Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
Dave is right in his way of thinking, it's just that dave is thinking of the thrust speed out of the back, is what the conveyor is matching thus equalibrium. But its not the case here.
|
dave17
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 02
Location: Greater London
User status: Offline
|
Not really.
The way i look at it, the thrust can be converted into speed. Thrust is pusing the plane along like a regular engine through the wheels.
If the wheels are travelling at 100mph, then so is the conveyor belt.
If the thrust gets increased, which increases the speed of the wheels to 200mph, then so does the conveyor belt.
But whatever, i cant b arsed to type about this anymore.
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
WIL PEOPLE THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING
if your thoerys are correct what happens when you try and land on this moveing runway?
ACCORDING TO YOU WE WOULD STOP DEAD!! 
you would carry on with momentum just like you would if you landed on solid ground.
FFS look at every article that google brings up, everyone that I have seen has concluded it would take off
the question has nothing at all to do with landing - just taking off
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Pressing the accelerator in a plane doesn't speed the wheels up.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave17
Not really.
The way i look at it, the thrust can be converted into speed. Thrust is pusing the plane along like a regular engine through the wheels.
If the wheels are travelling at 100mph, then so is the conveyor belt.
If the thrust gets increased, which increases the speed of the wheels to 200mph, then so does the conveyor belt.
But whatever, i cant b arsed to type about this anymore.
Well basically dave, thrust can't be converted to speed.
Speed = Distance travelled / Time
Thrust = Force over an area.
They're not the same thing mate.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
anyway. stop now, and answer my question
|
Jules S
Premium Member
Registered: 24th Dec 03
User status: Offline
|
Lets stop to think here for a minute.
And please people, stop to read this before posting more guff.
Lets consider what forces the conveyor can exert on the plane.
If accelerated quickly enough it will be very possible that the plane would remain stationary and the wheels would simply spin, whether thats forward or reverse.
Therefore the conveyor belt has little or no influence on the movement of the plane regardless of speed. All the energy of the conveyor belt is/can be expended in moving the planes wheels, not the plane itself.
The mass of the plane itself is therefore completely disconnected from the conveyor belt. the jet engines are therefore quite capable of moving the plane forward. All that will happen is that the wheels will be travelling at twice the speed they should be in order to take off.
^^ all my own work that....easier to explain when you dont have work to do!!!! 
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
if the plane is at max ground speed say 100mph for arguments sake and the conveyor belt is at 100mph in the opposite direction. (BOTH THE SAME SPEED, THEY CANT GO ANY FASTER, = NO ACCELERATION!). The plane will appear to be not moving apart from the wheels that are turning.
therefore when the plane goes to take off, because the plane is not moving there wont be any wind lift to lift the wings and lift the plane.
Who honestly thinks im right?
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sxi04
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by John
The plane forces air out the back, pushing it forward.
But it can't go forward John.
The belt is matching the craft's speed. 
That is the most important fact in this entire debate.
disengage your brain from treating the aircraft as a car for just one minute, and please do something for me, and maybe the penny will drop.
if you have your mobile phone handy place a pen underneath and sit both on top of a piece of scrap paper. now move the scrap paper and the phone at the same speed in opposite directions as stated in the question.
If you come back and still believe that by moving the ground under the wheels is the same as exerting an equal force on the planes jets then i dont hold much hope that you'll ever be swayed.
I won't be swayed until someone shows me a 737 taking off from a static position at full throttle on a giant conveyor belt that is matching it's speed.
And speed is the key here. We are discussing speed, not force.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jules S
Lets stop to think here for a minute.
And please people, stop to read this before posting more guff.
Lets consider what forces the conveyor can exert on the plane.
If accelerated quickly enough it will be very possible that the plane would remain stationary and the wheels would simply spin, whether thats forward or reverse.
Therefore the conveyor belt has little or no influence on the movement of the plane regardless of speed. All the energy of the conveyor belt is/can be expended in moving the planes wheels, not the plane itself.
The mass of the plane itself is therefore completely disconnected from the conveyor belt. the jet engines are therefore quite capable of moving the plane forward. All that will happen is that the wheels will be travelling at twice the speed they should be in order to take off.
^^ all my own work that....easier to explain when you dont have work to do!!!!
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
DarrenGSi you don't even get what anybody here is talking about so no you are not right.
Of course the plane doesn't take off if it's not moving, nobody is saying it is.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
SVM nobody is saying it will take off while its static.
Will people who don't understand anythin please not clutter this up anymore.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
I won't be swayed until someone shows me a 737 taking off from a static position at full throttle on a giant conveyor belt that is matching it's speed.
And speed is the key here. We are discussing speed, not force.
You will never see a plane sitting on a giant conveyor stationary and take off - As that's not whats being discussed here. IT's neither likely what we are discussing would ever happen either.
Please open your mind and review what people are saying, everyone else has gathered already the plane is not stationary.
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
THE QUESTION STATES THAT THE PLANES WHEELS AND THE CONVEYOR BELT IS AT THE SAME SPEED, THEREFORE THE PLANE WILL BE STATIONARY.
DO YOU NOT GET IT JOHN?
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Don't start me becuase i've refrained from calling people things here but you don't actually have any clue whats going on here.
Stop just now before you make an idiot of yourself.
I'm not saying this because its not what i'm saying, Live Lee has had perfectly reasonable arguments.
Its beacuse what you are saying is stupid.
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_Jeveryone else has gathered already the plane is not stationary.
if the plane is travelling at 100 mph and the conveyor is 100mph the opposite way, why wouldnt it be stationary?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Heres my pretty crappy demo
http://www.poisoft.co.uk/car.3gp
Right click save as
Watch how the wood is pulled back i can move the car along just as easily as if it were on solid ground
if you cant see it get Quicktime alternative
http://www.free-codecs.com/download_soft.php?d=1848&s=66
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Steve]
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Steve]
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Steve]
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Steve]
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenGSi
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_Jeveryone else has gathered already the plane is not stationary.
if the plane is travelling at 100 mph and the conveyor is 100mph the opposite way, why wouldnt it be stationary?
because if the plane is stationary - neither the plane or the conveyor is doing 100 mph. They're all doing 0 mph.
|
Jules S
Premium Member
Registered: 24th Dec 03
User status: Offline
|
darren,
It is possible that the wheels and conveyor belt are doing 400mph and the plane itself is doing 600mph
Think about it dude
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by Sxi04
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by John
The plane forces air out the back, pushing it forward.
But it can't go forward John.
The belt is matching the craft's speed.
That is the most important fact in this entire debate.
disengage your brain from treating the aircraft as a car for just one minute, and please do something for me, and maybe the penny will drop.
if you have your mobile phone handy place a pen underneath and sit both on top of a piece of scrap paper. now move the scrap paper and the phone at the same speed in opposite directions as stated in the question.
If you come back and still believe that by moving the ground under the wheels is the same as exerting an equal force on the planes jets then i dont hold much hope that you'll ever be swayed.
I won't be swayed until someone shows me a 737 taking off from a static position at full throttle on a giant conveyor belt that is matching it's speed.
And speed is the key here. We are discussing speed, not force.
well they do say ignorance is bliss my wordy friend
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
the plane appears to be stationary because the wheels are driving it forward at the same speed as the belt is pushing it backward
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by DarrenGSi]
|
dave17
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 02
Location: Greater London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by bradfincham
Question:
If an aeroplane is taking off but is on a conveyor belt that is moving at the same speed as the plane, would the plane take off?
Just realised it doesnt even say its moving in the opposite direction, could both be going forward, if this was the case, then it would definately take off.
Im done
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
tghe plane will NOT be sationary Darren
Unless we ignore the science of thrust, and ignore that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
I'm gonna end this once and for all
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Greg_M
AND THE PENNY HAS DROPPED
I finally understand. yes it would take off
It wouldn't Greg, the conveyor belt matches the speed of the craft.
As soon as the plane tries to move off, the belt starts rolling.
The faster the plane tries to push itself forwards, the faster the belt turns maintaining the plane's location and preventing lift.
The wheels will be going very very very fast and the engines can be flat out with afterburner on too, but she aint going anywhere.
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave17
quote:
Originally posted by bradfincham
Question:
If an aeroplane is taking off but is on a conveyor belt that is moving at the same speed as the plane, would the plane take off?
Just realised it doesnt even say its moving in the opposite direction, could both be going forward, if this was the case, then it would definately take off.
Im done
yip i did state that was an assumption that everyone had made
|
