Can the plane take off?

[Pure_Luck]

If we put spinners on the plane would that trick the conveyor belt to go the opposite direction and help the plane takeoff easier?

[Ewan]

It would take-off easier, but that would be because it'd just want to get out of there cause of everyone laughing at it for having spinners.

[NL>TERMINATOR]

It's like this.

The earth moves with how much km/h¿!¿
I don't know but with it rotates with an pretty amazing speed.
Example: When you walk you go faster than the earth because your feet have grip on the earth.

The wheels of the plane have grip on the runway and it will produce more speed than the underground, because of the engines(doh), no matter what.
It'll go skyhigh.


Might have not read it right because I am at work and have to check things fast ^-^ before my boss notices me <_<.

[Fluffz]

plane speed < wheel speed + plane speed

[Aquatiq]

is the universe holding a gun there?

[Pressure Drop]

well this thread has degenerated into name calling and posting stupid diagrams ...

no hero isn't an idiot ... does it inflate your self-esteem to say that saturn v ? if your tired of the thread stop posting no need to try and belittle people...

this is a theoretical question only, its impossible.

the people who are saying the plane will take off seem to becoming from the point of view of a traditional treadmill, in that the wheels will go faster than it and it will gain the air speed to take off.

I disagree since from the fact the question says matches at all times the wheel speed the plane isn't going anywhere, when its not going anywhere it can't take off.

this is not a normal conveyor belt , it matches the wheels at all times ...


so lets keep it simple. the wheel has a circumference off say 1 m and revolves at 1 time a second. The conveyor belt is moving at 1 m a second in the opposite direction. Net movement forward = 0


this causes the wheels to speed up
they accelerate
so does the treadmill

they are now turning 100 times a second
treadmill = 100 m a second
net movement of plane = 0

this continues exponentially till the wheels fail

Skidding is and example of failure, if the wheels skid this is no garentee of take off and more likely to cuase the plane to have a critical failure mechanicaly or just in control and not take off.

How can a plane mounted on wheels when the treadmill matches their speed at all times move forward?

You cannot compare this treadmill to a fixed rate treadmill and pushing something forward on that which has wheels ....

i haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise so far.

[Galleleo]

The thing is pressure, the wheels (IMO) don't matter that much.. the plane is moving forward because of the propulsion from the engines, eventually the wheels will skid and just slide over the ground, but still move forward.

[Pressure Drop]

The thing is pressure, the wheels (IMO) don't matter that much.. the plane is moving forward because of the propulsion from the engines, eventually the wheels will skid and just slide over the ground, but still move forward.

as far as i'm concrened its a big leap to say wheels skid -> take off

are all wheels going to skid uniformly?

it could cuase the plane to veer out of control
tires to overheat and explode etc ...

as i've said skidding is an example of the wheels failing, if the wheels fail manythings could happen. But to say the wheels will skid to a take off speed problem solved seems crazy to me.

[HeavenSent]

[Fluffz]

sighn nothing skids here. as soon as the plane moves the band experiences inifinite - not exponential - acceleration which will destroy the universe or at least the plane. that required energy can never exist in reality but only in riddles

so far i have shown the only 2 situations this riddle can experience
a.) plane speed=0, wheel speed=0, band speed=0
b.) plane speed=anything, whell speed=lightspeed, band speed=lightspeed.
this riddle is not true for any other values. why continue arguing

yes, its holding a laser gun in its hands to kill the plane.

[Reaver]

edit:damn the guy above me called it

[Ewan]

sighn nothing skids here. as soon as the plane moves the band experiences inifinite - not exponential - acceleration which will destroy the universe or at least the plane. that required energy can never exist in reality but only in riddles

so far i have shown the only 2 situations this riddle can experience
a.) plane speed=0, wheel speed=0, band speed=0
b.) plane speed=anything, whell speed=lightspeed, band speed=lightspeed.
this riddle is not true for any other values. why continue arguing

yes, its holding a laser gun in its hands to kill the plane.

I can see this point of view, but I think it's simply reading too deep into a badly worded question.

[Zeebu]

thats the point of it ewan... given real world. the plane would take off... just with faster spinny wheels

given super duper treadmill and infinate accel possibility. the plane will never moove

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Real world example of why takeoff wouldn't happen

The US Navy / Air Force.

Hell, ANY navy or air force with aircraft carriers, for that matter. For example, let's look at the Nimitz class of US aircraft carriers. The flight deck on this class is 1,092 feet long and 257 feet wide. Ostensibly, the flight deck is this long to allow for both capture/recovery of aircraft and the catapult runway system for launching.

Ideally, if you could, you would want the flight deck of your naval vessel to have as small of a footprint as possible. Now, I'm also assuming that smart people (much smarter than your or I at aerodynamics) have been working on the "how to make our ships more compact" problem over the last 90-odd years (first aircraft carrier being designated by the US Navy in April 1920).

Now, making a low-friction, high-speed conveyor belt-type system is totally feasible, even on a large scale. I work at a place that deals with the types of motors that could be used.

So, if it was possible to launch air vehicles from such a system, wouldn't you think the military would've thought of it by now? I mean, money's not really an object to them (much to my chagrin), so wouldn't you think all US aircraft carriers would sport one of these things by this point in time? Obviously, it'd use less real estate than a catapult-style standard launch runway.

The answer is no, no they don't, because it's not possible.

[Cyrus]

The US Navy / Air Force.

Hell, ANY navy or air force with aircraft carriers, for that matter. For example, let's look at the Nimitz class of US aircraft carriers. The flight deck on this class is 1,092 feet long and 257 feet wide. Ostensibly, the flight deck is this long to allow for both capture/recovery of aircraft and the catapult runway system for launching.

Ideally, if you could, you would want the flight deck of your naval vessel to have as small of a footprint as possible. Now, I'm also assuming that smart people (much smarter than your or I at aerodynamics) have been working on the "how to make our ships more compact" problem over the last 90-odd years (first aircraft carrier being designated by the US Navy in April 1920).

Now, making a low-friction, high-speed conveyor belt-type system is totally feasible, even on a large scale. I work at a place that deals with the types of motors that could be used.

So, if it was possible to launch air vehicles from such a system, wouldn't you think the military would've thought of it by now? I mean, money's not really an object to them (much to my chagrin), so wouldn't you think all US aircraft carriers would sport one of these things by this point in time? Obviously, it'd use less real estate than a catapult-style standard launch runway.

The answer is no, no they don't, because it's not possible.

I didn't really follow the whole discussion, but neither do I think you bring up a valid arguement. if the wheels of the plane really start sliding, and the plane CAN take off, there's still no reason for the US(or any other) millitary to
use this method, because it comes with alot of risks and i ouldn't like to see a plane landing with heathburned tires.