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

Postby matt dunn » Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:54 pm

vvega wrote:
Those of you who think the treadmill would effect the takeoff run somehow have it in your mind (even if analytically you can state otherwise) that the wheels somehow propel the plane up to takeoff speed. This is simply not true.


If a person was on a treadmill running at 4kmh and the treadmill was doing 4kmh they would go no where,
If I added some extra thrust like a push in the back with my hands, ( or a shoulder charge from Mr Revhead,) they would fall off the front of the treadmill.

Groundspeend has nothing to do with it.
As long as the wheels are free to rotate the treadmill can do what ever it likes the plane will take off.
7AGTE - DX20VT - viewtopic.php?t=59733
Discussion - viewtopic.php?t=59751
matt dunn
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 7109
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Timaru

Postby malc » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:01 pm

snwtoy wrote:
vvega wrote:i ask you this
if the planes wheels are so important to taking off
how dose a harrier do it :D

how do other VTAL aircraft do it

v

Nice :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


No, not nice. VTOL aircraft do not apply to this problem what so ever.
In the case of of a plane which takes off vertically, the thrust is pointed vertically downwards. In the case of a helicopter each rotor has an airspeed which enables it to achieve lift (something I think we dont get with the plane on the conveyor). For a VTOL aircraft to take off the trust must equal or better the weight of the aircraft NOT the drag, and in a normal aircraft the thrust must equal or better the DRAG to maintain a constant speed, and also the thrust only need be a fraction of the weight of the aircraft to fly.

Also no, the air flow produced by the propeller is not sufficient for the wings to produce lift (In the case of an aircraft with a single prop at the front of it).

The fact of the matter with the plane on the conveyor belt, is that it needs forward motion to create air flowing over the wings.
And with an aircraft to take off on any surface using wheels, skids or floats, we must rely on the surface it is on to be motionless or at least not moving much at all. Even if it was taking off on lets say a river which could equal the speed (in an opposite direction) of the floats travelling over it the plane would not pull forward.
The movement of the planes wheels is and is not the crux of the matter.
The reason the plane would move down a runway is because its wheels enable it to roll over the surface which does not move. So for an aircraft to take off it has to rely entirely on the fact that the wheels will roll along at a speed faster than the surface it is on, which is of course pulled by the thrust from the propeller. If the wheels roll at the same speed as a runway going in the opposite direction then it will not move forward, no matter the amount of thrust you can get from the engine.

No matter how fast the ground is moving under it the fact a plane will take off is dependant on the air speed. The plane could be reversing at light speed for all it cares but if the foward airspeed is great enough it will take off.


Yes exactly if the forward airspeed is great enough, but in this case there is no airspeed, the plane is not moving forward, and as the question states there is no wind blowing. So I do not know where this airspeed is coming from.

If it were in a wind tunnel that would be a different story. You could get it to fly with 0 ground speed, but the air speed will still need to be XXknots for it to take off.


Confirms my point.

This says nothing about countering every force that the plane creates, all it is doing is spinning the wheels of the plane.


Yes it is spinning the wheels, but the speed at which the wheels are spinning would need to be greater than that of the surface below for the plane to make any headway.

think of it this way
you say there is no thrust
please explane what is happening to the 30,000 off ft punds of thrust been expelled out the back of the plane

please explain why its not pushing on the air molecules


That force of thrust no matter how large, has to be converted through the wheels in order for the plane to move. And how will the plane go forward if the all of that thrust is cancelled out by the conveyor.
Image
User avatar
malc
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Auckland

Postby ollieboy » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:05 pm

I'm changing my opinion back. I believe the plane would not take off. I spoke to an old friend who tried this experiment with a model plane and it wouldn't take off.

I also spoke to my mum who used to be a pilot and she said that it wouldn't take off because there is not enough air movement over the wings which causes lift.
User avatar
ollieboy
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby MrOizo » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:07 pm

no_8wire wrote:However when you think that however fast the plane might be "moving" its not actually moving from its orginal place on the belt. However when its speed is fast enough it will be able to lift as when it reaches its lift speed ( say 150km/hr?) it will be able to lift as...actually could it reach an real lift off speed?


If the plane was 0mm (zero) high, the belt was moving at 100km/h south and the plane was also moving at 100km/h north then in theory the velocity of the plane relative to the ground would be 0.

If you apply viscosity laws for fluids (liquids and gasses) the velovity at the surface in a laminar flow should be zero.

so keeping that in mind the belt could be treated as stationary and the plane relative to the belt be moving at 100km/h and the plane relative to the ground be moving at 0km/h

hmmmm...
User avatar
MrOizo
Toyspeed Legend
 
Posts: 6658
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 9:26 pm
Location: Onehunga, Auckland

Postby no_8wire » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:10 pm

matt dunn wrote:
vvega wrote:
Those of you who think the treadmill would effect the takeoff run somehow have it in your mind (even if analytically you can state otherwise) that the wheels somehow propel the plane up to takeoff speed. This is simply not true.


If a person was on a treadmill running at 4kmh and the treadmill was doing 4kmh they would go no where,
If I added some extra thrust like a push in the back with my hands, ( or a shoulder charge from Mr Revhead,) they would fall off the front of the treadmill.

Groundspeend has nothing to do with it.
As long as the wheels are free to rotate the treadmill can do what ever it likes the plane will take off.


You just contridicted your self...as you said if you(or the plane) were going at a speed and the treadmill was going the same speed in the opposite direction you would go nowhere.
Now you said extra thrust would make it go forward...however if you read the question it says the treadmill equals the speed/velocity of the wheels...
therefore if the velocity increase from this "thrust" force teh treadmill speed would also increase, and you would have the same situation as before but at a higher velocity.
So the plane would still be stationary and no lift would be created...as there is no airspeed.
User avatar
no_8wire
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:30 pm

Postby malc » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:10 pm

this is a good discussion by the way :D
Image
User avatar
malc
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Auckland

Postby V8MOFO » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:13 pm

well said. I think people are getting confused with lift and thrust.

thrust counters drag and
lift counters weight force.

I'm talking commerical airline here. Boeing 747

The engines are mounted under the wings which cannot possibly feed (and don't ) enough air to lift the plane, it simply drives the plane along to counter the opposing drag.
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 Bridget » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:13 pm

lol well I talked to an aeroplane engineer and he said it could take off...
Bridget
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Christchurch

Postby no_8wire » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

MrOizo wrote:
so keeping that in mind the belt could be treated as stationary and the plane relative to the belt be moving at 100km/h and the plane relative to the ground be moving at 0km/h

hmmmm...

Thats like a car going 50km.hr on a train going 200km/hr...how fast is the car actually going?...its relative to your postion...
however I still say that the plane would not fly...
User avatar
no_8wire
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:30 pm

Postby Brick » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:16 pm

Bridget wrote:lol well I talked to an aeroplane engineer and he said it could take off...

prove it :twisted:
User avatar
Brick
I know Kung Fu
 
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:41 pm
Location: ChCh

Postby Bridget » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:18 pm

:o prove what, lol
Bridget
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Christchurch

Postby MrOizo » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:18 pm

if there was no friction in the wheels then the plane should sit there at 0 km/h ground speed. the plane could then accelerate up to take off speed.

i guess this question depends what variables you want to include.
User avatar
MrOizo
Toyspeed Legend
 
Posts: 6658
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 9:26 pm
Location: Onehunga, Auckland

Postby Brick » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:19 pm

im not even goin to bother :roll:
User avatar
Brick
I know Kung Fu
 
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:41 pm
Location: ChCh

Postby ollieboy » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:21 pm

V8MOFO wrote:The engines are mounted under the wings which cannot possibly feed (and don't ) enough air to lift the plane, it simply drives the plane along to counter the opposing drag.


Yeah thats what I thought aye.
User avatar
ollieboy
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby no_8wire » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:22 pm

MrOizo wrote:if there was no friction in the wheels then the plane should sit there at 0 km/h ground speed. the plane could then accelerate up to take off speed.

i guess this question depends what variables you want to include.

yes it could accelerate its take off speed. however it still wouldnt be moving and therefore not creating any lift force/ real air speed...therefore its supposed "takeoff" speed would be non exsistant...
User avatar
no_8wire
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:30 pm

Postby MrOizo » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:26 pm

no_8wire wrote:
MrOizo wrote:if there was no friction in the wheels then the plane should sit there at 0 km/h ground speed. the plane could then accelerate up to take off speed.

i guess this question depends what variables you want to include.

yes it could accelerate its take off speed. however it still wouldnt be moving and therefore not creating any lift force/ real air speed...therefore its supposed "takeoff" speed would be non exsistant...


no no no... the ground speed and air speed would both be 0.

it then accelerates to lift off velocity. and walla... take off :)

and what ever take off velocity was, double that and thats the velovity of the surface of the wheels of the aircraft.
User avatar
MrOizo
Toyspeed Legend
 
Posts: 6658
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 9:26 pm
Location: Onehunga, Auckland

Postby Brick » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:28 pm

argueing on the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win your still a retard
:roll: :lol:
User avatar
Brick
I know Kung Fu
 
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:41 pm
Location: ChCh

Postby MrOizo » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:30 pm

Brick wrote:
argueing on the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win your still a retard
:roll: :lol:


its not really arguing, its more of a debate :)
User avatar
MrOizo
Toyspeed Legend
 
Posts: 6658
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 9:26 pm
Location: Onehunga, Auckland

Postby Bridget » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:31 pm

lmao, yep that's pretty spot on...
Bridget
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Christchurch

Postby geishaboy » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:31 pm

I can't believe I waded through three pages of this sh*t

There is only one *one* 1 way to know for sure

And that is a pratical experiment

I'm keen if you are :D
User avatar
geishaboy
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:37 pm
Location: Osaka

PreviousNext

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests