How about this one... You have an icy incline with zero friction, no tread, no chains, rubber tires. How do you get up the hill? Your tires will just spin and spin. Similar principles. You need an outside force, aka thrust, to get you up the hill.
I think he's more concerned about the skidmarks after Chuck Norris showed up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Assuming the vague wording of the original question means what most people think it means (The treadmill is moving opposite the direction of the TOP of the tire)...YOU ARE CORRECT!! HOWEVER: The speed of the wheels and the treadmill would approach infinity in an infinitely short amount of time! (Think about it) which makes the question a conundrum and a physical impossibility. I think most of us understand that in the real world a plane could take off on a treadmill regardless of whether the treadmill is going with or opposite the direction of takeoff, and regardless of whether the wheels are even turning.
I haven't seen too many planes with legs. Put on a pair of roller skates and strap yourself into an ultralight. Still think you will remain stationary on a treadmill?
Plane on the threadmill, threadmill moves same speed but opposite direction of wheels at any time -> plane is stationary Plane is stationary, no wind -> no take off Don't see the ambiguity there Forget the physics of producing a real life simulation or the psychologic aspects of the various interpretations. It's just a logic question
simply because those of us on other side argue the wheels really don't matter. There have been a hundred different arguments in this thread why the wheels don't matter. My main one is because of skid/slip even if wheels match speed of treadmill, the plane can still move forward. Others talk about how the wheels aren't driven like a car would be. the only thing 99.9% can agree on is it takes some minimum airflow for the plane to take off. in order for that to happen the plane has to move forward. does the plane move forward? voting is 50-50 so far.
The plane moves forward unless someone can explain how a treadmill would stop it via free spinning wheels? If the plane was parked on the treadmill and anchored via tow strap to a post ahead of the treadmill. Treadmill starts spinning at 100mph ground speed. The plane is stationary while its wheels are spinning in reverse. How much drag would be measured by a strain gauge on the tow strap? Well, that's the amount of additional drag (ok, not exactly at 100mph but proportional with speed) the plane would need to overcome to take off, and in terms of a plane, that isn't much. EDIT- Nevermind, I see the same has been argued to no end and I also see that mythbusters actually tested this (which just seems ridiculously unnecessary but again, it was done). I guess I will just have to end by saying I can't get my mind around how people can't get their minds around this
But the wheels do matter unless you decide to disregard one of the few specific parameters outlined in the original question. If the plane is fitted with skids, it will move backwards on the treadmill and actually create down force instead of lift. If the plane is fitted with wheels, following the parameters outlined in the question, "The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation." the wheels' speed will be matched by the treadmill and the plane cannot move forward. The question specifically precludes the wheels from slipping while touching the treadmill. The only way for the wheels to slip, is for the plane to produce adequate lift to lose contact with the treadmill. Since the question precludes the plane from moving forward under any circumstances while sitting on the treadmill, the plane can only take off if it loses contact with the treadmill because it has enough lift (wind moving over its wing(s)) created solely by its own power source, because one of the parameters is that there is no wind. If the plane is capable of creating enough lift without moving forward on the ground, it doesn't matter if the plane is equipped with skids, skis, pontoons or wheels. The plane will take off. If it cannot generate enough lift to take off from a standstill, it will not take off. The only latitude allowed in the question is with the design of the airplane. There are no given parameters on the type or design of the plane. My airplane generates enough lift to take off from a standstill and therefore takes off. Others have poorly designed their planes and cannot take off. Sorry for them.
If in your mind it's rational to believe a treadmill can hold an airplane stationary because of it's free spinning non driven wheels I don't think there's anything I could say that hasn't already been said.
That is exactly what the problem asks. If you cannot comprehend the question and solve it as written without imposing parameters not included, then you can join the rest who are answering a question not being asked. How does the plane escape the treadmill holding it in place unless it lifts off of it? It may not slip or skid, as the treadmill matches the spinning of the wheels. Therefore, it MUST have lifted off in order to be moving forward. Some have used a dyno (most incorrectly) to explain their positions. If you reach your hand out of the window while turning on the dyno, you of course feel no wind because there is no forward motion. Where most fail in this example, is they forget about the thrust against the air caused by the jet, rocket, propeller, warp drive powering the airplane, which will cause wind to flow back across the wings and fuselage (if there even is a fuselage in your airplane). But will the car jump off of the dyno? Yes, because there isn't a dyno made that can perfectly match the wheel speed of the car at all times. That's why they strap the car down. But in this problem, the treadmill always perfectly matches the wheel speed and therefore the plane cannot move forward. Why do you believe that the plane can move forward if it is not already flying?
Then we agree. The plane is no longer contacting the treadmill and is therefore flying. In other words, it is capable of lifting off instantly without running down a runway.
That is exactly what this treadmill does. That is want makes this a problem. The plane's wheels are resting on the treadmill. The plane can go nowhere without its wheels. The treadmill prevents the plane from moving because as it tries to roll forward on its wheels, the treadmill counters that motion. The pilot will observe zero ground speed, but his air speed will be whatever thrust his power plant is producing. His air speed gauge measures how fast air is passing by it, not how fast the plane is going. If the thrust creates enough wind over the wings to exceed the plane's stall speed, it can take off.
The wheels have nothing to do with a plane moving forward except providing it less resistance and thus less thrust to move. Exactly why floats used on water or skis on snow, because those connections to the ground allow less resistance. Neither of those later 2 are wheels or move!
Definitely don't agree. Look at the ice theory I said before. The ice acts as the treadmill providing zero traction and an equal opposing force on your wheels. If you live or drove in a winter area, there's only one way to get out of being stuck on ice. If an outside force (thrust) comes in, you still move regardless of how fast or slow the wheels move. If you put a plane with wheels on a solid sheet of ice, it would be the same concept as the treadmill, opposing forces, no movement from the wheels. The plane would still move. The treadmill does nothing because the wheels do not drive the plane.
Well, there's nothing in the original problem that defines the material used to construct the conveyor. So it's within the parameters that it could be made out of ice (or covered in some similarly slippery substance) and if so the plane could indeed hydroplane across the very thin layer of water between the tire and the ice. It would literally be floating down the treadmill, which is "as wide and long as a runway," with or without the wheels rolling and would indeed take off. Making the treadmill out of ice is no more ridiculous than my plane powered by a Saturn V rocket engine, but also within the parameters of the original problem. But the bottom line is that we are all making assumptions and defining what is not defined in order to find whether the plane can fly or not depending on our desired outcome. The true answer remains that there cannot be an answer because of the way the problem was originally posed. It forces each of us to make assumptions upon which all do not agree. We have been making up the rules necessary for a game to be played fairly while playing it. No way to avoid disaster when doing that.
The question as asked is easily answered. The plane flies as the conveyor has no (well, minuscule) influence on the planes forward movement.
Wrong, it isn't easily answered. In real life a plane would take off on a conveyer, but then the conditions of the original (poorly worded) question aren't met.
