Yes, the carrier itself acts as conveyor belt. It is not endless long, but other than that it does what a belt can do in principle.
No, it doesn't. For the analogy to hold, the deck's surface would have to move backwards under the aircraft's wheels. Carrier decks don't do that.
Yes, I know. Nobody is claiming that anything will stop the plane from moving. But, one of the conditions posed by the question cannot hold true if the plane is moving in the slightest. If the plane is moving, the conveyor obviously is not "keeping up". If it was, the plane would be stationary. That's what makes the question's statements at odds with each other. The conditions posed by the question cannot possibly exist at the same time. If the first part holds true, that the belt speed matches the wheel speed, then the plane is not moving and therefore not going to take off. This statement, about the belt speed and wheel speeds matching, can only be factual if the plane is not moving forward over the belt, whether the wheels are at a standstill or rotating. If the plane moves forward, obviously the belt and wheel speeds don't match. If the second part holds true, that the engine is fired up, then, with nothing opposing the thrust, the plane will move, the wheel and belt speed will not match, and the plane will take off. In reality, of course the plane will move if nothing is opposing the thrust. The moment it does that, the belt speed and wheel speed cannot possibly match. Ergo, situation as described/posed by the question is impossible. Stupid self-contradicting question. I think what you are saying is that there is no contradiction within the question and the answer is obvious. But the contradiction is there in the conditions posed, and that's what makes it impossible to answer unless you break one of the conditions. In reality, the condition that will be broken immediately is the one of the belt and wheel speeds matching. The thrust will move the plane forward over the belt, the wheel speed and belt speed will not match, and it will take off.
Wheel speed, typically (and in my interpretation) means speed of rotation. Nothing in the question refers to anything more specific. As long as the relationships between wheel and conveyor are met, nothing else matters. All the conveyor needs to do is match the forward speed of the accelerating plane to keep the wheels from rotating. I've reread the "question" several times, this is all there is to it. The plane flies, no way to stop it.
A carrier can do in principle what a conveyor belt can do in principle. I doesn't matter, what a real carrier does. It can stand still. It can move forward and backward. It can accelerate and decelerate. The whole carrier would be the surface of the conveyor belt and the spectator would swim somewhere in the ocean.
Yes, but a conveyor belt's surface is not matching a wheel's surface speed if the wheel is moving forward over the conveyor. This is what the contradiction in the question stems from. You seem to think that wheel speed and conveyor speed (at the point where the wheel surface and conveyor surface come in contact) can match even if the plane is moving forward. This is impossible. The two speeds can only match if: 1. Wheel and conveyor speed are zero. Nothing moves in this case. 2. Wheel and conveyor speed are moving at the exact same speed at the point where the wheel's surface is touching the belt's surface. Wheels and the plane attached to them does not move forward in this case. Neither condition can exist if the engine produces thrust. The plane will move forward then. So will the wheels. If the wheels are moving forward over the conveyor belt, then their surface speed cannot possibly be equal to the belt's surface speed. If it was, the plane would not be moving. This is the paradox of the question. Stupid question.
For the few hundred linear yards of a carrier's length, I suppose you are right, it could move past underneath a plane, with the plane standing still in your frame of reference. I see what you mean now. Strange way to think about it...I suppose you could also make the case that the whole earth is a conveyor belt moving a under a plane sat on any runway.
Sure it will. But that's not really what we are discussing at the moment. The point is whether it will fly and fulfill the kinematic constraints of the question or whether it will fly and not fulfill the kinematic constraints of the question. And finally one can speculate if the guy who set up the question understood what he was doing there and if we understand what he intended to tell us. When the plane moves relative to the spectator, then you have a belt speed, a wheel speed and a plane speed. Wheel speed therefore has to equal belt speed plus plane speed. v_wheel = v_belt + v_plane = v_belt + delta_s / delta_t When the spectator sits in the plane he can't distinguish between the belt speed itself and the speed the whole conveyor belt system is moving away from him, which is the plane speed, anymore. The belt is endless and because of that he has no reference. Therefore he would say: "Perfect, wheel speed and belt speed matches." The belt speed of the floating system is the belt speed of the static system plus the speed by which both systems move away from each other, which is the plane speed. Image Unavailable, Please Login
You are choosing definitions for "speed" (conveyor & wheel) that are not part of the "question". I would suggest that both wheel and conveyor speeds (surface feet/minute) are equal any time they are in contact with no slippage. Under these circumstances (possible "real World"), the wheels and belt have no outside influence on the plane. Whether or not the plane moves in relation to the conveyor or the ground is not part of the "question".
That's what I said. Sit in the plane, look at the wheels: Speeds match. And I guess that is, what the author originally wanted to tell us. But he wasn't 100% precise about the definition of the speeds he was talking about. So, if one splits hair: No answer. If one looks at what happens when thrust is applied, regardless of his question: Plane will fly. But you got now, what we were talking about.
It's not part of the "question", but it's implied as the core issue because we know how airplanes fly. They need airflow past the wings. For that to happen, if there is no wind, they have to move relative to the air. That means forward motion of the plane relative to the ground, relative to the wind, and, because it is on the conveyor belt, relative to the conveyor. If a wheel is rotating while sitting in place on a conveyor belt moving at speed x, then clearly the wheel's speed at the point that it meets the surface of the conveyor belt is also x. If, it then rolls forward at speed f, over the conveyor belt which does not change speed, then clearly the wheel's speed is x+f. x cannot equal x+f for all non-zero values of f. If the plane is moving forward, as it must do the moment thrust is applied, then wheel speed and conveyor belt speeds are not matching. They cannot.
Convenient if surface speed is "matching" wheel speed anytime there's traction. The plane might be a horizonal rocket. What if it just takes off like a rocket?
I cannot forecast to you the action of rush ya. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is rushin' national interest. via rubber ducky
You're just never going to get it are you? If the wheels are in contact with the belt, their "speeds" (relative to one another) match. The airplane is free to move and will fly. Stop trying to make it more difficult by imagining "implied" conditions. It really is simple.
Ok, let's try this. I too am working through this in my own cranium. As some have mentioned a glider- rope pulling the nose- same as the thrust of a prop. Read this slowly/ talking to myself. As the rope ( or prop thrust) starts to pull, The speed of the conveyor belt will be ( in the opposite direction) the speed of the wheel relative to the ground PLUS the speed the rope is moving forward ( or forward thrust- movement). The word PLUS violates the question of wheel speed and conveyor belt speeds being equal. The velocity or forward motion of the plane must be cannot be ignored.
My understanding of the question is: Plane sat on a conveyor belt, not moving (forward). Wheels match conveyor belt speed. Engine fires. Does plane take off? Which of the above is not part of the question and merely a figment of my imagination?
However, the statement you have made above is absolutely incorrect if the plane is moving along the conveyor belt. If you disagree, well, too bad, you can disagree all you like but it won't make you correct. There is nothing to "let go" of. The plane will move and there will be airflow past the wings and it will experience lift and therefore take off. I have said that from the get go, and I think you have too. I will refrain from matching your catty, insecure tone, but you do seem to display a gross misunderstanding of what happens before that.
Is it really possible to get to the center of a tootsie drop pop in one bite just like the animated toucan does in the television commercial ? I bet mythbusters has never tried that one. On another note, what do you think about " Cracker Jacked" ? Which should'nt be confused with a " Jacked Cracker".
