![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There will be airspeed felt by the plane in the area of the propellor
wash. Out of the prop wash, since the plane is not moving relative to the surrounding air, there will be no relative wind felt by the airplane. The airplane MIGHT take off, but it will not be a normal takeoff, at least not for a normal airplane with 36' wingspan and a 6' propellor. I really don't think there is enough information to know the answer for sure. Too many unknowns. This is one of these "frame of reference" problems. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Doug" wrote in message oups.com... There will be airspeed felt by the plane in the area of the propellor wash. Out of the prop wash, since the plane is not moving relative to the surrounding air, there will be no relative wind felt by the airplane. The airplane MIGHT take off, but it will not be a normal takeoff, at least not for a normal airplane with 36' wingspan and a 6' propellor. I really don't think there is enough information to know the answer for sure. Too many unknowns. This is one of these "frame of reference" problems. Re-read it, Doug. The plane is not getting its motion from the wheels, so it matters not what the wheels or wheel speed is doing. -- Jim in NC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sorry....the plane would not fly as you described. For if your
statement were true, we would not need wings...only a engine and a prop. We must have air flow over the wings to generate lift. Propwash does not generate enough lift, especially for planes wihch have a centrally located engine/prop between the wings. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Greg Copeland" wrote
Sorry....the plane would not fly as you described. For if your statement were true, we would not need wings...only a engine and a prop. We must have air flow over the wings to generate lift. Propwash does not generate enough lift, especially for planes wihch have a centrally located engine/prop between the wings. Nitpicking aside, I suspect that everyone agrees that in order for the plane to take off it must move forward along the conveyor. Since the prop applies a force to the plane which acts independent of what the conveyor and the wheels are doing, the plane can definitely move forward, and therefore it can take off. Tie a rope to the plane and to your car which is parked in front of the conveyor and not on the belt. Start the conveyor and run the belt at any speed you wish. The plane sits still on the conveyor as the wheels spin away. Now, if you drive your car forward the plane will move forward along the conveyor at the speed that you are driving your car forward, regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving. The conveyor cannot keep the plane from moving forward, it can only spin the plane's wheels. The example says that the belt moves backwards at the same speed that the plane moves forward, but that doesn't mean that the plane must be standing still. Get rid of the rope and the car and use the prop and the engine to pull you forward along the conveyor (because it pulls you by exerting a force on the air) and voila, you're flyin' the friendly skies. BDS |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nitpicking aside, I suspect that everyone agrees that in order for the plane to take off it must move
forward along the conveyor. Which is exactly my point! If you have a motoroized conveyor which always reduces the plane's forward movement to zero, no lift is generated, preventing the plane from flying. In other words, the plane generates lift by moving air over its wings. It moves air over its wings by moving forward. If you zero out forward movement, by a motorized conveyor, resulting in a zero delta, no lift is generated. it's a question of the plane making forward movement. Specifically, as it relates to your reply, while prop wash would indeed produce some lift over the wing, it would not be nearly enough to obtain take off....which is why we have wings. Thusly, if forward movement is zero and you're full throttle, you're not airbound....which is exaclty the same thing as a plane with no wings. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Greg Copeland" wrote Nitpicking aside, I suspect that everyone agrees that in order for the plane to take off it must move forward along the conveyor. Which is exactly my point! If you have a motoroized conveyor which always reduces the plane's forward movement to zero It doesn't say that the plane has no forward movement - it says that the conveyor moves backwards at the same speed at which the plane moves forward - that does not prevent the plane from moving forward. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Let's do the old Einstein thought experiment. Let's presume a motorized
conveyor belt that is being rotated towards the departure end of the runway. Let's also presume frictionless wheel bearings in an aircraft sitting at the departure end of the runway on the conveyor belt. What happens to the aircraft? Nothing. THe airplane remains motionless because the aircraft wheels, which are rotating, do not impart any force to the aircraft to make it move in any direction (F=ma). To a bystander sitting on the taxi light at the end of the runway, the conveyor belt is moving left to right, the wheels are spinning in a counterclockwise direction, and the aircraft itself is motionless. Now introduce wheel bearing friction. The aircraft will begin to slowly move left to right as a function of how much friction there is. Fire up the propeller and give it just enough throttle to overcome wheel bearing friction. Again, the observer on the taxi light sees the aircraft motionless. Now give it full throttle. Not only do we now have enough thrust to overcome wheel bearing friction, we have more than enough to launch the aircraft successfully into the air. If ya can't see this, I give up. Jim "BDS" wrote in message t... "Greg Copeland" wrote Nitpicking aside, I suspect that everyone agrees that in order for the plane to take off it must move forward along the conveyor. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
RST Engineering wrote:
Let's do the old Einstein thought experiment. Let's presume a motorized conveyor belt that is being rotated towards the departure end of the runway. Let's also presume frictionless wheel bearings in an aircraft sitting at the departure end of the runway on the conveyor belt. What happens to the aircraft? Nothing. THe airplane remains motionless because the aircraft wheels, which are rotating, do not impart any force to the aircraft to make it move in any direction (F=ma). To a bystander sitting on the taxi light at the end of the runway, the conveyor belt is moving left to right, the wheels are spinning in a counterclockwise direction, and the aircraft itself is motionless. Actually, that isn't true. You don't need wheel bearing friction to apply a horizontal force to the wheel at the contact point. The wheel has inertia and accelerating the wheel will cause a reaction at the contact point with the belt and the aircraft will begin to move along the direction of the conveyor. This force will go to zero once the belt reaches a steady-state speed, but the aircraft will continue to move along with the belt. Now if the wheels have no mass as well as no bearing friction... :-) Matt |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Which is exactly my point! If you have a motoroized conveyor which
always reduces the plane's forward movement to zero, no lift is generated, preventing the plane from flying. That's not what the original problem stated. And we have explained at least ten times why the conveyor belt CANNOT prevent the plane from moving forward. My attempt, an earlier post: You are taking the statement 'a conveyer belt that moves in the opposite direction at exactly the speed that the airplane is moving forward' to mean that somehow there is a force being applied to the mass of the aircraft, equal and opposite the thrust generated by the propellor. The only place the treadmill can exert any force an the airplane is the only place the treadmill is touching the airplane: the wheels. Any motion of the treadmill belt will be translated into rotation of the wheels. This will not prevent the aircraft from moving forward, through the air and taking off. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Greg,
If you have a motoroized conveyor which always reduces the plane's forward movement to zero, Nowhere does it say that in the question. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
|
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 |