Principles of flight?

Burning questions of the day answered by the Toyspeed populace

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Can the Plane Take Off

Yes
41
48%
No
31
36%
Flying is an unholy abomination and will result in eternal damnation for all those that attempt it
13
15%
 
Total votes : 85

Re: Principles of flight?

Postby blitza » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:27 pm

fivebob wrote: The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation.


this is the only contentious section of the problem. Currently we have three main arguements.



1, the moment the plane moves off, the wheels must rotate, therefore the arguement is, the belt must start to move in the opposite direction, which in turn, imarts an acceleration on the wheel, which the belt matches....bang you are at infinity wheel speed, the belt must be above infinity the opposite direction, which imposes an infinate acceleration upon the wheel.

The current conclusion is that the wheels cannot withstand this force (unless you take to the treads like Burt Munroe?), nor has the plane mooved enough to have sufficent airspeed to fly. If we prescribe current laws of physics and technology, we wouldn't even have a belt that fit the criteria, so why assume that the plane must abide by them?


2, The belt is stationary, the fuselage of the plane is the reference point for 'speed' the plane flys.

Seems the most rational solution, if you are looking to make the plane fly, and I believe satisfys the criteria of the puzzle.
If the belt is to exactly match the speed of the wheels at all times, and rotate it is impossible to allow any slip, or the rule is not met. so it must reach infinity the instant the wheel mooves at all.



3, We dont care, we are flying on the plane not maintained in china.
(I forgot what I was thinking of when I started this post)
if we have the technology to build this belt, we have the technology to make the plane do whatever it pleases!


Imagine a plane is sat on the beginning of a massive conveyor belt/travelator type arrangement, as wide and as long as a runway, and intends to take off. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation.
There is no wind.
Can the plane take off?

Explain why it can, or cannot, take off?

TOOT '06?
Last edited by blitza on Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
MAD Industries Limited
'97 GTT auto, -under rebuild, again.
the faster you go, the quicker you get there...
User avatar
blitza
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:38 pm
Location: Waitakere City

Postby AirNZ » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:32 pm

The YES siders of the question still maintain that as long as the wheels are in contact with the belt, they are never actually moving at different speeds.

Unless there is slip, the wheel is always spinning (at the point where it touches the belt) at the exact same speed as the belt.

Consider the hovercraft example redmist. It's much easier to see in your head that the speed at which the belt moves backwards cannot affect the thrust of the plane in the (or hovercraft).

How is the air under the hovercraft that keeps it just off the runway different from the wheel on the plane?

I'm curious to see what you say redmist. Genuinely.
AirNZ
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:19 pm
Location: Auckland

Postby Punter » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:40 pm

AirNZ wrote:How is the air under the hovercraft that keeps it just off the runway different from the wheel on the plane?


That example works because there is no same speed rule, no part off the hovercraft is touching the belt.

I'm still unsure in my answer, but to the people who say the plane will move think about this

For the plane to move forward RELITIVE TO THE GROUND the wheels must rotate forward faster than the belt is rotating backward, since this can't happen i don't see how the plane can move
Last edited by Punter on Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
User avatar
Punter
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:02 pm
Location: Akl CBD

Postby blitza » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:40 pm

And it seems you are not an engineer are you AirNassinstein?
MAD Industries Limited
'97 GTT auto, -under rebuild, again.
the faster you go, the quicker you get there...
User avatar
blitza
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:38 pm
Location: Waitakere City

Postby blitza » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:43 pm

Punter wrote:For the plane to move forward RELITIVE TO THE GROUND the wheels must rotate forward faster than the belt is rotating backward, since this can't happen i don't see how the plane can move


does the problem say we must relate to the ground? or any fixed point?

is the datum point between the starting point and where the plane is?

maybee, the 'plane' is a carpenters tool and can't fly?
MAD Industries Limited
'97 GTT auto, -under rebuild, again.
the faster you go, the quicker you get there...
User avatar
blitza
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:38 pm
Location: Waitakere City

Postby Alycia » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:44 pm

blitza wrote:
Punter wrote:For the plane to move forward RELITIVE TO THE GROUND the wheels must rotate forward faster than the belt is rotating backward, since this can't happen i don't see how the plane can move


does the problem say we must relate to the ground? or any fixed point?

is the datum point between the starting point and where the plane is?

maybee, the 'plane' is a carpenters tool and can't fly?


:idea: And maybe the wheels are square :roll:
User avatar
Alycia
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Christchurch

Postby no_8wire » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:44 pm

AirNZ wrote:The YES siders of the question still maintain that as long as the wheels are in contact with the belt, they are never actually moving at different speeds.

Unless there is slip, the wheel is always spinning (at the point where it touches the belt) at the exact same speed as the belt.

Consider the hovercraft example redmist. It's much easier to see in your head that the speed at which the belt moves backwards cannot affect the thrust of the plane in the (or hovercraft).

How is the air under the hovercraft that keeps it just off the runway different from the wheel on the plane?

I'm curious to see what you say redmist. Genuinely.

Because in one it has physical contact..eg the wheel...The other example it is floating on a cushion of air...there is no physical contact.


From the moment the fans are on the cushion of air lifts the hovercraft.


HOWEVER once a planes engine has turned over the mass is still supported by the wheels. It needs to wait till the air speed is suffient to allow lift.
THAT is the difference...
Last edited by no_8wire on Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
no_8wire
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:30 pm

Postby blitza » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:44 pm

I need to get back to sanding Twstd's bonnet plug, instead of harping on here!
MAD Industries Limited
'97 GTT auto, -under rebuild, again.
the faster you go, the quicker you get there...
User avatar
blitza
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:38 pm
Location: Waitakere City

Postby RedMist » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:48 pm

blitza wrote:
Punter wrote:For the plane to move forward RELITIVE TO THE GROUND the wheels must rotate forward faster than the belt is rotating backward, since this can't happen i don't see how the plane can move


does the problem say we must relate to the ground? or any fixed point?

is the datum point between the starting point and where the plane is?

maybee, the 'plane' is a carpenters tool and can't fly?


Correct it doesnt. However in order for the wing to have lift, without a wind (as stated in the original question) we must have groundspeed. In order to achieve groundspeed we must have a disparity between conveyor speed and wheelspeed, which unfortunately is the only other constraint.

So Blitza's quote is spot on.
The answer is Helmholtz!

Toyota ST185 Celica Rally.
Toyota ST205 Celica Rally.
Jimco/ Cosworth 350z Offroader - 609whp at 16psi
User avatar
RedMist
Old Skool User!
 
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:39 pm
Location: Christchurch

Postby blitza » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:50 pm

I need to get back to work?
MAD Industries Limited
'97 GTT auto, -under rebuild, again.
the faster you go, the quicker you get there...
User avatar
blitza
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:38 pm
Location: Waitakere City

Postby snwtoy » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:22 pm

Punter wrote:For the plane to move forward RELITIVE TO THE GROUND the wheels must rotate forward faster than the belt is rotating backward, since this can't happen i don't see how the plane can move


You are clearly confused by the poor wording of the question.

Wheel speed is 'rotational', the conveyor speed is 'linear' - the two cannot be compared, therefore one must assume that the 'linear' speed of the belt must match (be compared to) the 'linear' speed of the plane (or the hub of the wheel).

Ie if the (body of) the plane moves forward at 10kmph, the belt moves backward at 10kmph - the effective speed of the wheels is 20kmph
User avatar
snwtoy
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 5810
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Auckland

Postby Mr Revhead » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:25 pm

the plane cant fly without a pilot

who is sitting in the nut house.
becuase he wasnt sure if the plane would take off, so instead of risking his passengers he tried to work it out. thus he ended up going mad, as he looked at this thread for an answer.

poor bugger :cry:
Being the subject of E-whinges since 2004 8)

http://www.centralmotorsport.org.nz/home

Image
User avatar
Mr Revhead
SECURITY!
 
Posts: 24635
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: Nelson

Postby V8MOFO » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:03 pm

OK this is what I think in short...

The only thing that makes the wheels spin is the travelator
The only thing that makes the travelator spin is the wheels
( In this situation )

It is an impossible situation. It is all good when nothing is moving but if something does HAVE TO move we could never record the results.
There is nothing to stop the acceleration on both objects therefore the acceleration will always happen.
Anger is seldom without argument but seldom with a good one.
Image
Image Fact of the day: I have only updated my fact of the day on time, Three times.
User avatar
V8MOFO
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 3004
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:39 am
Location: I am crazy...

Postby AirNZ » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:18 pm

well said snwtoy
AirNZ
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:19 pm
Location: Auckland

Postby snwtoy » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:22 pm

For all you non believers, this should sort you out :)


http://avweb.com/news/columns/191034-1.html wrote:Conveyer-Belt Runway

What I learned from Old Hack was that an updated version of a question aimed at confusing folks over relative measurements of airplane motion and the medium in which it operates had shown up on the Internet, and it was causing the fracas in the Lounge.

The question that has been going around is not particularly artfully worded, and I think that has caused some of the disagreements, but I'll repeat it as it is shown: "On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?"

My comment: Notice that the question does not state that the conveyor's movement keeps the airplane over the starting position relative to the ground, just that it moves in the direction opposite to any movement of the airplane.

Initially, about a third of the folks here said that the airplane could not ever takeoff, because the conveyor would overcome the speed of the airplane and it could never get any airspeed. The rest said the airplane would fly.

The "It won't fly, Rocky" group said that the conveyor would hold back the airplane. They asked us to imagine a person running on a treadmill. As he or she sped up, the treadmill would be programmed to speed up, just as the conveyor in the problem, and the person would remain over the same locus on the earth, while running as fast as possible.

The argument was that if the airplane started to move forward, the conveyor program was set up to move the conveyor at exactly that speed, in the opposite direction, thus, the airplane would never move relative to the ground, and, because the air was calm, it could never get any wind over its wings. One of the analogies presented was the person rowing at three mph upstream in a river on a calm day. However, the current was flowing downstream at three mph, so the resultant speed with reference to the stream bank and air was zero, and thus there was no wind on the rowboat.

I watched and listened to the disagreement for a while and was fascinated to see that the argument seemed to split between those who had some engineering or math background, all of whom said the airplane would takeoff and fly without any problem; and those with some other background, who visualized the airplane as having to push against the conveyor in order to gain speed. Because the conveyor equaled the airplane's push against the conveyor, the airplane stayed in one place over the ground and in the calm air could not get any airspeed and fly.

It was an interesting argument, but as things progressed, more rational heads prevailed, pointing out that the airplanes do not apply their thrust via their wheels, so the conveyor belt is irrelevant to whether the airplane will takeoff. One guy even got one of those rubber band powered wood and plastic airplane that sell for about a buck, put it on the treadmill someone foolishly donated to the Lounge years ago, thinking that pilots might actually exercise. He wound up the rubber band, set the treadmill to be level, and at its highest speed. Then he simultaneously set the airplane on the treadmill and let the prop start to turn. It took off without moving the slightest bit backwards.

Manfred In The 21st Century

OK, let's figure out why the airplane will fly.

We'll use Manfred again. Although we're bringing him forward into the 21st Century, we'll still let him use the 65 hp J-3. It doesn't really matter what airplane he flies, but he got used to the J-3 while he was demonstrating downwind turns and this one happens to have lifting rings on the top of the fuselage. It's also been modified with a starter so no one has to swing the prop.

Manfred's in the airplane. Old Hack has the Army-surplus crane fired up and he's picking up the J-3 and Manfred and carrying them over to Runway 27, which has been transformed into a 3,000-foot conveyor belt. It is a calm day. The conveyor drive is programmed so that if Manfred can start to move in the J-3, if he can generate any airspeed or groundspeed, the conveyor will move toward the east (remember Manfred and the J-3 are facing west) at exactly the speed of the air/groundspeed. Because the wind is calm, if Manfred can generate any indicated airspeed, he will also be generating precisely the same groundspeed. Groundspeed, of course being relative to the ground of the airport surrounding the conveyor belt runway. So, the speed of the conveyor belt eastbound will be the same as Manfred's indicated airspeed, westbound.

Manfred does his prestart checklist, holds the heel brakes, hits the starter and the little Continental up front clatters to life. Oil pressure comes up and stabilizes and Manfred tries to look busy because the eyes of the world are upon him, but all he can do is make sure the fuel is on and the altimeter and trim are set, then do a quick runup to check the mags and the carb heat. He moves the controls through their full travel and glares at the ailerons, doing his best to look heroic, then holds the stick aft in the slipstream to pin the tail and lets go of the brakes.

Baron of the Belt

So far the J-3 has not moved, nor has the conveyor. At idle power, there's not enough thrust to move the J-3 forward on a level surface, so Manfred starts to bring up the power, intending to take off. The propeller rpm increases and the prop shoves air aft, as it does on every takeoff, causing the airplane to move forward through the air, and as a consequence, forward with regard to the ground. Simultaneously the conveyor creaks to life, moving east, under the tires of the J-3. As the J-3 thrusts its way through the air, driven by its propeller, the airspeed indicator comes off the peg at about 10 mph. At that moment the conveyor is moving at 10 mph to the east and the tires are whirling around at 20 mph because the prop has pulled it to an airspeed, and groundspeed, of 10 mph, westbound. The airplane is moving relative to the still air and the ground at 10 mph, but with regard to the conveyor, which is going the other way at 10 mph, the relative speed is 20 mph.

Manfred relaxes a bit because the conveyor cannot stop him from moving forward. There is nothing on the airplane that pushes against the ground or the conveyor in order for it to accelerate; as Karen -- one of our techies here at the Lounge -- put it, the airplane freewheels. In technical terms, there is some bearing drag on the wheels, but it's under 40 pounds, and the engine has overcome that for years; plus the drag doesn't increase significantly as the wheel speed increases. Unless Manfred applies the brakes, the conveyor cannot affect the rate at which the airplane accelerates.

A few moments later, the roaring Continental, spinning that wooden Sensenich prop, has accelerated the J-3 and Manfred to 25 mph indicated airspeed. He and the airplane are cruising past the cheering spectators at 25 mph, while the conveyor has accelerated to 25 mph eastbound, yet it still has no way of stopping the airplane's movement through the air. The wheels are spinning at 50 mph, so the noise level is a little high, but otherwise, the J-3 is making a normal, calm-wind takeoff.

As the indicated airspeed passes 45 mph, groundspeed -- you know, relative to where all those spectators are standing beside the conveyor belt -- is also 45 mph. (At least that's what it says on Manfred's GPS. Being brought back to life seemed to create an insatiable desire for electronic stuff.) The conveyor is also at 45 mph, and the wheels are whizzing around at 90 -- the groundspeed plus the speed of the conveyor in the opposite direction.

Manfred breaks ground, climbs a few hundred feet, then makes a low pass to see if he can terrify the spectators because they are Americans, descendants of those who defeated his countrymen back in 1918.

It's All About Airspeed

(Don't try this at home!)

While the speed of the conveyor belt in the opposite direction is superficially attractive in saying the airplane cannot accelerate, it truly is irrelevant to what is happening with the airplane, because the medium on which it is acting is the air. The only time it could be a problem is if the wheel speed got so high that the tires blew out.

Put another way, consider the problem with the J-3 mounted on a hovercraft body (yes, similar things were tried about 30 years ago). The hovercraft lifts the airplane a fraction of an inch above the conveyor belt, and so no matter how fast the conveyor spins, it cannot prevent the propeller -- acting on the air -- from accelerating the airplane to takeoff speed. It's the same with wheels rolling on the conveyor belt. Those wheels are not powered and thus do not push against the belt to accelerate the airplane. Were that the case, the vehicle could not reach an airspeed needed to fly, because then the conveyor, the medium acted upon by the propulsive force, would be able to negate the acceleration relative to the air and ground.

I'm reminded of the New York Times editorial when Robert Goddard's rocket experiments were first being publicized. The author of the editorial said that rockets can't work in space because they have nothing to push against. It was laughably wrong, ignoring one of Sir Isaac's laws of physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Here the propeller is pushing against the air, as it does every time an airplane takes off. How fast the airplane is moving over the surface on which its wheels rest is irrelevant; the medium is the magic. On a normal takeoff -- no conveyor involved -- if there is a 20 mph headwind, Manfred and the J-3 will lift off at 45 mph indicated airspeed; but relative to the ground, it is only 25 mph. Should the wind increase to 45 mph and if Manfred can get to the runway, he can take off without rolling an inch. His airspeed is 45 and groundspeed is zero. It is not necessary to have any groundspeed to fly, just airspeed. Conversely, if Manfred has a lot of runway and nothing to hit, and takes off downwind in a 25 mph tailwind, the propeller will have to accelerate the airplane to a zero airspeed, which will be a 25 mph groundspeed, and then on to a 45 mph airspeed, which will have him humming across the ground at 70 mph. The speed over the ground, or a conveyor belt, when an airplane takes off is irrelevant; all that matters is its speed through the air, and unless the pilot sets the brakes, a moving conveyor belt -- under the freely turning wheels -- cannot stop the process of acceleration.

Things eventually calmed down as the number of "it won't fly" folks dwindled as they began to understand that the airplane would take off. Old Hack looked at me and suggested we depart as the few holdouts showed no sign of changing their position. So, we headed out into the night to watch the guys take the conveyor out and reinstall the runway.
User avatar
snwtoy
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 5810
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Auckland

Postby RedMist » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:15 pm

" At that moment the conveyor is moving at 10 mph to the east and the tires are whirling around at 20 mph because "

and there is the rub. In our Post 1 it clearly states, "The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation. "

In his question some form of disparity is allowed to exist. In ours there isnt... the word "exactly" exists.
The answer is Helmholtz!

Toyota ST185 Celica Rally.
Toyota ST205 Celica Rally.
Jimco/ Cosworth 350z Offroader - 609whp at 16psi
User avatar
RedMist
Old Skool User!
 
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:39 pm
Location: Christchurch

Postby snwtoy » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:01 pm

RedMist wrote:" At that moment the conveyor is moving at 10 mph to the east and the tires are whirling around at 20 mph because "

and there is the rub. In our Post 1 it clearly states, "The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation. "

In his question some form of disparity is allowed to exist. In ours there isnt... the word "exactly" exists.


You seem to be getting the speed of rotation and the linear speed of the wheel mixed up (the question is poorly worded)!

The linear speed of the wheel = the speed of the plane (because it is attached to the hub which is attached to the plane)

The linear speed of the wheel is completely (except for bearing friction) independant of it's speed of it's rotation (which is the point of this exercise).
User avatar
snwtoy
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 5810
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Auckland

Postby RedMist » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:33 pm

Snowtoy, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Its the definition of wheelspeed. I consider a slipping wheel to have wheelspeed, a gear in a gearbox to have speed, a grinding disk, any rotating device, in a rotating state to have speed.

If you skid the wheels in your car while stationary you have wheelspeed.

But it would appear in other peoples worlds no speed at all.
The answer is Helmholtz!

Toyota ST185 Celica Rally.
Toyota ST205 Celica Rally.
Jimco/ Cosworth 350z Offroader - 609whp at 16psi
User avatar
RedMist
Old Skool User!
 
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:39 pm
Location: Christchurch

Postby no_8wire » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:45 pm

wheels are not powered and thus do not push against the belt to accelerate the airplane.

That is assuming that the plane is suspended. Which it is not.
I agree if the plane was suspended/ or its weight supported by lift,the wheels would simply rotate and it would fly, but its not.


The plane in question its full weight is supported by its wheels.( When its not moving)
Now when a plane moves it uses the thrust. This propels it forward on its wheels.
However the plane is still not in the air/ supported by airlift until it reaches a suitable speed
Therefore when in this example, when the plane tried to move ( weight on wheels) The belt underneath moves backward. And since the plane is still on the belt its forward thrust is used to move it forward. At the same speed as the belt.
So in relation to the ground the plane hasnt moved. And it cant support its weight off its wheels as it doesnt have any lift. Which it cant get as its not moving...
User avatar
no_8wire
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:30 pm

Postby malc » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:34 pm

snwtoy wrote:You seem to be getting the speed of rotation and the linear speed of the wheel mixed up (the question is poorly worded)!


Nope, that has nothing to do with it.
You seem to be trying to go elsewhere for a question with different wording, to prove your case that it will take off.
The only question we need to worry about is the one in the first post in this topic :wink:

Shall we think of this another way.
A normal plane attempts to take off on a normal runway.
Ok, the plane applies power, the brakes come off and the plane rolls merrily down the runway and takes to flight.
What are we left with?
We have a plane (and its wheels) which went down our runway. That planes wheels spun around speeding up as it went along.
Now we also have a runway, it had a much less eventful time. It just sat there. For the runway had no speed at all, it was stationary the whole time.
So we have a wheel which had a wheel speed, and we had a runway which had no speed.
And that is how the plane took off, because the wheels on the plane relied on the surface below to not counteract their movement.
:)
Image
User avatar
malc
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Auckland

PreviousNext

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests