[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 57 KB, 300x300, will it.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4697776 No.4697776 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.4697785

Your picture? No, the treadmill and wall are in the way.

>> No.4697800 [DELETED] 

>>4697776
mythbusters said yes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KsdMuhYJPw

but that plane is clearly moving a lot faster than the conveyer belt, if they were the same speed then theres no way it'd take off.

>> No.4697803

>>4697800
technically, if the treadmill was large enough and the plane small enough, the treadmill would create enough air flow over the plane's wings to generate lift.

>> No.4697804

>>4697800
>EK
Fuck.

Making the wheels spin twice as fast is not enough to stop fucking jet engines.

>> No.4697807

>All the posts ITT except mine are retarded
Fuck you /sci/, I'm out.

Protip: Imagine a rocket on wheels.

>> No.4697809

>>4697800
>>4697803
The presence of the treadmill is absolutely irrelevant you dumbfucks...

>> No.4697810

It's simple, we make the conveyor speed increase aswell with time

>> No.4697814

The plane would take off if it went faster than the treadmill. Otherwise there would be no net airflow over the wings, and thus no lift would be generated.

>> No.4697815

>>4697803

it would be over the bottom more

so the low pressure would be on the bottom

so actually, it would create suction

>> No.4697820

>>4697809

no, you colossal dickfaced autist fuckwad manchild

the treadmill would impact airflow because the surface would have friction with air molecules

it's mostly insignificant but we're dealing with such a stupid situation in the first place

>> No.4697822
File: 19 KB, 461x403, 1311876628983.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4697822

In an ideal case, when wheels are rolling without sliding on a surface, the friction force becomes null. On the other hand, the engines of the plane are creating a force which we may assume constant. In consclusion it is impossible to have a balance of horizontal forces if the wheels are purely rolling, and the plane will inveitable hit those pillars.

>> No.4697823

also, in some cases the treadmill would actually make it a lot worse since in certain aircraft the wheel drag is significant

e.g. b-17s took off in 3 point position because wheel drag was more important than the induced drag

>> No.4697825

>>4697820
>implying the required airflow could happen with a low Reynolds number.

Go away.

>> No.4697826

aww, this troll. it's been so long since i've seen you.

>> No.4697828

The wings can not fit through the poles.

>> No.4697829

>>4697825

>absolutely irrelevant
>absolutely

suck my dick faggot

>> No.4697830 [DELETED] 
File: 263 KB, 456x347, 126552.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4697830

>>4697828
thinking outside the box! nice!

>> No.4697834

No, there won't be any air flow through the wings.

>> No.4697836

Wow, it has almost been two days since the last time I saw this troll... The plane will take off, deal with it.

>> No.4697841

>>4697829
It is.

The point is not HURR VISCOUS FLOW, it's just trying to apply velocity composition to complex systems.

People think "the plane moves forward but is on a treadmill that moves backwards, so if it moves at the same speed, V-V= 0, so the plane doesn't move toward the ground so it doesn't take off"
The problem is that the plane (the wings actually) is (are) not attached to the treadmill so you can't just apply velocity composition like an idiot.

>> No.4697857

>>4697800

EK pretending to science

lol

Stop posting that Batshit ugly woman

>> No.4697860

Why is it that an inordinate number of troll threads always show up right around the time EK is posting?

>> No.4697861

the runway is way too short.

>> No.4697882

The most natural interpretation of this old troll (in my opinion) asks what happens under the condition that the belt moves backwards at the same rate the plane moves forward relative to the belt, the same as what it does when a person walks on it. But planes don't have anywhere near as much friction with the ground as a person, so the belt's backward motion relative to the ground would have a negligible effect on the plane's motion relative to the ground, and so you'd have a lot of trouble meeting that condition.

>> No.4697976

One of the earliest /sci/ troll questions returns for more?

Thrust is generated by the jet engines, not the wheels. It's not a dissimilar idea from taking a toy airplane, putting it on a running treadmill, and pushing it forward with your hands.

>> No.4697999
File: 30 KB, 500x329, now this is podracing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4697999

A liberal arts majors says
>Hahaha funny meme lol guyz your so cool

A physics major says
>Thrust is from engine not from wheels but there is no lift from air flowing over wings so it depends

An engineering major says
>Doesn't matter, retrofitting airports with that kind of runway costs exceedingly more than the upkeep of runway property

>> No.4698496

Hell no, the running tires are not the power source that make the airplane take off.
Stupid qstn is stupid...

>> No.4698570

Wait, what is the original problem already? Is the speed of the plane related to the air or the belt?