will it take off?

[SPYDERLK]

No evidence needed. Everyone is tryin to make a simple problem hard by adding magical bearings and such. Get real the plane will take off and it has been proven with an actual conveyor and a remote control plane. This question has been beat to death over the years since I was a kid but yet so many keep trying to make it a hard problem.

Its definitely not a hard problem; solved fairly early in the din of the thread as I remember. The hard problem is defining it in the case of critical omissions present in pertinent boundary conditions.

 

[MossRoad]

I think the eagle has landed...:thumbsup:

I hope you're happy. :stirthepot:

 

[Leejohn]

Just more info needed!! What about the 100mph tail wind, how heavy is it snowing and is it day or night. If it's real dard out you wouldn't know.

 

[paulfun9]

Its definitely not a hard problem; solved fairly early in the din of the thread as I remember. The hard problem is defining it in the case of critical omissions present in pertinent boundary conditions.

Again your just trying to make a simple question hard. If you want the question answered with other hurdles present ask it in that format. I for one wouldn't try to take of into a high wind to begin with so doing so on a runway built with a conveyor on it wouldn't change that, so again the omissions are not making it any harder they are in fact making the person who is trying to make the question hard look so much less intelligent then they want to be interpreted as being.
Just because someone can answer a question in simple terms dosn't mean they haven't thought threw their answer to a degree higher than you or others. It just means they don't want to bore you with the useless information that isn't pertinent to the question at hand.

Think about those special bearings that were talked about with so much drag they wouldn't let the plane take off. Would any pilot try to fly a plane that couldn't taxi to a runway because the bearings were so tight it needed towed? Again like I said a simple question with only one answer.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Again your just trying to make a simple question hard. If you want the question answered with other hurdles present ask it in that format. I for one wouldn't try to take of into a high wind to begin with so doing so on a runway built with a conveyor on it wouldn't change that, so again the omissions are not making it any harder they are in fact making the person who is trying to make the question hard look so much less intelligent then they want to be interpreted as being.
Just because someone can answer a question in simple terms dosn't mean they haven't thought threw their answer to a degree higher than you or others. It just means they don't want to bore you with the useless information that isn't pertinent to the question at hand.

Think about those special bearings that were talked about with so much drag they wouldn't let the plane take off. Would any pilot try to fly a plane that couldn't taxi to a runway because the bearings were so tight it needed towed? Again like I said a simple question with only one answer.

,,,No.

 

[bcp]

Airplane on a Treadmill Definitive Analysis

Bruce

 

[MossRoad]

Everyone knows the mythbusters experiment was seriously flawed because their "conveyor" could not EXACTLY counter the forward motion. Remember, its not just a conveyor belt, its a perfect speed matching conveyor belt, which means for every micron the plane attempts to move forward, the conveyor instantaneously moves in the opposite direction, countering the attempted move. If such a thing were to exist, as soon as you turned it on, the universe would end. :laughing:

 

[Egon]

Might have to be a pretty long conveyor belt. The belt should work real well in inclement weather as it would be easy to keep the belt clean.

 

[powerscol]

All this means is the tires turned twice a fast. As the plane actually moved forward it was moving faster then the belt (went past the cones) in the opposite direction and created lift , thus the flight. Simple physics and flight engineering.

As to our President question.....well lets be glad less that 2 years remain....nuff said. I just hope there is someone with true leadership and business sense that can get us back on top. It is disheartening to know were NO 2 now.