| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 93430 | 2008-09-16 06:00:00 | Aircraft Taking off problem | Thomas01 (317) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 705649 | 2008-09-18 03:14:00 | The real world gets in the way and the plane flys away.... The conveyor you require to keep the plane stationary does not exist, and you can't just imagine fantastical devices to suit your argument. as the conveyor sped up to compensate for the plane moving forward the rotation of the wheels would also speed up and the plane would still travel forward and take to the air. To infinity and beyond. If we can just imagine new devices then I suggest the plane is picked up and flung through the air by a giant chicken and the conveyor is then attacked by Ninjas. And yes, I can see the absurdity of what I just wrote, as a conveyor big enough to mount a plane on is also a fantastical imagining. But there ya go, that's all the apples in the barrel, pour a beer and look at the sunset. as I was saying.....the real world.... Actually the Myth busters did manage to produce a conveyor big enough to have an aircraft sat on. The aircraft was very small and light - the conveyor was simply a massive length of tarpaulin pulled along by a truck. And it did prove that as some of us have been saying all along - the conveyor is immaterial - the plane took off without any effort or problems. Even the pilot was one of those who had thought it would be impossible to take off. He was happy to admit he was completely wrong. Pity some of our other writers are refusing to recognise either logic or practical demonstrations and still hang in there with weird ideas. |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 705650 | 2008-09-18 11:32:00 | To those being rude, crude or just plain ignorant about my postings on this question, I actually did take into account both the logically correct method of expressing the problem, and the supposed postulation that stops the plane flying. Under either circumstance, plane speed through the air as generated by propellor or jet thrust cannot be countered by ground-based effects (short of an anchor), therefore as the M-B pilot found to his great surprise, his plane took off. And please don't be so crass as to bring Mrs T into this, she is a woman, therefore she is always right. That's what she tells me, and I agree with her 100%. :wub Cheers Billy 8-{) :clap |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 705651 | 2008-09-18 12:15:00 | It is obvious that the conveyor belt matching the speed of the wheels is an oversight by someone who didn't think the problem through, but that oversight is likely the reason the question has survived for so long. Do you really think that someone would ask a question like that & intend for the plane to not even attempt to move? |
Greven (91) | ||
| 705652 | 2008-09-18 12:42:00 | And of course in the original question it states that the aircraft intended to take off, so a propeller, engine etc is implied and didn't need to be stated categorically. The hook for some is that they seemed to think that the wheel speed had to match the conveyor speed when in fact it was the other way around. The aircraft wheel speed could increase all it liked as the aircraft was pulled or pushed forward, the conveyor only had to match the wheel speed and not the forward thrust. |
Robinz (9362) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||