bodcaw boy Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 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. thanks....feel better now.... have a blessed day, roy delgado Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coytee Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Been kinda quiet lately so I thought I'd bump this. I figure it's better than the old SET/SS battles... [6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted September 25, 2007 Moderators Share Posted September 25, 2007 Been kinda quiet lately so I thought I'd bump this. I figure it's better than the old SET/SS battles... [6] Coytee, You are indeed, and for all time, the No. 1 troublemaker. [] Are you insane? It took me forever to figure this out AND I'M A PILOT. It does make you think though doesn't it? Travis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coytee Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 [A] [A] [A] [A] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 You are truly evil. I thought this thread was dead and buried. I guess the backyard isn't good enough, must take it to the vacant lot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arky Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Or Giants stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klipschaholik Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Let's see; I think it will fly, no I know it will fly! [D] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted September 25, 2007 Moderators Share Posted September 25, 2007 If that plane was [bs] powered it could have flown around the world with these 40 pages ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Uh oh... I think Coytee has a touch of the thread lock fever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyKlipschFan Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 did we ever get the real answer anyhow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Some are caught up in a semantic ambiguity that might prevent takeoff only in the manner the problem is defined. The other side ignores the semantics and approaches the situation from a normal perspective to show how the plane can in fact take off. Ultimately, the answer to the question is that it is truly a stupid question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted September 26, 2007 Moderators Share Posted September 26, 2007 It will take off. The initial impulse is to say that the plane will remain stationairy relative to the ground. From that assumption you then want to say the wings are NOT moving through the air, and therefore no lift is created and therefore will not fly. That is the difficulty I had in looking at the problem at first. The question is really whether the plane can move forward, despite the conveyer belt moving in reverse. We tend to think in terms of motor vehicle transporation because that is the mode of transportation we are most familar with. If there is a car on the conveyer belt it is clear that it does not move forward. It's mode of moving forward is directly linked to the belt- - the friction of the tires on the belt. Regardless of how fast the wheels spin forward, the belt moves equally fast in reverse and the car never moves an inch. The key to the problem is that what causes an airplane to be propelled (that is the key word) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WHEELS OF THE AIRPLANE. The wheels are free spinning so the belt can be moving 200 mph is reverse, and soon as you add the slightest power to the airplane it propels forward. The wheels are able to turn faster then the conveyer belt because they are free spinning and this allowss the propeller to pull the plane forward. e speed steady. The plane actually does start moving forward relative to the ground, the wing does develope lift and can eventually take off. The trick, or key, to the problem is that the wheels are freespining and have nothing to do with the propeller, or jet engine, or whatever, that propells it. So if you envision a bicycle rider on a treadmill and it adjusts to his speed, he can peddle until he drops dead but he is never going to go forward. But if someone standing off to the side of the treadmill hands him a rope and says hold on he can stop peddiling and he stays in place. If the person off to the side of the treadmill starts walking forward he will pull the bike rider forward with him, even if the treadmill goes faster in reverse. The wheels on the bike spin faster, but that is no bid deal because there is very litte friction. The external force of the rope, pulling the bike forward, is exactly what the propeller is doing on the airplane. Eazy Peazy (After struggiling with it for about 6 hours the first time this thing was posted) Travis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted September 26, 2007 Moderators Share Posted September 26, 2007 dwilawyer said: "Coytee, You are indeed, and for all time, the No. 1 troublemaker." I'm glad someone else finally agrees with me. I have been telling you guys for months now how much of an "earlobin', dog paintin', Marie Osmond lovin', Jub totin, troublemakin' " kind of guy he is! If this doesn't prove it, I don't know what will![] I need to add [bs]n, pink flowered room lovin....okay dtel says I need to lighten up on Coyotee-o. I guess dtel's feeling sorry for Coyotee-o these days, cuz I have really been giving him a rough time![] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted September 26, 2007 Moderators Share Posted September 26, 2007 Dr. Who said: "Ultimately, the answer to the question is that it is truly a stupid question" Doc, this may be the most brilliant thing I have ever heard you say![] Just kiddin' I really think you are one smart "punk"![] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coytee Posted September 26, 2007 Author Share Posted September 26, 2007 Coyotee-o Ahhh.... she passes her mathematics test! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 The wheels are free spinning so the belt can be moving 200 mph is reverse, and soon as you add the slightest power to the airplane it propels forward. The wheels are able to turn faster then the conveyer belt because they are free spinning and this allowss the propeller to pull the plane forward. e speed steady. Yep -- if the wheels and tires can stand 200-320 mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Some are caught up in a semantic ambiguity that might prevent takeoff only in the manner the problem is defined. The other side ignores the semantics and approaches the situation from a normal perspective to show how the plane can in fact take off. Ultimately, the answer to the question is that it is truly a stupid question. There is no ambiguity in the question: "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?" It does not say, at any point that the plane does not move - only that the speed of the plane is matched by the conveyor belt. All this means is that the wheels will travel at twice the speed of the plane. As long as the bearings can take the additional strain of that higher speed the plane takes off as normal. I thought it was a very clever question and it fooled me for a good while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 If the conveyor belt speed is forced to match the wheelspeed of the plane, then the wheels cannot be moving twice as fast as the conveyor belt. Even though the wheels could move twice as fast, this interpertation is not allowing it. If the conveyor belt speed is defined to match the airspeed of the plane, then yes, the wheels move twice as fast. The semantic ambiguity is how the speed of the plane is defined. Is it relative to the air? the ground? the conveyor belt? the pilot's fart? Since the frame of reference is not explicitly defined, there is no answer to the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 I never heard of anyone measuring the speed of a plane by its wheel speed. Airspeed would be the only obvious candidate and that would be measured relative to the ground, as always. When you are in an aircraft and the pilot comes onto the intercom with the words "we are cruising at a height of 30,000 feet and a speed of 550 knots" what do you think he means? Farts don't come into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 If the conveyor belt speed is forced to match the wheelspeed of the plane....... This can't happen once thrust is applied (the speed of the belt is irrelevant anyway.) As far as farts go, I always blame the dog or the person next to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.