Can A Plane Take Off On A Treadmill?
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,076
Likes: 0
From: Miami, Florida
Originally Posted by Neutered Sputniks,Feb 12 2008, 09:27 PM
Tell me how it is that if the wheels are only turning at the same speed as the treadmill, there's forward motion?
Please tell me you're a troll...
Let me give you a hint: the wheels don't propel the plane forward. Now go to page 2 of this thread and look for the rollerskater on a treadmill analogy. If you still don't get it, then we don't know what else to say....
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 8,796
Likes: 2
From: San Diego, Wess-Side!!
Originally Posted by Neutered Sputniks,Feb 12 2008, 06:26 PM
I "worked" on the Avionics systems
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,712
Likes: 1
I didn't say the wheels propel the plane forward. I did state that unless the wheels are turning faster than the treadmill, the airplane remains stationary or moves backwards.
Again, read my post. Notice where I say wheel speed, and mention feathering the engine to match the speed of the treadmill?
Again, read my post. Notice where I say wheel speed, and mention feathering the engine to match the speed of the treadmill?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 8,796
Likes: 2
From: San Diego, Wess-Side!!
Originally Posted by Neutered Sputniks,Feb 12 2008, 06:27 PM
Tell me how it is that if the wheels are only turning at the same speed as the treadmill, there's forward motion?
If there's no forward motion, the aircraft doesn't fly. That's all my point was.
If there's no forward motion, the aircraft doesn't fly. That's all my point was.
Go figure it out...then post back when you can admit you didn't know WTF you were talking about and that your arguement has been covered a gazillion times already on this thread alone.
Quit trying to make a point that is irrelevant. All you are doing is proving that not only were you fooled by the original question, you can't even comprehend the answer when it was revealed to you.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,712
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by SIIK2NR,Feb 12 2008, 09:58 PM
You've been told.... you just don't comprehend.
Go figure it out...then post back when you can admit you didn't know WTF you were talking about and that your arguement has been covered a gazillion times already on this thread alone.
Quit trying to make a point that is irrelevant. All you are doing is proving that not only were you fooled by the original question, you can't even comprehend the answer when it was revealed to you.
Go figure it out...then post back when you can admit you didn't know WTF you were talking about and that your arguement has been covered a gazillion times already on this thread alone.
Quit trying to make a point that is irrelevant. All you are doing is proving that not only were you fooled by the original question, you can't even comprehend the answer when it was revealed to you.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 0
From: Goleta, CA
I can see some of the confusion between the different posters.
Neutered is saying as long as the wheels are spinning at the same but opposite speed of the treadmill, the plane won't move. That would be right if the plane was driven by the wheels.
Planes are moved by the thrust from the propeller or the jet engine not by the wheels. Therefore the wheels should be seen as free spinning. If a free spinning wheel is set on a treadmill. It'll match the speed of the treadmill regardless.
So if a plane with free spinning wheels was set on a treadmill with no thrust applied, it will be stationary.
As soon as any thrust is applied, the plane will be pushed forward, giving the plane the relative to ground speed (not treadmill speed, etc.) that will have air moved over and under the wings creating lift therefore getting the plane airborne.
So Neutered, no thrust is required to have the wheels spinning at the same speed of the treadmill in the case of frictionless wheels. That's what people have been trying to say.
Might be a somewhat long post but hopefully it'll stop at least some of the arguments.
Might be easier to try to explain then just yell at the guy.
Neutered is saying as long as the wheels are spinning at the same but opposite speed of the treadmill, the plane won't move. That would be right if the plane was driven by the wheels.
Planes are moved by the thrust from the propeller or the jet engine not by the wheels. Therefore the wheels should be seen as free spinning. If a free spinning wheel is set on a treadmill. It'll match the speed of the treadmill regardless.
So if a plane with free spinning wheels was set on a treadmill with no thrust applied, it will be stationary.
As soon as any thrust is applied, the plane will be pushed forward, giving the plane the relative to ground speed (not treadmill speed, etc.) that will have air moved over and under the wings creating lift therefore getting the plane airborne.
So Neutered, no thrust is required to have the wheels spinning at the same speed of the treadmill in the case of frictionless wheels. That's what people have been trying to say.
Might be a somewhat long post but hopefully it'll stop at least some of the arguments.
Might be easier to try to explain then just yell at the guy.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,581
Likes: 0
From: Tampa Florida
Originally Posted by Vi37573r,Feb 13 2008, 04:22 AM
I can see some of the confusion between the different posters.
Neutered is saying as long as the wheels are spinning at the same but opposite speed of the treadmill, the plane won't move. That would be right if the plane was driven by the wheels.
Planes are moved by the thrust from the propeller or the jet engine not by the wheels. Therefore the wheels should be seen as free spinning. If a free spinning wheel is set on a treadmill. It'll match the speed of the treadmill regardless.
So if a plane with free spinning wheels was set on a treadmill with no thrust applied, it will be stationary.
As soon as any thrust is applied, the plane will be pushed forward, giving the plane the relative to ground speed (not treadmill speed, etc.) that will have air moved over and under the wings creating lift therefore getting the plane airborne.
So Neutered, no thrust is required to have the wheels spinning at the same speed of the treadmill in the case of frictionless wheels. That's what people have been trying to say.
Might be a somewhat long post but hopefully it'll stop at least some of the arguments.
Might be easier to try to explain then just yell at the guy.
Neutered is saying as long as the wheels are spinning at the same but opposite speed of the treadmill, the plane won't move. That would be right if the plane was driven by the wheels.
Planes are moved by the thrust from the propeller or the jet engine not by the wheels. Therefore the wheels should be seen as free spinning. If a free spinning wheel is set on a treadmill. It'll match the speed of the treadmill regardless.
So if a plane with free spinning wheels was set on a treadmill with no thrust applied, it will be stationary.
As soon as any thrust is applied, the plane will be pushed forward, giving the plane the relative to ground speed (not treadmill speed, etc.) that will have air moved over and under the wings creating lift therefore getting the plane airborne.
So Neutered, no thrust is required to have the wheels spinning at the same speed of the treadmill in the case of frictionless wheels. That's what people have been trying to say.
Might be a somewhat long post but hopefully it'll stop at least some of the arguments.
Might be easier to try to explain then just yell at the guy.
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,076
Likes: 0
From: Miami, Florida
I agree that we need more responses like that. And yes, some of us are posting inmature responses to Sputnik's posts, including myself. But look at the first thing Sputnik wrote when he joined this thread:
[QUOTE]Wow....lol, there are some physics geniuses in here
[QUOTE]Wow....lol, there are some physics geniuses in here