Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: October 25th, 2007, 10:10 pm
lets say its a normal day 5mph winds taking off from SeaTac and its an airbus320Reedu wrote:Problem is too vague. Need to know about the air and type of plane.
Page 4 of 5
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: October 29th, 2007, 2:46 pm
The answer is no, I tried it and it didn't work.
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: October 29th, 2007, 4:48 pm
......Xerred wrote:The answer is no, I tried it and it didn't work.
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: October 30th, 2007, 12:26 pm
Interestingly enough, I believe an upcoming episode of mythbusters is going to answer this very question!
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: October 30th, 2007, 12:37 pm
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.
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: October 30th, 2007, 12:41 pm
I think we can all agree that whatever the Mythbusters decide is the way it is.
Ill gremove anyone who says otherwise.
Ill gremove anyone who says otherwise.
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: October 30th, 2007, 1:13 pm
Mythbusters is a paragon of accuracy and the scientific method.Aus wrote:I think we can all agree that whatever the Mythbusters decide is the way it is.
Ill gremove anyone who says otherwise.
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: October 30th, 2007, 5:43 pm
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: November 8th, 2007, 7:37 pm
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)
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: January 30th, 2008, 9:08 pm
Mythbusters proves it takes off.
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: January 31st, 2008, 2:24 pm
haha you were all wrong and I was right
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: January 31st, 2008, 2:27 pm
Clearly, being a hunter and being right go hand-in-hand, Renn.Leica wrote:My plane takes off.
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: January 31st, 2008, 3:08 pm
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.
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.
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: January 31st, 2008, 5:09 pm
The plane takes off Reedu. stfu
Re: Plane Treadmill
Posted: January 31st, 2008, 10:41 pm
Why must you contradict it. :( WHEN WILL THIS END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Reedu wrote: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.