Jules S
Premium Member
Registered: 24th Dec 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
conveyour speed should in theory be the same as the outer diameter of the wheel's speed
the debate I'm putting acorss is if the conveyour/wheel speed is different to the planes thrust speed
if it is different there will be a velocity of advance - if its the same there wont be
this velocity of advance will determine if the plane reaches take off speed
yes, but you are now admitting the plane can move....which is very different from earlier on mate 
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
no I personally dont think it will - I'm not admitting it will move - I think the wheel and body speed will be near enough identical over a set time period
however I'm stating the condition in which the plane could move/wouldnt move
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
this velocity of advance will determine if the plane reaches take off speed
Indeed Lee - and there is VERY LITTLE to stop the plane moving - certainly not the frictional loss through the road wheels and therefore certainly NOT the belt, in any circumstance.
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
I'm stating that the whole debate hinges on wether a velocity of advance could/would/should/will occur
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
The frictional losses are in no way negligeable though; neither is the mass and gravitational force acting onthe plane - you have to remeber a 100 tonne plane exerts 981 000 N of downward force - this isnt easy to shift; especially if there is a conveyour counteracting its lift from velocity of advance
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by LiVe LeE]
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
friction, velocity, thrust is nothin to do with it.
can the plane take off from standing still? no.
why? because there is no wind to lift the wings.
its the exact same if the plane is travelling at 100mph north and the belt 100mph south, it will still appear that the plane is on the same spot therefore will have no wind to lift the plane without making the plane go faster.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
Geographically it IS stationary
Depends what you're measuring against. Relative to the ground, yes, but then as I've already said the ground is not important.
You could not stop a plan by spinning its wheels backwards. It wouldn't slow down.
The moving belt is having the same effect on the wheels as that which the tarmac beneath the craft would normally have under standard circumstances i.e. the plane making normal progress along a fixed surface.
The diference is, the craft has no motive input on the surrounding air due to what is essentialy a moving runway which negates normal forward progress in the geographical sense and as such the craft is incapable of producing lift.
This is why take off would not be possible. 
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Darren please read this and tell me who said the plane would take off from standing still?
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
I think its a case of agree to disagree - I'm off down the pub!
|
Jules S
Premium Member
Registered: 24th Dec 03
User status: Offline
|
Sorry Lee,
But 'if' the plane 'can' move then sooner or later the plane will achieve optimum velocity and it will take off
it may take time, and it may take more real three dimensional space, but it 'will' take off
methinks the penny has dropped now?
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sxi04
Geographically it IS stationary Paul, because the belt compensates for any motive input from the craft.
All we know is that the belt travels at the same speed as the plane.
It's very simple.
has someone hacked into your account? last time i checked you seemed to come across as someone with rational thought 
Are you Vibrio?
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
no I dont agree the plane will move and there will be no velocity of advance; and hence no take off
but thats just my opinion
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Darren please read this and tell me who said the plane would take off from standing still?
read the whole post, its an example, you might learn something
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
Geographically it IS stationary
Depends what you're measuring against. Relative to the ground, yes, but then as I've already said the ground is not important.
You could not stop a plan by spinning its wheels backwards. It wouldn't slow down.
The moving belt is having the same effect on the wheels as that which the tarmac beneath the craft would normally have under standard circumstances i.e. the plane making normal progress along a fixed surface.
The diference is, the craft has no motive input on the surrounding air due to what is essentialy a moving runway which negates normal forward progress in the geographical sense and as such the craft is incapable of producing lift.
This is why take off would not be possible.
 do you want your gold medal back now mr 286?
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
give svm a nobel prize
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenGSi
its the exact same if the plane is travelling at 100mph north and the belt 100mph south, it will still appear that the plane is on the same spot therefore will have no wind to lift the plane without making the plane go faster.
Yes - but HOW DO YOU STOP THE PLANE!
The only backward force is the belt via the wheels.
The wheels freewheel.
There is no other force to countact thrust.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenGSi
quote:
Originally posted by John
Darren please read this and tell me who said the plane would take off from standing still?
read the whole post, its an example, you might learn something
PMSL
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
i agree with SVM,
why, because i dont know the anwser, and he seems to have put across his agrument quite well
what do we win
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
This damn belt is having no effect whatsoever on the planes ability to thrust itself forward.
What do base that conclusion on Ian?
We already know that the belt travels at the same speed as the aircraft, so it can only retard/prevent it's progress.
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenGSi
its the exact same if the plane is travelling at 100mph north and the belt 100mph south, it will still appear that the plane is on the same spot therefore will have no wind to lift the plane without making the plane go faster.
Yes - but HOW DO YOU STOP THE PLANE!
The only backward force is the belt via the wheels.
The wheels freewheel.
There is no other force to countact thrust.
there is - mass and gravity
981000 N of the stuff
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I've unfortunately followed this post since it started and wasted lots of time doing so.
You might learn something if you read it.
The arguments you have are just wrong.
Not even maybe a bit right.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by jr
i agree with SVM,
why, because i dont know the anwser, and he seems to have put across his agrument quite well
what do we win
Because he's used some fancy words occasionally does not mean he has put his argument across quite well.
If you read any of his argument you would see he's actually shown himself up.
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
my arguments or DarrenGSi's
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Darrens sorry lee, lost of posts by the time I reply.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
i think everyone assumes the belt has its own power and the plane is free to move.
In this instance, I fail to see how an aircraft propelled by thrust on its wings would fail to move.
Does this mean sea planes can't take off if there's a current? WTF.
If they are going against the current, progress will undoubtedly be hindered, but there aren't many currents short of El Nino that can match a seaplane's take-off speed.
|
