hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[zeegler]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this treadmill idea worked, I guarantee the military would have devloped and quick install type treadmill device that could be put together rather quickly, so they could have their frontline fighters at the front, instead of spending 100's of millions developing vstol aircraft, i guarantee the treadmill would have been cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

The treadmill would have to be the full length of a runway, in order for the plane to generate enough lift to take-off, so what good would that do?

[/ QUOTE ]

But then why would the conveyor need to be as long as the runway? By that, you're saying the plane has to have forward momentum, to which you alluded before it doesn't need, just engine thrust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely WRONG!! Never once did I say the plane requires only thrust and no momentum. If you had read any of my posts properly, you would know that.

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Engines actually do pull, a little bit. The modern turbofan has fans on the front that draw in air, and then the compressor and internal crap create a high pressure air/fuel mixture that is ignited and exhausted with great force. So there IS a pulling step.

[MOSHWITZ]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

once the thrust becomes greater than the weight ratio of the plane, said plane becomes a rocket and will gain forward motion regardless of how fast the wheels spin on the conveyor belt, because the "thrusts'" point of contact to its resistor(air) happens above the conveyor and not with the conveyor itself,,at the point of thrust becoming greater than the weight ratio of the plane from pushing against the frictionous air behind it, the plane has no choice but to move forward regardless of the wheels on the conveyor which now have been put into a state of multiplied acceleration until the wheels leave the conveyor. once the thrust becomes greater than the weight holding it back...wheels and conveyors are not even a factor. the resistance of the air the thrust is pushing against is the only factor. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
MOSH ON
DAVE

[Newc]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

But there again you are trying to replace a GAS (air) with a SOLID (rope). Of course it works THAT way, because you are introducing outside elements.
Give up, it's already been proven that the plane on the conveyor will NOT fly.

[RobRR]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are there to support the air plane while it builds up speed. Thats it, they are only there to hold up UP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes build up speed through forward motion, on this treadmill there is no forward motion. You can only build airspeed through forward motion through the relative air. Remember in this scenario, there is no other variables besides, plane and treadmill. Explain how there is airflow over the wings, through the engine yes, because they are sucking in air. but because there is no forward motion no airflow over the wings. Plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plane doesent get its forward motion from the wheels or the treadmill, thats what your missing. It gets that from the thrusters, the wheels just support the plane while the thrusters build up the planes AIR speed.

[/ QUOTE ]


OMG LOL, there is no forward motion so therfore no airspeed/airflow over the wings. Stop being fixated on the wheels no being powered, doesn't matter. You keep wanting to prove your point, but the fact is your point is just plain wrong. Like I have posted twice already when you get a treadmill and run is there wind blowing in youjr face? Answer that and you have your answer. No airflow OVER WINGS NOT JET INTAKE, WINGS no flight.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG LoL Hi2U!!11111!!

You have absolutley no idea what your talking about. Your too narrowminded to view the entire picture.

[RobRR]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
But there again you are trying to replace a GAS (air) with a SOLID (rope). Of course it works THAT way, because you are introducing outside elements.
Give up, it's already been proven that the plane on the conveyor will NOT fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where has it been proven?

[zeegler]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
But there again you are trying to replace a GAS (air) with a SOLID (rope). Of course it works THAT way, because you are introducing outside elements.
Give up, it's already been proven that the plane on the conveyor will NOT fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh this is going to be fantastic NEWC. I can't wait to see what you are going to say, when one of us gets the official answer from somewhere. You KNOW it's going to happen. I predict you will packpedal, and say you were just antagonizing us.

[Newc]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Dave, as was stated clearly before, airplanes fly because of airflow over and under the wings, not because of thrust. Wings do more than just keep the plane from tumbling.

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

On an infinite conveyor belt, a plane can theoretically take off if it can overcome the belt's power and start moving/accelerating forward until it gains enough speed to take off. However, if the belt operator keeps jacking up the power, then I can't see the plane taking off.

This part of the question was not addressed in the original question, so it's unresolvable the way I see it.

[wulfe13]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
once the thrust becomes greater than the weight ratio of the plane, said plane becomes a rocket and will gain forward motion regardless of how fast the wheels spin on the conveyor belt, because the "thrusts'" point of contact to its resistor(air) happens above the conveyor and not with the conveyor itself,,at the point of thrust becoming greater than the weight ratio of the plane from pushing against the frictionous air behind it, the plane has no choice but to move forward regardless of the wheels on the conveyor which now have been put into a state of multiplied acceleration until the wheels leave the conveyor. once the thrust becomes greater than the weight holding it back...wheels and conveyors are not even a factor. the resistance of the air the thrust is pushing against is the only factor. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
MOSH ON
DAVE

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY!!! Finally someone gets what I am saying!!!

[zeegler]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

If you all realized how unfathomably intelligent I was, there would be no need for such discussion, none whatsoever.

[VinceV]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again LOL, if wheels made did not affect a planes airspeed in any way , then why are they there. They allow the plane to build up airspeed buy rolling forward thus creating lift on the wings. read my post, and if you can say that for certain if you could run 50 mph on a treadmill and there would be wind blowing at you, then I'll agree with you, but thats not what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic, one would have to assume that seaplanes work under the same wacky rules of physics. So floats, like wheels somehow assist an aircraft to take off. Well, I argue, that other than keeping the aircraft fuselage away from the ground, wheels or floats serve only to create drag, thus impeding the aircraft's take-off. Wheels are a necessary evil for aircraft. It's all about reducing friction. In other words, they do exactly the opposite of the wheels in a car. You want wheels on a car to create as much friction as possible (traction), but in an airplane, the oposite is true. Some experimental planes were launched from linear motors (magnetically powered monorail system), and magnetically supported monorails.

[/ QUOTE ]


And was there forward motion in these monorail systems? I bet there was. Hence the plane took off. Yes wheels and floats or skis create drag, but that drag is small. Plane starts groundroll on asphalt or water or snow, plane builds airspeed, plane is capable of flight.

Think of it like this when you get on a passenger plane, you taxi to the runway and then 90% of the time plane will stop and you will hear engine power up to full power with brakes applied, so at this point the engine are creating as much thrust as they can. Plane is not moving because brakes are applied. Pilot releases brakes. Do all of a sudden the plane pop up in the air and start flying? No plane builds up speed creating airflow over the wing, when a specific airspeed (for that plane) is reached, plane is rotated and begins flight.

[zeegler]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again LOL, if wheels made did not affect a planes airspeed in any way , then why are they there. They allow the plane to build up airspeed buy rolling forward thus creating lift on the wings. read my post, and if you can say that for certain if you could run 50 mph on a treadmill and there would be wind blowing at you, then I'll agree with you, but thats not what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic, one would have to assume that seaplanes work under the same wacky rules of physics. So floats, like wheels somehow assist an aircraft to take off. Well, I argue, that other than keeping the aircraft fuselage away from the ground, wheels or floats serve only to create drag, thus impeding the aircraft's take-off. Wheels are a necessary evil for aircraft. It's all about reducing friction. In other words, they do exactly the opposite of the wheels in a car. You want wheels on a car to create as much friction as possible (traction), but in an airplane, the oposite is true. Some experimental planes were launched from linear motors (magnetically powered monorail system), and magnetically supported monorails.

[/ QUOTE ]


And was there forward motion in these monorail systems? I bet there was.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not the magnetically supported ones. They were used just for the reduction of friction. That is the only purpose of an aircraft wheel.

[MOSHWITZ]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
Dave, as was stated clearly before, airplanes fly because of airflow over and under the wings, not because of thrust. Wings do more than just keep the plane from tumbling.

[/ QUOTE ]
airflow over and under the wings will have no choice but to happen creating lift because of the forward motion created by the thrust overpowering the weight of the plane. rockets dont have to have wings just to move, just enough thrust to overpower the weight,,
MOSH ON
DAVE

[VinceV]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
once the thrust becomes greater than the weight ratio of the plane, said plane becomes a rocket and will gain forward motion regardless of how fast the wheels spin on the conveyor belt, because the "thrusts'" point of contact to its resistor(air) happens above the conveyor and not with the conveyor itself,,at the point of thrust becoming greater than the weight ratio of the plane from pushing against the frictionous air behind it, the plane has no choice but to move forward regardless of the wheels on the conveyor which now have been put into a state of multiplied acceleration until the wheels leave the conveyor. once the thrust becomes greater than the weight holding it back...wheels and conveyors are not even a factor. the resistance of the air the thrust is pushing against is the only factor. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
MOSH ON
DAVE

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY!!! Finally someone gets what I am saying!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wont work, airplanes are not rockets. They do not have 1 to 1 power ratios. A 747 has 4 engine cranking out about what 60-80 thousand pounds of thrust on a plane that clearly weighs more the 500,000 pounds.