![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "cjcampbell" wrote in message oups.com... Saw this question on "The Straight Dope" and I thought it was amusing. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html The question goes like this: "An airplane on a runway sits on a conveyer belt that moves in the opposite direction at exactly the speed that the airplane is moving forward. Does the airplane take off?" (Assuming the tires hold out, of course.) AH! ...here's the problem! Are the airplane and the belt moving at equal speeds in opposite directions relative to the world? (-X mph for the belt & +X mph for the plane = eg. airspeed of 100mph & wheel speed of 200mph) If so the airplane could take off. The answer to this question would be easy -- is the airspeed high enough or not? ......OR relative to each other? If so, there could be just enough thrust applied to overcome frictional forces and the airplane doesn't move relative to the world so airspeed is 0. BUT WAIT!!! .... ANY two objects can be said to be moving (or not) at equal speeds relative to each other. A point on the conveyer belt moving east at 4mph and a jet moving west at 600mph each have a relative velocity of 604 with respect to each other and there could be an observer who sees each object moving in opposite directions at 302mph. The only real question is how fast is the airplane moving with respect to the air(world). Thrust is an external force applied to the conveyer belt/airplane system. Cecil Adams (world's smartest human being) says that it will take off normally. He likely had a little more information than is available in the OP. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "muff528" wrote in message news:OW2Ff.179$DV2.5@trnddc07... .....OR relative to each other? If so, there could be just enough thrust applied to overcome frictional forces and the airplane doesn't move relative to the world so airspeed is 0. That would have to be either a very underpowered airplane, or wheels with a lot of friction. BUT WAIT!!! .... ANY two objects can be said to be moving (or not) at equal speeds relative to each other. A point on the conveyer belt moving east at 4mph and a jet moving west at 600mph each have a relative velocity of 604 But there's the trick. A treadmill belt isn't really moving at all, it's turning. Try this for a brain scrambler. Think about a tire on your car, driving down the highway. At the point where the tire contacts the ground, it's speed is zero. 180° away, at the top, it is moving forward at twice the speed of the car. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael Ware" wrote in message . .. "muff528" wrote in message news:OW2Ff.179$DV2.5@trnddc07... .....OR relative to each other? If so, there could be just enough thrust applied to overcome frictional forces and the airplane doesn't move relative to the world so airspeed is 0. That would have to be either a very underpowered airplane, or wheels with a lot of friction. Yes!..that's why I said "COULD be just enough thrust..." More thrust than is necessary to overcome friction would result in the airplane moving forward relative to the air. Then it's only a question of how much thrust would be necessary to move the plane forward fast enough through the air to overcome gravity :-) A little less thrust would result in the airplane going backwards but not as fast as the conveyer. In any case the relative velocities of the plane to the conveyer would be equal to observers on either object but NOT to an observer standing on dirt. BUT WAIT!!! .... ANY two objects can be said to be moving (or not) at equal speeds relative to each other. A point on the conveyer belt moving east at 4mph and a jet moving west at 600mph each have a relative velocity of 604 But there's the trick. A treadmill belt isn't really moving at all, it's turning. Again, Yes....but that's why I said "a POINT on the conveyer.." not the conveyer system itself. The trick is that the original question as posted asks a question (will the plane take off) and gives just enough info to cause assumptions that aren't specified. Try this for a brain scrambler. Think about a tire on your car, driving down the highway. At the point where the tire contacts the ground, it's speed is zero. 180° away, at the top, it is moving forward at twice the speed of the car. Yes, but only for a very brief instant in time. And since velocity is measured as a function of time, is that point on the tire really moving at all at that one brief instant when the measurement is taken? :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Doe" wrote in message . nz... In article , says... At the point where the tire contacts the ground, it's speed is zero. 180° away, at the top, it is moving forward at twice the speed of the car. Negative - yer forgetting centripetal force. ? Negative what? Talking about a point on the surface of the tire, not the wheel as a whole. Centripital force has nothing to do with the forward velocity of that point (how it travels in one axis). http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Centripetal -- Duncan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
says... "Dave Doe" wrote in message . nz... In article , says... At the point where the tire contacts the ground, it's speed is zero. 180° away, at the top, it is moving forward at twice the speed of the car. Negative - yer forgetting centripetal force. ? Negative what? Talking about a point on the surface of the tire, not the wheel as a whole. Centripital force has nothing to do with the forward velocity of that point (how it travels in one axis). Are you talking about a round tire or not - are you then talking about a big long flat tire of say infinite length. Sorry bud, can't make the initial assumption that's been made - as it's on a tire, and yep, even that point, at that time - has the centripetal force. -- Duncan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Doe" wrote in message . nz... In article , says... "Dave Doe" wrote in message . nz... In article , says... At the point where the tire contacts the ground, it's speed is zero. 180° away, at the top, it is moving forward at twice the speed of the car. Negative - yer forgetting centripetal force. ? Negative what? Talking about a point on the surface of the tire, not the wheel as a whole. Centripital force has nothing to do with the forward velocity of that point (how it travels in one axis). Are you talking about a round tire or not What other kind of tire is there? .. Sorry bud, can't make the initial assumption that's been made - I'm not your bud,. And what assumption are you talking about? as it's on a tire, and yep, even that point, at that time - has the centripetal force. 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. -- Duncan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
says... "Dave Doe" wrote in message . nz... In article , says... "Dave Doe" wrote in message . nz... In article , says... At the point where the tire contacts the ground, it's speed is zero. 180° away, at the top, it is moving forward at twice the speed of the car. Negative - yer forgetting centripetal force. ? Negative what? Talking about a point on the surface of the tire, not the wheel as a whole. Centripital force has nothing to do with the forward velocity of that point (how it travels in one axis). Are you talking about a round tire or not What other kind of tire is there? . Sorry bud, can't make the initial assumption that's been made - I'm not your bud,. And what assumption are you talking about? as it's on a tire, and yep, even that point, at that time - has the centripetal force. 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? -- Duncan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Doe wrote:
Try this for a brain scrambler. Think about a tire on your car, driving down the highway. At the point where the tire contacts the ground, it's speed is zero. 180° away, at the top, it is moving forward at twice the speed of the car. Negative - yer forgetting centripetal force. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Centripetal Well, I'm impressed that you know of the existence of centripetal force. But in what possible way do you think it negates the comment about the speeds (relative to the ground) of points at the top and bottom of the tire on a moving car? -- Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Let' say it this way. The airplane is moving forward at 60 kts. Does
that make it more clear? The airplane is moving forward at 60, the belt, using the model in the OP, is moving backwards at 60. The wheels are turning at 120 kts. If it's a 172 it'll lift off into, on a calm day, 60 kts of airspeed over the wings. It's a nicely phrased question that caught me at first as well. Substitute real speeds into what had been posted and the answer becomes clear to me, although a lawyer in the group might find a (ground) loop hole. |
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 |