Plane Treadmill

[kibbles]

Problem is too vague. Need to know about the air and type of plane.

lets say its a normal day 5mph winds taking off from SeaTac and its an airbus320

[Xerred]

The answer is no, I tried it and it didn't work.

[Fabalous]

The answer is no, I tried it and it didn't work.

......

[Karby]

Interestingly enough, I believe an upcoming episode of mythbusters is going to answer this very question!

[Leica]

http://community.discovery.com/eve/foru ... 919039/p/1

DISCOVERY CHANNEL PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 19, 2007

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"MYTHBUSTERS" CONTINUES TO MAKE SCIENCE COOL WITH SEVEN ALL-NEW EPISODES BEGINNING OCTOBER 31

-- Series Airs on Discovery Channel Every Wednesday at 9 PM ET/PT --

Airplane Hour
(Weds., December 12 at 9 PM ET/PT)
Adam and Jamie find out if either of them can safely land a Boeing 747-400 on a runway in varying weather conditions. Meanwhile, Kari, Tory and Grant risk life and limb to investigate skydiving myths regularly featured in Hollywood action films. Is it possible to catch up with someone in freefall if that person jumps out a plane before you do? Can you really hold a conversation during freefall? And would you survive if you opened your parachute only a few feet off the ground? Finally, Adam and Jamie carefully navigate their way through a myth that has baffled everyone from web bloggers to pilots. If a plane is traveling at takeoff speed on a conveyor belt, and the belt is matching that speed in the opposite direction, can the plane take off? Extensive small-scale testing with a super treadmill and a nearly uncontrollable model airplane don't completely resolve the myth, so our flight cadets supersize the myth with help from a willing pilot and his Ultralight flying machine.

[Aus]

I think we can all agree that whatever the Mythbusters decide is the way it is.

Ill gremove anyone who says otherwise.

[Amerle]

I think we can all agree that whatever the Mythbusters decide is the way it is.

Ill gremove anyone who says otherwise.

Mythbusters is a paragon of accuracy and the scientific method.

[greekrefugee]

[kibbles]

Why a 747-400 tho? Those are rarely flown domesticly (sp?) if not private chartered. I think a 737-800 would be the better choice as those are more commonly used (southwest airlines, for example, only has 737-800's in their fleet)

[Anthaya]

Mythbusters proves it takes off.

[Renn]

haha you were all wrong and I was right

[Leica]

My plane takes off.

Clearly, being a hunter and being right go hand-in-hand, Renn.

[Reedu]

The plane did take off while on the belt, but the test that was attempted was not the actual myth. The myth was whether a prop plane could take off vertically (i.e. no forward movement). Which would be the case had the plane been stationary and not moved forward and acquired the lift need to take off. The problem with the test was that that is that the plane was moving forward rather that staying in place.

Regardless, one conclusions we can draw is that Mythbusters did not build a conveyor belt with enough friction that it was able to provide enough force to keep the plane in place. Now, the question is, do you include a treadmill providing an exactly opposite force as part of the myth, or as part of the testing of the myth? That's up to personal interpretation of the original myth, and that's why no one will ever agree.

If you include the treadmill being able to provide exactly opposite force as part of the myth, then you expected the plane to take off, you can say it did and justify it with this Mythbusters since building a conveyor belt to provide exactly opposite force is impractical. If you assumed that having a treadmill capable of providing exactly opposite force was part of the testing of the myth, then you would have expected the plane to stay on the ground, you can say that the real myth is still untested and then recite a bunch of physics about why a stationary plane could never take off.

[Aus]

The plane takes off Reedu. stfu

[Anthaya]

The plane did take off while on the belt, but the test that was attempted was not the actual myth. The myth was whether a prop plane could take off vertically (i.e. no forward movement). Which would be the case had the plane been stationary and not moved forward and acquired the lift need to take off. The problem with the test was that that is that the plane was moving forward rather that staying in place.

Regardless, one conclusions we can draw is that Mythbusters did not build a conveyor belt with enough friction that it was able to provide enough force to keep the plane in place. Now, the question is, do you include a treadmill providing an exactly opposite force as part of the myth, or as part of the testing of the myth? That's up to personal interpretation of the original myth, and that's why no one will ever agree.

If you include the treadmill being able to provide exactly opposite force as part of the myth, then you expected the plane to take off, you can say it did and justify it with this Mythbusters since building a conveyor belt to provide exactly opposite force is impractical. If you assumed that having a treadmill capable of providing exactly opposite force was part of the testing of the myth, then you would have expected the plane to stay on the ground, you can say that the real myth is still untested and then recite a bunch of physics about why a stationary plane could never take off.

Why must you contradict it. :( WHEN WILL THIS END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!