![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"BDS" wrote:
Maybe he's not so smart after all :) Maybe not, but smart enough to see this one. On a calm day you can run and feel a wind on your face because you are moving across the ground as well as through the air. But, if you run on a treadmill there will be no wind because you are not moving through the air - the air is calm so it has no relative motion with respect to the ground. Neither do you when you run on a treadmill. True. Irrelevant, but true. Assume the airplane is on the conveyor and there is a 10 kt headwind, and assume we need 60 kts for takeoff. The only way to generate the additional 50 kts of airspeed is by moving across the ground at 50 kts. Right so far. If the airplane is standing still Hold that thought... because the conveyor is moving backwards at the same speed that the airplane is moving across the ground at Skip back up to see what speed you say the airplane is moving across the ground. Then go back to the original question and figure out what speed the conveyor must be moving when the airplane is not moving. If the conveyor keeps the airplane standing still relative to the ground, then it cannot take off. Yeah, but the original statement of the problem made no such claim. -- Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Maybe he's not so smart after all :)
On a calm day you can run and feel a wind on your face because you are moving across the ground as well as through the air. But, if you run on a treadmill there will be no wind because you are not moving through the air - the air is calm so it has no relative motion with respect to the ground. Neither do you when you run on a treadmill. D*mn you're dumb. Oh sorry, was I thinking out loud? A thousand pardons. :^) The plane is NOT powered at the wheels! In this case the plane will be going 60kts forward relative to the surrounding air and 120kts forward relative to the treadmill. Think about it. The Monk |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Doe wrote:
We aren't talking about the forces at work on the wheel or tire, we are talking about the forward velocity. I can see this concept is lost on you. There is no forward velocity - there *is* a change in angular momentum though. Do you not understand that concept? I proudly profess to not understand that a point on the top of a tire does not move at twice the velocity of the axis of the wheel on which that tire is mounted. -- Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 4 Feb 2006 20:45:34 -0800, "Flyingmonk" wrote:
The plane is NOT powered at the wheels! In this case the plane will be going 60kts forward relative to the surrounding air and 120kts forward relative to the treadmill. Think about it. I reckon that's true, given the question posed in "The Straight Dope," (I've been too lazy to read it myself, but I gather from the other responses that what you say above is what Adams had in mind.) but what is the point of the original question in that case? Is it just to trap a sloppy reader into thinking it's all about a crackpot VTOL methodology? The more interesting question is whether you could land real short by using the treadmill. Don |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I undertand that, for any one given point on a wheel, mounted on a vehicle,
traveling horizontally, more or less, there is a forward velocity (not constant) for exactly one half the time, and a rearward velocity (not constant) for exactly half the time, in relation the wheels' point of rotation. The average of this constantly changing velocity just happens to be the same as the forward speed of the vehicle. There is no forward velocity - there *is* a change in angular momentum though. Do you not understand that concept? -- Duncan |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The more interesting question is whether you could land real short by
using the treadmill. The treadmill is irrelevant; it is the relative wind that matters. Whether you are standing on solid ground or on a treadmill, if you have a head wind of 60kts, you will be airborne period. The Monk |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "jesse" wrote I read some of my posts in response to comments made about me. The spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes are all because of my blatant laziness, and excitement to get my post out. \\ Jesse, is that you? I didn't recognize you! You will find that you will be taken more seriously around here, if you continue you attempts at correctly (minus a few typo's) written posts. The small mistakes will always creep in, it seems, no matter how hard we all try. In this case, a small one was there, Many people helped my as I was ..... but I'm almost sure there is a mistake in me post. It is a rule, I was told. g -- Jim in NC |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
![]() For an uninteresting problem, it sure generated a lot of traffic. True. Which really surprised me. When I first saw CJ's post, I thought it was too obvious to draw in this kind of activity. Indeed. If it was not a well recognized name posting, it would be a post more worthy of a troll. Dang you, CJ! Please refrain, next time! Or if your post was moving backwards at twice the speed of light, did it ever appear at all, and did it erase all of the activity before it? g -- Jim in NC |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Flyingmonk" wrote Depends on the airplane, certain lpanes are built in such a way that they can actually attain enough lift just from the prop wash alone. How many buckets of prop wash would it take? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Passenger crash-lands plane after pilot suffers heart attack | R.L. | Piloting | 7 | May 7th 05 11:17 PM |
Navy sues man for plane he recovered in swamp | marc | Owning | 6 | March 29th 04 12:06 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | October 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | September 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | August 1st 03 07:27 AM |