that. It would have ZERO forward momentum and ZERO lift. That is all. I think you are being sarcastic, but at the end there it kind of sounds like you weren't. Ignore this next part if you were being sarcastic. A person walking forward on a treadmill doesn't go anywhere, just like if you were driving a car on a treadmill, it wouldn't go anywhere. Airplanes are different though, their jets are their means of movement. The jets don't move with relation to the ground, they move with relation to the air. Yeeeea...And a plane moving on a treadmill still has no air going through its turbines...Go run on a treadmill once and see how much wind you feel in your hair...None? Thought so. You guys are all thinking WAY too far into it. What you're not thinking about is the simple thing here...The plane is on a treadmill. The plane is not moving, the ground is. You're saying that the plane can then, once the ground reaches enough speed, take off. So you're saying that the plane can go from a dead stop with no forward momentum at all, no lift at all, nothing, and suddenly take off, forward, and fly away...All because the ground was moving at a speed relative to what that plane would need to take off. I still stand by calling you guys stupid, because this isn't even a problem. If phycisists are actually debating this, then the half of them debating FOR it need their degree's stripped away, because I haven't even gone to college or taken a physics class and even I realize that everything you guys are saying is completely irrelevant. The wheels are irrelevant. The wings are irrelevant. The turbine jet engines...All of it, completely irrelevant, because the plane has NO forward momentum, no lift...Nothing. You guys do realize, then, that you're saying that this plane can accelerate from 0 mph to 300 some mph in less than a second, too, right? It would have to in order to stay aflight. Even if it could get off the ground for a milisecond using this method (it couldn't) it would then have to accelerate to that speed in less than a second to stay aflight, and mind you, it still has no thrust, lift, forward momentum, etc. I don't mean to sound like a total jerk or like I'm smarter than everyone, but seriously...Anyone further disputing what I'm saying obviously doesn't have a very basic grasp on reality, let alone any actual science. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scn64 Posted May 12, 2007 Author Share Posted May 12, 2007 You people arguing that the plane would take off are nothing short of mentally disabled, and scientific looking pictures do nothing to disprove that. I happen to own a treadmill, so I'm one of the few here that could actually put this theory to test if I had a little scale plane. I don't, so I'll use an analogy instead! If I am running on a treadmill, I am not actually moving. The ground is. I can run 10 miles on it and go NOWHERE. The ground itself moves 10 miles. The bottom line and easiest way to say this is that you guys are saying the plane could go from dead-stop to forward-take-off because the ground was moving...Airplanes cannot do that. It would have ZERO forward momentum and ZERO lift. That is all. I think you are being sarcastic, but at the end there it kind of sounds like you weren't. Ignore this next part if you were being sarcastic. A person walking forward on a treadmill doesn't go anywhere, just like if you were driving a car on a treadmill, it wouldn't go anywhere. Airplanes are different though, their jets are their means of movement. The jets don't move with relation to the ground, they move with relation to the air. Yeeeea...And a plane moving on a treadmill still has no air going through its turbines...Go run on a treadmill once and see how much wind you feel in your hair...None? Thought so. You guys are all thinking WAY too far into it. What you're not thinking about is the simple thing here...The plane is on a treadmill. The plane is not moving, the ground is. You're saying that the plane can then, once the ground reaches enough speed, take off. So you're saying that the plane can go from a dead stop with no forward momentum at all, no lift at all, nothing, and suddenly take off, forward, and fly away...All because the ground was moving at a speed relative to what that plane would need to take off. I still stand by calling you guys stupid, because this isn't even a problem. If phycisists are actually debating this, then the half of them debating FOR it need their degree's stripped away, because I haven't even gone to college or taken a physics class and even I realize that everything you guys are saying is completely irrelevant. The wheels are irrelevant. The wings are irrelevant. The turbine jet engines...All of it, completely irrelevant, because the plane has NO forward momentum, no lift...Nothing. You guys do realize, then, that you're saying that this plane can accelerate from 0 mph to 300 some mph in less than a second, too, right? It would have to in order to stay aflight. Even if it could get off the ground for a milisecond using this method (it couldn't) it would then have to accelerate to that speed in less than a second to stay aflight, and mind you, it still has no thrust, lift, forward momentum, etc. I don't mean to sound like a total jerk or like I'm smarter than everyone, but seriously...Anyone further disputing what I'm saying obviously doesn't have a very basic grasp on reality, let alone any actual science. If you're not going to read the replies to this thread then don't even bother arguing. We have already said, several times, that we don't think the plane will magically lift off the ground without any forward movement. You may still disagree that the plane can take off, but don't just assume we have absolutely no idea about what allows a plane to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Uh, then why are people disagreeing with me and still talking about this? :-s The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scn64 Posted May 12, 2007 Author Share Posted May 12, 2007 Uh, then why are people disagreeing with me and still talking about this? :-s If you really want to know, please read through the thread. Several people, including myself, have already explained our thoughts over and over again. I really don't feel like repeating myself one more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 You people arguing that the plane would take off are nothing short of mentally disabled, and scientific looking pictures do nothing to disprove that. I happen to own a treadmill, so I'm one of the few here that could actually put this theory to test if I had a little scale plane. I don't, so I'll use an analogy instead! If I am running on a treadmill, I am not actually moving. The ground is. I can run 10 miles on it and go NOWHERE. The ground itself moves 10 miles. The bottom line and easiest way to say this is that you guys are saying the plane could go from dead-stop to forward-take-off because the ground was moving...Airplanes cannot do that. It would have ZERO forward momentum and ZERO lift. That is all. I think you are being sarcastic, but at the end there it kind of sounds like you weren't. Ignore this next part if you were being sarcastic. A person walking forward on a treadmill doesn't go anywhere, just like if you were driving a car on a treadmill, it wouldn't go anywhere. Airplanes are different though, their jets are their means of movement. The jets don't move with relation to the ground, they move with relation to the air. Yeeeea...And a plane moving on a treadmill still has no air going through its turbines...Go run on a treadmill once and see how much wind you feel in your hair...None? Thought so. You guys are all thinking WAY too far into it. What you're not thinking about is the simple thing here...The plane is on a treadmill. The plane is not moving, the ground is. You're saying that the plane can then, once the ground reaches enough speed, take off. So you're saying that the plane can go from a dead stop with no forward momentum at all, no lift at all, nothing, and suddenly take off, forward, and fly away...All because the ground was moving at a speed relative to what that plane would need to take off. I still stand by calling you guys stupid, because this isn't even a problem. If phycisists are actually debating this, then the half of them debating FOR it need their degree's stripped away, because I haven't even gone to college or taken a physics class and even I realize that everything you guys are saying is completely irrelevant. The wheels are irrelevant. The wings are irrelevant. The turbine jet engines...All of it, completely irrelevant, because the plane has NO forward momentum, no lift...Nothing. You guys do realize, then, that you're saying that this plane can accelerate from 0 mph to 300 some mph in less than a second, too, right? It would have to in order to stay aflight. Even if it could get off the ground for a milisecond using this method (it couldn't) it would then have to accelerate to that speed in less than a second to stay aflight, and mind you, it still has no thrust, lift, forward momentum, etc. I don't mean to sound like a total jerk or like I'm smarter than everyone, but seriously...Anyone further disputing what I'm saying obviously doesn't have a very basic grasp on reality, let alone any actual science. It's a hypothetical very long treadmill, which you could run along. Get it now? "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Yeeeea...And a plane moving on a treadmill still has no air going through its turbines...Go run on a treadmill once and see how much wind you feel in your hair...None? Thought so. Now what happens when you run on a treadmill, holding a hair dryer pointed to your face? Wind, amazing. You do know that the turbines are powered right, they aren't like windmills. I don't mean to sound like a total jerk or like I'm smarter than everyone, but seriously...Anyone further disputing what I'm saying obviously doesn't have a very basic grasp on reality, let alone any actual science. Better tell scientists that VTOL planes (harrier jump jet) don't work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring). The question is ambiguous and there are plenty of ways in which a 747 hull can launch off a treadmill, to say that it is impossible is short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 You never cease to amaze me, Tigra :| Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korla Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Uh, then why are people disagreeing with me and still talking about this? :-s Read this thread until you've read scn64's first 10 posts. Then how rocketman finally gave in, GJ admitting that you changed your mind btw. I was first on your side Tigra, but the wheels DO matter, the treadmill exerts NO force on the airplane because the wheels do not need to spin forward to move the plane forward. They can spin 100x the plane's speed backwards, and the plane can still lift. That's the difference between this example and the person/car on a treadmill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Yeah, that's exactly how it was for me (evidenced by the first 2-3 pages). I didn't get it until I googled it and saw it being discussed on a physics forum where they explained it a little different (not that scn64 doesn't do a good job explaining it, I was just too stupid to get it :P) Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Yeeeea...And a plane moving on a treadmill still has no air going through its turbines...Go run on a treadmill once and see how much wind you feel in your hair...None? Thought so. You guys are all thinking WAY too far into it. What you're not thinking about is the simple thing here...The plane is on a treadmill. The plane is not moving, the ground is. You're saying that the plane can then, once the ground reaches enough speed, take off. So you're saying that the plane can go from a dead stop with no forward momentum at all, no lift at all, nothing, and suddenly take off, forward, and fly away...All because the ground was moving at a speed relative to what that plane would need to take off. I still stand by calling you guys stupid, because this isn't even a problem. If phycisists are actually debating this, then the half of them debating FOR it need their degree's stripped away, because I haven't even gone to college or taken a physics class and even I realize that everything you guys are saying is completely irrelevant. The wheels are irrelevant. The wings are irrelevant. The turbine jet engines...All of it, completely irrelevant, because the plane has NO forward momentum, no lift...Nothing. You guys do realize, then, that you're saying that this plane can accelerate from 0 mph to 300 some mph in less than a second, too, right? It would have to in order to stay aflight. Even if it could get off the ground for a milisecond using this method (it couldn't) it would then have to accelerate to that speed in less than a second to stay aflight, and mind you, it still has no thrust, lift, forward momentum, etc. I don't mean to sound like a total jerk or like I'm smarter than everyone, but seriously...Anyone further disputing what I'm saying obviously doesn't have a very basic grasp on reality, let alone any actual science. Learn to read. Already disproved everything you said in this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Yeeeea...And a plane moving on a treadmill still has no air going through its turbines...Go run on a treadmill once and see how much wind you feel in your hair...None? Thought so. You guys are all thinking WAY too far into it. What you're not thinking about is the simple thing here...The plane is on a treadmill. The plane is not moving, the ground is. You're saying that the plane can then, once the ground reaches enough speed, take off. So you're saying that the plane can go from a dead stop with no forward momentum at all, no lift at all, nothing, and suddenly take off, forward, and fly away...All because the ground was moving at a speed relative to what that plane would need to take off. I still stand by calling you guys stupid, because this isn't even a problem. If phycisists are actually debating this, then the half of them debating FOR it need their degree's stripped away, because I haven't even gone to college or taken a physics class and even I realize that everything you guys are saying is completely irrelevant. The wheels are irrelevant. The wings are irrelevant. The turbine jet engines...All of it, completely irrelevant, because the plane has NO forward momentum, no lift...Nothing. You guys do realize, then, that you're saying that this plane can accelerate from 0 mph to 300 some mph in less than a second, too, right? It would have to in order to stay aflight. Even if it could get off the ground for a milisecond using this method (it couldn't) it would then have to accelerate to that speed in less than a second to stay aflight, and mind you, it still has no thrust, lift, forward momentum, etc. I don't mean to sound like a total jerk or like I'm smarter than everyone, but seriously...Anyone further disputing what I'm saying obviously doesn't have a very basic grasp on reality, let alone any actual science. Learn to read. Already disproved everything you said in this post. How did you disprove facts? You must be good. It seems like you guys aren't asking if it will take off, but if it will have enough thrust via it's engines to take off... ...This is the dumbest problem I've ever seen. The treadmill is now irrelevant. What the hell? If it's going to use it's thrust to move forward, then DUH, yes it will take off, but now the treadmill makes no damn difference. This is perhaps the most unnecessarily stupid question ever asked. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scn64 Posted May 12, 2007 Author Share Posted May 12, 2007 Yeeeea...And a plane moving on a treadmill still has no air going through its turbines...Go run on a treadmill once and see how much wind you feel in your hair...None? Thought so. You guys are all thinking WAY too far into it. What you're not thinking about is the simple thing here...The plane is on a treadmill. The plane is not moving, the ground is. You're saying that the plane can then, once the ground reaches enough speed, take off. So you're saying that the plane can go from a dead stop with no forward momentum at all, no lift at all, nothing, and suddenly take off, forward, and fly away...All because the ground was moving at a speed relative to what that plane would need to take off. I still stand by calling you guys stupid, because this isn't even a problem. If phycisists are actually debating this, then the half of them debating FOR it need their degree's stripped away, because I haven't even gone to college or taken a physics class and even I realize that everything you guys are saying is completely irrelevant. The wheels are irrelevant. The wings are irrelevant. The turbine jet engines...All of it, completely irrelevant, because the plane has NO forward momentum, no lift...Nothing. You guys do realize, then, that you're saying that this plane can accelerate from 0 mph to 300 some mph in less than a second, too, right? It would have to in order to stay aflight. Even if it could get off the ground for a milisecond using this method (it couldn't) it would then have to accelerate to that speed in less than a second to stay aflight, and mind you, it still has no thrust, lift, forward momentum, etc. I don't mean to sound like a total jerk or like I'm smarter than everyone, but seriously...Anyone further disputing what I'm saying obviously doesn't have a very basic grasp on reality, let alone any actual science. Learn to read. Already disproved everything you said in this post. How did you disprove facts? You must be good. It seems like you guys aren't asking if it will take off, but if it will have enough thrust via it's engines to take off... ...This is the dumbest problem I've ever seen. The treadmill is now irrelevant. What the hell? If it's going to use it's thrust to move forward, then DUH, yes it will take off, but now the treadmill makes no damn difference. This is perhaps the most unnecessarily stupid question ever asked. What do you think a jet plane normally uses to move itself down the runway? Of course it's going to use thrust. The treadmill is introduced into the question in an attempt to trick the reader. Many people, including myself, see the word "treadmill" and immediately think of a person or a car trying to move on it. Call it a trick question. Call it poorly worded. But don't call it a stupid question. I rarely see a stupid question get 8 pages of back and forth argument about the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now