Once and for f*cking all....

[Ray Smoodiver]

Oh jesus fucking christ.

The engines don't provide LIFT, they provide THRUST.

If, as the problem states, the belt negates the engines THRUST, therefore with no air over the wings creating LIFT, how, exactly, does the plane take off?

[wayfast]

Dear all,

As wbarnhill called out, I thought I should step in to what is rapidly becoming a hornet's nest. I will try to calm things down but I don't hold out much hope!

First up, for those concerned that this story has been cancelled, don't worry, planes on a conveyer belt has been filmed, is spectacular, and will be part of what us Mythbusters refer to as 'episode 97'. Currently that is due to air on January 30th.

Secondly, for those very aggrieved fans feeling "duped" into watching tonight's show, I can only apologise. I'm not sure why the listings / internet advertised that tonight's show contained POCB. I will endeavour to find out an answer but for those conspiracy theorists amongst you, I can assure you that it will have just been an honest mistake. At one point
several months ago, POCB was going to be part of Airplane Hour. Somewhere, someone has mistakenly posted the wrong listing. It will have been a genuine mistake but nonetheless it was a mistake which is unacceptable. As said I will try to find out what went wrong and hope that you will see fit to forgive the team at Discovery.

Thanks in advance,

Dan

from disco. site i guess

[VacMan]

I want to get in on the betting pool. We can each PayPal an amount to an unbiased 3rd party and the winner will get both PayPal amounts back with 10% going to the holder for his or her efforts.

The plane will fly.

If someone would like to take me up on it, name an amount and we'll take it from there. I would even be willing to bet one of the cars in my .sig on it, but I dunno if I could actually take someone's car regardless of how much physics they understand.

Let me know, I'm serious. :up:

Tim

[mtechnik]

Oh my.. this is like the topic of the century for R3V!!!

Whenever this comes up. Instant hit.

[Lof8]

you need air flowing over the wings to take off. if you've got enough, it'll fly. if not, it won't. I feel a little more retarded for reading and responding to this.

[einstein57]

i'd still like to see the bearings seize or tires blow out. that would be awesome. i just thought of somthing else. the additional vibrations caused by the supension goining through twice its normal cycles. That would be awesome to see the plane hop around or loose some landing gear. I remember reading about the hydraulic supension in the brabus v12 not being able to compute with road speeds over 200mph. They had to swap it out with a gas strut setup.

[sticksdaman]

the plane WILL take off


but only if fidhle007 is the pilot

PERIOD

[einstein57]

At least i'm not the only person who remembers the earth itself is a giant spinning treadmill that moves faster than an airplane does when it takes off.

[sleepswithe30s]

All you people who say its not possible are completely retarded.

Sorry.

But why the hell was this thread ever even considered to be posted? I guess it does help to weed out the morons.

The plane is going forward at x speed, the belt is going back at x speed. wheels are travelling at 2x. thrust from an airplane does NOT come from the wheels. It just means the wheels will be spinning twice as fast as the plane is going at the SURROUNDING ground speed. More friction, sure, but not enough to make a difference. Even so, think about it, even for you people who are still on the wagon about it not taking off, the conveyor belt wouldn't be moving backwards at all if the plane isn't allowed to move forwards! Give me a break man. If the plane is in static position, even IF it was being driven by the wheels, the belt wont be turning at all. Think about it people. If it was moving forward, the belt would be moving backwards at the same speed, but the drive (still on the false assumption that the wheels make the plane go forward) essentially is working twice as hard as it needs to be spinning the wheels twice as fast as the forward progress indicates. Have you ever heard of climbing a cinder cone volcano? Two steps up and one step back? Same idea, except we do use our feet. Regardless, the plane has to move forward for the belt to go back. Quit arguing a lost point.

Oh, and FWIW, I only halfway read the first page, so I'm probably repeating stuff. Deal with it. The conveyor belt is an unlimited length. This is in imagination land. No, not South Park. Just wondering if its even possible, the simulation of it would account for anything being possible.

I agree 100% And assuming you guys have a highschool diploma (I do not yet, still in highschool) You should too

[Justin B]

All you people who say its not possible are completely retarded.

Sorry.

But why the hell was this thread ever even considered to be posted? I guess it does help to weed out the morons.

The plane is going forward at x speed, the belt is going back at x speed. wheels are travelling at 2x. thrust from an airplane does NOT come from the wheels. It just means the wheels will be spinning twice as fast as the plane is going at the SURROUNDING ground speed. More friction, sure, but not enough to make a difference. Even so, think about it, even for you people who are still on the wagon about it not taking off, the conveyor belt wouldn't be moving backwards at all if the plane isn't allowed to move forwards! Give me a break man. If the plane is in static position, even IF it was being driven by the wheels, the belt wont be turning at all. Think about it people. If it was moving forward, the belt would be moving backwards at the same speed, but the drive (still on the false assumption that the wheels make the plane go forward) essentially is working twice as hard as it needs to be spinning the wheels twice as fast as the forward progress indicates. Have you ever heard of climbing a cinder cone volcano? Two steps up and one step back? Same idea, except we do use our feet. Regardless, the plane has to move forward for the belt to go back. Quit arguing a lost point.

Oh, and FWIW, I only halfway read the first page, so I'm probably repeating stuff. Deal with it. The conveyor belt is an unlimited length. This is in imagination land. No, not South Park. Just wondering if its even possible, the simulation of it would account for anything being possible.

[sleepswithe30s]

I would just like to say that there are a few possible scenarios for the airplane conveyorbelt situation that my throw people off:

Scenario one: The Plane is Using a conveyor the same length as a runway to take off (using its jets for thrust), sure it would, just the wheels would be spinning probably too fast for the bearings.

Scenario two: The plane is trying to us the conveyor belt to emulate the moving ground. This is just stupid. Why would you even have to think about this? Of course it won't take off because its moving in proportion to the ground, not the air.

Scenario three: The Conveyor is moving so fast that It is holding the plane back no matter how hard its thrusters push, thus there would be no air movement over the wings, and no take off. This again is retarded because ther is virtually nothing holding the plane back other than the friction in the bearings, which is easily overcome by the jet engines.

Finally I would just lke to say that this entire argument is retarded, Why would you even try to substitute a runway with a conveyor belt, and if you were to do this, make it go the same direction as the plane, att rediculous speed, so you would be using you're brakes to take off instead of your thrusters.

Those are the different situations that I've peiced together from many posts on bf.c. and Those are my conclusions. If you disagree, state you're scenario, and I'll get back to you, eventually.

[JasonC]

plane on treadmill video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk

[92 mtechnic cabrio]

I am in for the plane taking off.

I am so confident with my answer I am willing to wager money against any person who is confident with their opposite answer.

[benDASHDASH]

im going to be SO pissed if they give this that stupid "plausible" answer.

anyone want to make a r3v $ pool of confirmed vs busted vs plausible?

[einstein57]

It will either collapse from a part failure or takeoff.