Will it take off?

[Arky]

Alas, I suspect you're right. In fact, I doubt if she is even around long.

[pauln]

She's wearing more than half the girls in the "Prettiest on the Planet" thread... and there is no confusing conveyer belt.

[Arky]

She's wearing more than half the girls in the "Prettiest on the Planet" thread... and there is no confusing conveyer belt.

I lost interest in that thread yrs ago.

[theplummer]

I saw this on another forum I frequent and found some of the commentary interesting. I don't know the answer although I've got an opinion. It WAS interesting seeing the answers/thoughts some people gave (2 pages worth).

I'm copying it exactly like he had it there

a plane is standing on a movable runway( something like a conveyor).as the plane moves the conveyor moves but in the opposite direction.the conveyor has a system that tracks the speed of the plane and matches it exactly in the opposite direction.

the question is

will the plane take off or not?

(ps its been debated to death on other forums, its always fun to see how people present the theory behind there answer)

I just found this thread and have not read any answers yet, but please let me take a stab at it.

THE PLANE WILL TAKE OFF.

I know this to be true because the wheels on the plane are not the source of motovation. The source of motivation is thrust, therefore the tires will travel twice the speed that either the planes speed or the conveyers speed is moving as the conveyer matches the speed of the plane. The plane will still proceed in a forward motion and once enough airspeed is achieved to create liftoff, the plane will do exactly that.

There, how's that answer?

[Jay481985]

right answer right off the bat!!!

[IndyKlipschFan]

We must look at the facts...

1)a plane is standing on a movable runway.

2) whether it can do this or that, or the conveyor does this or that.. Wheels do this or that.....

If it is standing.... it is not moving at all. We do not even know the motor is on..

So no.. While it may in fact be capable of flying.. thus it had to take off.. (by the info here... It can't.) Remember... look at #1

[Jay481985]

just remember, just because a objects looks stationary doesn't mean its not moving........ say you were driving a car at 65 mph and a train track runs parallel to the road at 65 mph. You both meet up and continue at the same course. The train looks stationary to your perception as does the train looks stationary looking at you. If there were no such indicators of motion you would think both are standing still. Indicators of motion are things like telephone wires, the pattern on the ground, the horizon, etc etc.

[theplummer]

We must look at the facts...

1)a plane is standing on a movable runway.

2) whether it can do this or that, or the conveyor does this or that.. Wheels do this or that.....

If it is standing.... it is not moving at all. We do not even know the motor is on..

So no.. While it may in fact be capable of flying.. thus it had to take off.. (by the info here... It can't.) Remember... look at #1

Indy, you need to look at the statement right after "A plane is standing on a movable runway." it says, As the plane moves, the conveyer moves also in the opposite direction".

think of it this way. if the wheel brakes are applied, the plane cannot move when the throttle is applied, because the friction from the tires will hold it in place on the conveyer belt, therefore the conveyer will not move at all, until the amount of thrust applied overcomes the tires ability to hold the plane in place. the second the thrust overcomes the brakes and tires ability to hold the plane in place, the plane will move in a forward direction (it can't help itself), therefore sliding the tires, this forces the conveyer to move at exactly the same speed that the plan is moving, This will cause a skid mark on the conveyer. The length of the skid mark will be exactly twice the length of the distance the plane has actually moved at any given point in time.

Why, you ask?

The planes motovation is from thrust from the propulsion generated against the static air pressure behind the source of propulsion (exactly the same way a compression driver re-creats sound), not the direct relationship of the tires to the conveyer. As the plane moves forward, and increases speed (Assuming the source of power can continue to overcome the amount of the friction of the sliding tires on the conveyer), this will also increases the speed of the conveyer, therefore increasing the length of the skidmark. If this is allowed to continue until the plane reaches minimum direction in a forward motion (relative to Airspeed, not groundspeed), that enough wing lift in created to cause liftoff, it will take off.

The question makes no mention as to wether the air is still or moving in any direction at all. If the air is not moving, a static formula can be derived comparing the weight of the vehicle to the amount of lift the wings create. You could calculate how long the conveyer would have to be (Flight Deck or Runway), not total length of conveyer (as the length of the conveyer has to loop around to connect back to itself). But, If there is a wind (in direct relationship to the forward momentum to the plane, I.E. not a cross wind, the distance the plane will physically move (with relationship to the earth) will be different. If the plane is facing a giving head wind (I.E. the plane is pointing into lets say a 10mph wind), the plane will take off in a shorter distance relative to the earth, due to the increase in windspeed, Likewise if the plane is pointing downwind, it will have to increase the distance it has to travel to create the same amount of windspeed to create the same amount of lift.

Kinda windy, but, I hope it helps your understanding.

[IndyKlipschFan]

All fantastic posts... great debates... But I say it again.... here are the facts as we know them...

a plane is standing on a movable runway( something like a conveyor).

as the plane moves the conveyor moves but in the opposite direction.the conveyor has a system that tracks the speed of the plane and matches it exactly in the opposite direction.

the question is

will the plane take off or not?

(ps its been debated to death on other forums, its always fun to see how people present the theory behind there answer)

======================================

if it said ....The plane is moving on a movable runway... Or the plane with its engines fired up and breaks off... as it moves.. etc etc... We could have all kinds of arguments at this point. (And we have LOL>.) But again I state.. re read the first sentence.. Then the second, it NEVER sais in english as it begins to move... It just states two separate facts that IF it does this, this will happen.. My car on the same movable runway could move... but if car was inserted in this example for the plane, remember it is again at a stop. Wheather it goes fast at a designated speed, based on the conveyor, is meaningless... It is stopped...

OK, try this... Think of a red light in this case. Say the plane is stopped at the beginning of a runway on a movable conveyor. UNLESS he gets a green light to MOVE everything after that first fact is pointless. And the first fact we have again is...this... "a plane is standing on a movable runway."

I love word problems..

So remember... "a plane is STANDING on a movable runway."

I love all of the thoughts..and have enjoyed the discussions...SHOULD it move... hahahahahahahaahahahaha

[theplummer]

I guess to paraphrase Bill Clinton. "That depends on what your definition of "is"(or "As"), is."

I'll debate that the author was assuming that you weren't going to be exactly literal. I would argue that the word "AS" assumes that you know the plane is going to move at some point in time, and when it does, it will most likely accelerate, (or will it) to the point that it will take off.

Your exactly right, in that the author did not leave enough information to not take some assumptions into hand. Let's face it, none of us do. For example, when doing a word problem, do you indicate that the earth is revolving on its axis in a Longitudinal direction with a one revolution per 24 hour cycle and that that earth is revolving around our sun in a longitudinal axis (albiet eliptical) with rate of one revolution per 365 and 1/4 days (1 day = 24hours) and that the sun is rotating around the center of the Milkey way galaxy at a rateof .............................Yada, yada, yada.

Do you get my point. That question is so vague that you have to assume the obvious things like the earth is turning the atmosphere trapped by the earths gravity is also spinning at the same rate (when there is no detectible wind), the earth rotates around the sun, and ultimately the plane will move as the word "as" now becomes a assumption that both the author and reader must assume to be true.

Your right in the literal sense, but your overthinking the question.

Now, which came first the Chicken or the Egg?

this one relies on your religous faith for an answer.

[mas]

Amazing!

All I can say is there is no wonder why the Chinese are going to eat our lunch!

If you haven't gotten that damned plane off the ground yet, I suspect the wear has rendered the tires shot - thus rendering the debate moot!

[^o)]

[IndyKlipschFan]

Now, which came first the Chicken or the Egg?

The Rooster... the Egg is the offspring of said Chicken and Rooster together.... hahahahahahahahaha!

Very good points! I am, of course, being too literal and a little bit of a smarty pants... LOL>

[pauln]

Amazing!

All I can say is there is no wonder why the Chiunese are going to eat our lunch!

Yes, amazing and scary. I bet most teenagers around the world (outside the USA) get this right in a few seconds. They have studied and strive to know and do more. Yet here we have almost 40 pages of pathetic discussion that breaks my heart to think how inadequately educated and ill prepared are we.

Folks, this is not the kind of experience and thinking that made this country great (50 years ago). I've worked with people from around the world (China, India, Africa, Europe, Malasia, Mid East...) get ready, they are certainly going to eat our lunch.

[bodcaw boy]

no.

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[Champagne taste beer budget]

Roy, Roy, Roy...

With an avatar of a guy named Mike, holding a fish caught by Mac, but caught previously by a different Mike, and also caught "by a man named Jed", according to the Madonna birthmark on it's gill, I can unequivocably accuse you of "baiting" on this thread. [6]

Can this 25lb, 1 oz bass fly? No. Will it if you strap it to a jet engine? Sure. And it doesn't even have wheels to spin as fast as a treadmill can go, regardless if it's standing on it, swimming/flopping on it, or being delivered down it to the local sushi shop.

Speaking of treadmills, we ordered a Solo a week ago, it's getting closer to delivery, which is listed as "Free", but they can't get a semi to our door due to our driveway, nor can my wife and I unload a 385 lb crate off of a semi, so we're in limbo as we wait to hear from the different shippers involved in its trek from Cali to Middle Of Nowhere, MN. SHMBO is worried that we're missing valuble days of potential fitness improvement. I'm hoping they can't find us, and if they do, it's got a cup holder. [] Actually, I'm looking forward to it, but a little nervous about the whole life change/get fit thing. Time will tell.

And yes... if you strap a jet engine to a fish, or a plane, or a car, or a rock, it will fly. To those naysayers, imagine looking at a car on a treadmill, with a jet engine strapped to its roof, with said engine going full afterburners. Wouldn't it seem odd that the car isn't moving with Xteen thousand lbs of thrust being applied to it?

That's because it won't happen that way.

Roy, Roy, Roy... May 1,000 professional over-runs inhabit your baitcasters this summer, each of your spinning rigs have the line wound backwards, and all your weigh fish burp up at least three craws on the way to the scales. [][{][}]

(I actually hope you have a wonderful year with lots of pots/plaques/trophies coming your way, but PUHLEASE.. it won't fly??) Baiter. []

[Champagne taste beer budget]

In fact, I believe you've baited in this thread before. I may be wrong, but don't have the time to read all 39 pages again. If so, and no one else noticed it, you are truly a Master.

Baiter. []

(ps) I'd hate to try to get a permit for March on Dixon this year, but I'd love to have one. If it wasn't 2500 miles away, give or take.

[bodcaw boy]

yes.

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[bodcaw boy]

now take the curse off!!

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[Champagne taste beer budget]

Well, since you asked nicely, and I DO want to appease the KLIPSCH folk...

I wish you a 12 lb 5 fish limit and looking for culls by 9 AM every day, a kicker that wins big fish pot every day, no break offs, no dock wraps, no one shooting BB's (or worse) at you as they tell you they own the water around their dock, no damage to the lower unit running the river, (if you do there), and always, constantly, never ending livewell pumps and aereators. ( I can never spell that word.)

Best of luck this season, you run the B.A.S.S. club thing, local tourneys, Dennys, etc? Never know, maybe I'd run into you at a regional or something sometime.

[Jay481985]

Roy, Roy, Roy...

With an avatar of a guy named Mike, holding a fish caught by Mac, but caught previously by a different Mike, and also caught "by a man named Jed", according to the Madonna birthmark on it's gill, I can unequivocably accuse you of "baiting" on this thread. [6]

Can this 25lb, 1 oz bass fly? No. Will it if you strap it to a jet engine? Sure. And it doesn't even have wheels to spin as fast as a treadmill can go, regardless if it's standing on it, swimming/flopping on it, or being delivered down it to the local sushi shop.

Speaking of treadmills, we ordered a Solo a week ago, it's getting closer to delivery, which is listed as "Free", but they can't get a semi to our door due to our driveway, nor can my wife and I unload a 385 lb crate off of a semi, so we're in limbo as we wait to hear from the different shippers involved in its trek from Cali to Middle Of Nowhere, MN. SHMBO is worried that we're missing valuble days of potential fitness improvement. I'm hoping they can't find us, and if they do, it's got a cup holder. [] Actually, I'm looking forward to it, but a little nervous about the whole life change/get fit thing. Time will tell.

And yes... if you strap a jet engine to a fish, or a plane, or a car, or a rock, it will fly. To those naysayers, imagine looking at a car on a treadmill, with a jet engine strapped to its roof, with said engine going full afterburners. Wouldn't it seem odd that the car isn't moving with Xteen thousand lbs of thrust being applied to it?

That's because it won't happen that way.

Roy, Roy, Roy... May 1,000 professional over-runs inhabit your baitcasters this summer, each of your spinning rigs have the line wound backwards, and all your weigh fish burp up at least three craws on the way to the scales. [][{][}]

(I actually hope you have a wonderful year with lots of pots/plaques/trophies coming your way, but PUHLEASE.. it won't fly??) Baiter. []

champagne tastes, beer budget, actually a car with a jet engine shouldn't really fly... if the jet engine has more thrust than weight than maybe...... but conventional airplane design must have wings...... That makes it possible to not have engine thrust exceed the weight of the object.

I.E. Rockets must make thrust more powerful than the sum of the weight of the rocket from ignition minus the weight loss while consumed to produce thrust. Think Old Apollo type space crafts or Nuclear ICBMs. That design is a multistage rocket that breaks off in a controlled way to reduce the weight and such. The top and last piece does not have enough thrust to push the whole rocket but enough when the pieces fall off.

I.E. Airplanes/ Cruise missles use wings to reduce the amount of thrust needed in order to obtain flight. After a set speed (greater than stall speed) the wings produce enough lift in order to have the object fly and sustain it. It makes it possible to have a long distance flight possible.

Remember Space ships and rockets most of the object is propellant be it from fireworks to ICBM to space crafts like Russia uses. The top part is the only part that has space that is not for fuel. Also they travel mostly in parabolic flights (like howitzers or straight up reach space and come down (spacecraft or ICBM)

The first airplane to have more thrust than weight was the American F-15 Figheter that can actually have vertical flight and not stall.

Also another thing to note, most "normal" cars are designed with neutral downforce or negative downforce (it gets lighter while it speeds up) Neutral is normal, negative downforce makes it a bit dangerous and really is not applied as much as if you have to much upforce the car will go airbourne. They make some cars that are made as fuel efficent cars have some lift in order to make the car more efficent fuel wise.... Less weight on the tires = less need for engine to work = more fuel efficency. While the contrary idea is on race type cars. I remember the ferrari Enzo at 155 mph has 500 pounds or something like of downforce on the front of the car to prevent the car from going airbourne and to have more traction.

What most people fail to see in the equation is the fact that the wheels are free bearings in the situation. Think of items that do not have motors that are connected to wheels. Lets see rollerskates, rollerblades, a wheel barrel, a hand truck. If you placed them on a treadmill and held onto it while standing not on the treadmill the force transmitted through the wheels as torque and pushes you is alot less then the force of the a handtruck without wheels on the treadmill pushing against you.