will it take off?

[RayH]

It's been ten yrs since my last physics class, but you have not accounted for the negative movement of the MCB? The MCB matches the plane in the negative 100% of the time. While on the ground (MCB) airspeed and ground speed are the same thing because you are moving through the air but you HAPPEN to still be on the ground till you gain ENOUGH airspeed to get the bird in the air. I think we can agree this is true. On this MCB you never have ground speed nor do you have airspeed. You're dead locked in neutral.

You should go back to class. EVERYTHING you just posted is completely wrong.
The MCB matches the planes forward motion. SO, if the plane does not move forward, as you claim, why exactly is the MCB moving backwards???
The "no flys" all claim the plane doesnt move forward because the MCB is matching the planes speed. Someone please explain to me how the MCB is matching the speed of a plane that can not move? The plane must move forward for the MCB to move backward, or am I missing something?
That seems to be a huge flaw in the "no fly" reasoning and the only answer to it is "its magic".
The plane does not care what the ground speed is, The thrust from the prop makes a plane move whether its in the air or on the ground. Ground speed has nothing to do with lift. Air speed has everything to do with lift. A plane can takoff standing still if it has enough headwind. The same plane with enough tailwind, wont takoff at all, no matter how fast its moving down the runway. No airplane, not one, has a ground speed indicator. Thats how important ground speed is to flying, taking off or landing. The primary function of the wheels (or floats, or skis) on a plane is to reduce the friction between the ground and the plane so the plane can act independently of the ground.

 

[rback33]

But, I did. As soon a the thrust is applied by the plane the MCB attempts to restrict its movement with its 1177.2 N of available friction. The thrust is greater than the retarding force (friction) and therefore the plane accerlerates relative to the ground that the MCB rests on and the air mass that surrounds both objects.

Ok, I think i get where we are hung up from a physics side, but I am not sure how to make it make sense. I have taken a college logic class much more recently than physics.. is this my hangup?.. The issue comes down to velocity still right? Some say the plane has some others say it doesn't. I may have to agree to disagree...

 

[NorthwestBlue]

Ok, I think i get where we are hung up from a physics side, but I am not sure how to make it make sense. I have taken a college logic class much more recently than physics.. is this my hangup?.. The issue comes down to velocity still right? Some say the plane has some others say it doesn't. I may have to agree to disagree...

How 'bout this. Put the plane on the MCB. On the nose hook up a scale calibrated in Newtons. Fix that scale to the imovable ground. Now tell said MCB to move the plane backwards. No matter how hard the MCB tries (no matter how fast it spins) it cannot impart a force greater that the frictional force in my previous example. The scale will read 1177.2 N.

 

[rback33]

How 'bout this. Put the plane on the MCB. On the nose hook up a scale calibrated in Newtons. Fix that scale to the imovable ground. Now tell said MCB to move the plane backwards. No matter how hard the MCB tries (no matter how fast it spins) it cannot impart a force greater that the frictional force in my previous example. The scale will read 1177.2 N.

Yes, I agree... with that part...... yer about to prop me back on the fence. now keep going.

 

[rback33]

You should go back to class. EVERYTHING you just posted is completely wrong.
The MCB matches the planes forward motion. SO, if the plane does not move forward, as you claim, why exactly is the MCB moving backwards???
The "no flys" all claim the plane doesnt move forward because the MCB is matching the planes speed. Someone please explain to me how the MCB is matching the speed of a plane that can not move? The plane must move forward for the MCB to move backward, or am I missing something?
That seems to be a huge flaw in the "no fly" reasoning and the only answer to it is "its magic".
The plane does not care what the ground speed is, The thrust from the prop makes a plane move whether its in the air or on the ground. Ground speed has nothing to do with lift. Air speed has everything to do with lift. A plane can takoff standing still if it has enough headwind. The same plane with enough tailwind, wont takoff at all, no matter how fast its moving down the runway. No airplane, not one, has a ground speed indicator. Thats how important ground speed is to flying, taking off or landing. The primary function of the wheels (or floats, or skis) on a plane is to reduce the friction between the ground and the plane so the plane can act independently of the ground.

I agree with almost everything there. And I am taking the first two statements tongue in cheek and assuming no offense was meant... what I think it boils down to it's a paradox of things that in the original statement are contradicting and cannot be achieved with or without a Magic Conveyor Belt. I am sure glad I won't see this again till Monday... lol my head is starting to hurt... and I do agree that there is no ground speed gauge STILL.. because the groundspeed is nothing more than airspeed.

 

[rutwad]

I am not sure about everybody's formula to prove their point, but I do know 2 things. 1> Enuf is actually enough,
and 2> $100 says the plane will fly!

 

[rback33]

I am not sure about everybody's formula to prove their point, but I do know 2 things. 1> Enuf is actually enough,
and 2> $100 says the plane will fly!

*LMAO* Show the live video of the experiment on TBN!
Everything on the web is real... heck I have switched sides about 4 times....
Good thing I don't vote like that.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Larry,

We're taking off here. Don't need brakes, don't want brakes.

Did you fully read the post? Do you understand what I was saying? What questions do you have?
The locked brakes being able to hold the plane still was merely a requirement for showing that the coefficient of friction between the belt and the tires was sufficient so that the belt would not slip under the tires as it spun them up ever faster to resist the trust of the engine. The brakes were only used to verify sufficient traction. They are not used during the attempted takeoff.

Also there is a backward force on the plane as wheels touch down during landing. It takes energy to spin them up. That energy comes from the plane and is stored as rotational energy in the wheels. With the exception of the black mark on the pavement the system has the same energy before and immediately after landing, but the system has been slowed by some of that energy being stored rotationaly. The way that a plane could be held stationary on a conveyor is for the conveyor to force rotational energy into the wheels counterequal to the energy of the engines. How many hundred HP seconds can be stored in plane wheels? Not too many, but until the wheels exploded the plane could be held stationary.
Larry

 

[rback33]

Did you fully read the post? Do you understand what I was saying? What questions do you have?
The locked brakes being able to hold the plane still was merely a requirement for showing that the coefficient of friction between the belt and the tires was sufficient so that the belt would not slip under the tires as it spun them up ever faster to resist the trust of the engine. The brakes were only used to verify sufficient traction. They are not used during the attempted takeoff.

Also there is a backward force on the plane as wheels touch down during landing. It takes energy to spin them up. That energy comes from the plane and is stored as rotational energy in the wheels. With the exception of the black mark on the pavement the system has the same energy before and immediately after landing, but the system has been slowed by some of that energy being stored rotationaly. The way that a plane could be held stationary on a conveyor is for the conveyor to force rotational energy into the wheels counterequal to the energy of the engines. How many hundred HP seconds can be stored in plane wheels? Not too many, but until the wheels exploded the plane could be held stationary.
Larry

I am glad someone could put my thought into words!

 

[RayH]

I agree with almost everything there. And I am taking the first two statements tongue in cheek and assuming no offense was meant... .

Sorry, sometimes I forget smilies. I express myself better in person. No offense was meant. Im having fun with this. Its frustrating but at the same time exercises my brain.
The above goes for everyone Ive offended. Well! almost everyone.