but what is this, the plane moves forward no matter the speed of the threadmill, so wind over wing = liftFinray wrote:
It won't take off.
No wind over wings = no lift.
Free shipping + Fall = Possible Savings?
This topic is pretty dull so you can go ahead and stop bumping it.
who cares if its possible that clip made it look shitty as hell.
ive had enough free fall shooting to last me a lifetime thanks to that crud.
ive had enough free fall shooting to last me a lifetime thanks to that crud.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
That's not the question though... The theory in question is if the treadmill is going at a set speed, the plane is going the same speed in the opposite direction (not accelerating, staying at a constant speed) there would be no wind over the wings.menzo wrote:
but what is this, the plane moves forward no matter the speed of the threadmill, so wind over wing = liftFinray wrote:
It won't take off.
No wind over wings = no lift.
Airspeed =/= Ground speedFinray wrote:
That's not the question though... The theory in question is if the treadmill is going at a set speed, the plane is going the same speed in the opposite direction (not accelerating, staying at a constant speed) there would be no wind over the wings.menzo wrote:
but what is this, the plane moves forward no matter the speed of the threadmill, so wind over wing = liftFinray wrote:
It won't take off.
No wind over wings = no lift.
You gotta be trollingNooBesT wrote:
Airspeed =/= Ground speedFinray wrote:
That's not the question though... The theory in question is if the treadmill is going at a set speed, the plane is going the same speed in the opposite direction (not accelerating, staying at a constant speed) there would be no wind over the wings.menzo wrote:
but what is this, the plane moves forward no matter the speed of the threadmill, so wind over wing = lift
if speed
Speed >
equals
Speed <
then the plane is effectively 'stationary'. There is no wind going over the wings. No wind, no lift.
you are correct here, but in a perfect world the plane would not even have to use engines to stay stationary on the thread mill.Finray wrote:
You gotta be trollingNooBesT wrote:
Airspeed =/= Ground speedFinray wrote:
That's not the question though... The theory in question is if the treadmill is going at a set speed, the plane is going the same speed in the opposite direction (not accelerating, staying at a constant speed) there would be no wind over the wings.
if speed
Speed >
equals
Speed <
then the plane is effectively 'stationary'. There is no wind going over the wings. No wind, no lift.
lets say the plane is going at 1mph, and the treadmill is also going at 1 mph, the wheels are going at 2mph and the plane is moving forward.Finray wrote:
You gotta be trollingNooBesT wrote:
Airspeed =/= Ground speedFinray wrote:
That's not the question though... The theory in question is if the treadmill is going at a set speed, the plane is going the same speed in the opposite direction (not accelerating, staying at a constant speed) there would be no wind over the wings.
if speed
Speed >
equals
Speed <
then the plane is effectively 'stationary'. There is no wind going over the wings. No wind, no lift.
There is small speed loss from friction, but the plane is never stationary.
I blew the plane up thread over with.
the wheels are moving forward the plane isnt. if you dismiss the wheel friction. the plane should stay stationary even if the treadmill goes 100Km/hMiggle wrote:
lets say the plane is going at 1mph, and the treadmill is also going at 1 mph, the wheels are going at 2mph and the plane is moving forward.Finray wrote:
You gotta be trollingNooBesT wrote:
Airspeed =/= Ground speed
if speed
Speed >
equals
Speed <
then the plane is effectively 'stationary'. There is no wind going over the wings. No wind, no lift.
There is small speed loss from friction, but the plane is never stationary.
The treadmills facing the other way represent the plane's engines.
that is what i said in my first post about the plane here, but finray stated the question different and i was replying to thatMiggle wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44874/planetread.png
The treadmills facing the other way represent the plane's engines.
Last edited by menzo (2010-09-13 16:08:03)
Finray is arguing for the sake of arguing tbj.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
is finray implying that plane speed = wheel speed?
i think so.Miggle wrote:
is finray implying that plane speed = wheel speed?
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
he was implying gthat the pane would not take of if stationary relative to the ground, witch is true. but if the plane used engines it would accelerate and take offMiggle wrote:
is finray implying that plane speed = wheel speed?
we are arguing with each other while we all try to say the same thing and agree
Last edited by menzo (2010-09-13 16:11:06)
in what circumstances would the plane ever be stationary to the ground? only if the engines weren't running...menzo wrote:
he was implying gthat the pane would not take of if stationary relative to the ground, witch is true. but if the plane used engines it would accelerate and take offMiggle wrote:
is finray implying that plane speed = wheel speed?
we are arguing with each other while we all try to say the same thing and agree
Also the wheels wouldn't be spinning, and the treadmill wouldn't be running, so that really doesn't mean jack shit.
Can a plane take off on its own without its engines running? I don't think so.
I was under the impression that the original connundrum was that if the plane was stationary relative to the ground, it would not take off. Not "can a plane accelerate if you push back on its wheels" of course it can, that's a bit obvious, no?
under the circumstances in the question the plane is never stationary unless it isn't running though, and what kind of question is "can a plane take off if it isn't running?"Finray wrote:
I was under the impression that the original connundrum was that if the plane was stationary relative to the ground, it would not take off. Not "can a plane accelerate if you push back on its wheels" of course it can, that's a bit obvious, no?
Oh Hi, my name is Reading Comprehension, I'll be your pilot for this flight.Finray wrote:
stationary relative to the ground,
did you miss something?Miggle wrote:
under the circumstances in the question the plane is never stationary unless it isn't running though, and what kind of question is "can a plane take off if it isn't running?"Finray wrote:
I was under the impression that the original connundrum was that if the plane was stationary relative to the ground, it would not take off. Not "can a plane accelerate if you push back on its wheels" of course it can, that's a bit obvious, no?
Did YOU miss something? The plane IS stationary relative to the ground. IE, if you were standing next to it, it would not move away from you, either direction.
Because the speed it's going, the engines are thrusting at, the wheels are then turning, would be equal to the speed of the treadmill going in the opposite direction.
Speed >
equals
Speed <
Ergo it appears stationary. Yes, the wheels are moving, but it is still technically stationary if you were to stand next to it.
Because the speed it's going, the engines are thrusting at, the wheels are then turning, would be equal to the speed of the treadmill going in the opposite direction.
Speed >
equals
Speed <
Ergo it appears stationary. Yes, the wheels are moving, but it is still technically stationary if you were to stand next to it.
God you guys are such a bunch of faggots.
Shut the fuck up