The Plane Took Off!!!!!!!!!

[StukaJU87]

Looks like myself, RobRR and 7thSon were right. What do we win?:ROTF: Lifetime Platinum Membership?

Hey, me too!! I've said from day one that the plane would take off.

Sorry Zeegs. Hey, YEAH and Zeegs TOO!!!!

[toejam]

If I jump off a building and flap my arms really fast, will I fly? I'm not gonna try this at home, I'll just get some other poor sap to try it.
:ROTF:

I think Wiley E. Coyote, super genius, tried that a few times. You might search for his results on that approach.

Good call. I'll have to search for that. As long as that damn Roadrunner doesn't get in the way, everything should work out fine.

[shobet]

Here's an explanation I found on Boingboing which helped me understand what's going on.

The problem here, of course, is that the poster (and Neal) cannot disengage themselves from seeing the airplane as a car. The difference between a car and a grounded airplane is that a car uses its wheels to propel itself forward, and an airplane moves itself forward by moving air. They assume that the runway moving backwards would move the plane backwards. This is what would happen with a car (that is in gear), so why not for an airplane? Well, because an airplane’s wheels are free rolling. There is obviously some friction, so there would be some small backwards force, but it would be infinitely small as compared to the forward thrust of the airplane. You can test this with a piece of paper and a matchbox car (which has free rolling wheels like an airplane… or like a car in neutral.) Place the paper on a table, and place the matchbox car on the paper. Take your hand, and hold the car still with a lightly placed finger on top of the car. At this point you are providing no forward thrust, and the “conveyor belt” is not moving. The car remains stationary. Now, continuing to hold the airplane with a lightly placed finger, and start to pull the paper out from under the car, in the backwards direction. According to Neal’s logic, the car should push back on your finger with the same force that you are exerting on the paper… but this is not what will happen. You will find that your lightly placed finger is not stressed to any noticeable extent. The paper will slide out, and the wheels will spin, but the car will not be propelled backwards. The reason for this is is that the rotation of the wheels is not related to the movement of the matchbox car except by the very small friction component of the axle, which your lightly placed finger can easily control.
So now we have established that movement of the surface beneath a free wheeling object does not exert a noticeable force on the object. Next, we’ll see what happens when the object is trying to move forward. Attach a string to the matchbox car. Place the car at one end of the paper, and use the string to start pulling the car forward with a steady force. As the car moves forward, start pulling the paper out from under the car, backwards. Do you feel increased resistance as you pull the string? Of course not. The wheels are free rolling! Spinning the wheels does not make the object move!
When an airplane takes off, there is one major forward force… the forward thrust. The main rearward force is air resistance. The turning of the wheels provides a small frictional force, but because the wheels are free-rolling, this friction is very small. Unless the wheels are locked, the friction is always going to be less than the thrust, which means that the overall force is still forward, and the plane will still move.

[Newc]

Well then, I guess the Navy has a new aircraft carrier design to work on

[Bengal]

Well then, I guess the Navy has a new aircraft carrier design to work on

I guess some just don't get that the belt has nothing to do with the thrust of the plane...

Either that or you're joking. I'll go with joking since you have the laughing thing there...

[zeegler]

Everyone who is still confused, let me clarify something. If the plane requires a 1000 foot runway to take off normally, it will still require 1000 feet of treadmill to take off, possibly slightly more because of the minimal friction caused by the treadmill on the wheels.

[SEEGERMANY]

Either that or you're joking. I'll go with joking since you have the laughing thing there...

You'd know these things if you were a Platinum Member!

[Bengal]

You'd know these things if you were a Platinum Member!

Or if I didn't think emoticons were the gayest things ever...

[krimson]

Everyone who is still confused, let me clarify something. If the plane requires a 1000 foot runway to take off normally, it will still require 1000 feet of treadmill to take off, possibly slightly more because of the minimal friction caused by the treadmill on the wheels.

Yup, because regardless of how fast you move the conveyor belt the thrust from the engine will still move the plane forward, with only a minimal difference. The plane is not dependent on the wheels to move it forward. It makes total sense now.

[dg]

Here are some youtube videos from Mythbusters.

This first one helps explain the critical concept of why the conveyor belt has little to no effect on the plane, since a plane isn't getting its propulsion from the wheels like a car does. It goes into a little more detail & has some stuff that was edited out of the show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S377HwOthjo

Full-scale takeoff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ul_5DtMLhc

edit- found pretty much the whole thing in 2 parts:

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuXK1nr9_jg

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9STo3fjfGg&feature=user

Watch 'em quick, because I bet they'll get pulled.

[thebigz]

I can't remember who, but someone offered a $10 bet to anyone who thought it wouldn't take off. I was within inches of taking it, but didn't. I couldn't wrap my brain around it before, but now it makes total sense. The friction used to move the plane forward is not the ground and the wheels, but the prop and the air.

[VitaminG]

I don't know why anyone is still arguing this. To the point that Mythbusters was called in? I debunked it on page one of that first thread way back when (before it blew out for another 27 pages). You all should have been happy with my explanation first time round!

[jim777]

I missed it altogether, forgot all about it! And I had popcorn ready to go and everything LOL

[dg]

Jim, here it is on Youtube (at least until it gets pulled):

part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuXK1nr9_jg

part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9STo3fjfGg&feature=user

explanation of why the conveyor can't keep a plane in place like it can with a car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S377HwOthjo

[zeegler]

They explained it perfectly well. Anyone who still doesn't get it after watching that... WOW!