That's it in a nutshell. The wheels don't propel the plane. The jet engines do. In fact you could have separate conveyors under the left side wheels and the right side wheels. The conveyors could start running in OPPOSITE directions, and the plane would JUST SIT THERE, with the left side wheels spinning forward at 200 mph and the right side wheels spinning backward at 200 mph. The wheels are free-wheeling as they have NO drive system to the plane. THEY DON'T PROPEL THE PLANE. Now, power up the jet engines and the plane starts to accelerate forward, with the left side wheels accelerating beyond their 200 mph rotational speed and the right side wheels DECELERATING below their 200 mph rotational speed. The plane accelerates normaly to take off speed and FLYS. Let's assume the plane takes off at 180 mph, that means the left side wheels are rotating at 380 mph and the right side wheels at 20 mph. THE PLANE DOESN'T CARE WHAT THE F%*# THE WHEELS ARE DOING.
so that's the answer! once the wheels resemble last nights risotto the conveyor no longer has anything to match speed with, and by now the plane is developing enough thrust to tug australia to a colder climate and thus skeets off and does a belly-take-off. see, still simple!
And WTF is it with us car guys and physics stuff.... I was just reading another board and got into a discussion on spring rate vs length. WTF, some people don't understand that taking a given spring, shortening it's overall length will increase the in/lb rate. Grrrrrr I'm gonna crack open a cold one and see where this goes Sigh, sucks that engineering as a profession bores me to a great extent, I need to find something in R&D... soo who wants to hire me to build and test stuff? I have a BSME and am also well versed with manual as well as CNC machining equipment, can lay carbonfiber (vac-pack style) and heck i'm just a cool guy. Sooo lets see those 6-figure offers (steps back into reality) wheres that brew.
The plane will not take off. Sing it with me now (to the tune of "No Women no Cry") No lift means no fly No lift means no fly ..... ...... hell you get the idea.
Ok Im going to solve the riddle, YES IT CAN TAKE OFF. How you ask, thrust vecotoring like on the Harrier Jump Jet.....ie needs not forward movement to lift off the ground. Mark Ps sorry if someone already stated this, i didnt read all the posts.
Can you build me a ...um...CNC-machined carbon fiber conveyor belt.....about the size of a .....um, runway? I have a theory I want to test. You know, rethinking this, all you have to prove is that an object propelled not through it's ground interface (wheels) would move forward on the conveyor belt. The fact that it's a plane or may take off after moving forward don't effect the core puzzle. You just want to prove the forward movement.
so what's the consensus? does the plane fly? if we are at the point were we all say it will fly, then notice i was the first to point that out then had to prove why. otherwise i gues the two groups will have to agree to disagree. now let's go for a round of beer.
I haven't read many replies, so pardon the rehash if there is any. IMO, the aircraft would take off. This is due to the fact that the rotation of the wheel is a by product of aircraft motion, not the cause. The thrust source is external to the wheel-conveyer system. Excluding the frictional forces in the bearings, unless brakes are applied, the wheel and plane are not connected systems. Another way to look at it. You have an aircraft already in flight. The aircraft comes in for a landing on a conveyor belt. The wheels touch down, at which time the conveyer produces an equal rotation speed in the opposite direction. Does the aircraft come to a stop? No. The wheels simply rotate at twice their normal speed. My 0.02 cents. And I bounced back and forth for a good couple of hours. Interesting question.
Simple, and simply true. The guys who say it won't fly remind me of another group, the ones who used to tell Robert Goddard that rockets won't work in outer space because there is nothing for the rocket motor to push against.
Ha ha, looks like this question has set the internet world on fire: Simple experiment to show the plane will fly: http://videos.streetfire.net/player.aspx?fileid=35E964D9-38DB-4EFD-BE8D-D6BA1A43A06B
I guess so. Let's assume I am an idiot, entirely possible. Can you point the part that says, or implies, the wheel cannot roll. Thanks.
Dude...are you still fighting the fight???? Newsflash: the plane not only took off, but has landed and we're all sipping margaritas on a sunny beach somewhere in the pacific. You're still sitting in front of your computer sipping away at some Denial-juice What are your thoughts on the refrigerator light...does it remain on when the door is closed or does it turn off? For what it's worth, I've come to better understand your screen-name, it's not about an air-conditioning manufacturer, is it?
Let me ask you this. You have the same airplane and conveyer belt system. You attach a rope to the airplane, which ties to a tow truck off to the side of the conveyer belt. The tow truck begins to pull the airplane a 10mph. The wheel of the airplane moves at 10mph, causing the conveyer belt to move a 10mph in the opposite direction. Does this mean the aircraft does not move? or that the wheel is spinning at 20mph, while the aircraft moves at 10mph?
I really think you are close to getting it...you just discovered the problem statement is physically impossible... Congrats dude, post #16.
*ahem* I TOLD.... ahh never mind So now that there is VIDEO, i'm curious to hear what the MASTERS IN ENGINEERING have to say... Yes I do find this extremely entertaining... Signed, YOUR MASTERS THESIS WAS ON FERROMAGNETIC RESONANCE BUT DAMN LONG DIVISION IS A B*TCH.
Other than the fact that video didn't describe the situation in the first post in this thread....what's the big deal?
