Airplane on a Conveyor - Post-Mythbusters-Mortem

What is your position?

  • I thought it would fly and I was right.

    Votes: 74 62.2%

  • I thought it wouldn't fly but I understand now.

    Votes: 4 3.4%

  • I don't agree with the methodology used. The test was invalid.

    Votes: 10 8.4%

  • I want this stupid question to go away forever.

    Votes: 31 26.1%
  • Total voters
    119
i like the pterosaur stabilization system on the prehistoric rocket.
 
bluesky74656 said:
Best analysis of the problem I've seen in a long time (ever?):

Airplane on a Treadmill Explanation
Click to expand...

Another curse, is EVERY "this is the final word" explanation blows it, including this one.

In the two diagrams the plane is taking off in the opposite direction. :mad:
 
This is amazing. The Mythbusters proved it with a real (well kinda) airplane, and you guys still have a four page argument about it! And I thought we argued a lot in the Spin Zone!
 
why not make the conveyor run the same way as the airplane to save the tires from wear?
 
Henning said:
I vote that you be permanently banned from this board for necroposting a thread of this subject.
Click to expand...

except

1) there was a post 45 minutes before mine
2) the argument over something that has been proven wasn't going anywhere
 
rubber314chicken said:
except

1) there was a post 45 minutes before mine
2) the argument over something that has been proven wasn't going anywhere
Click to expand...
What was proved? A show that draws thousands of guys watching Kari tore a long tarp on a runway with an unscientific experiment?


037.gif
 
KennyFlys said:
What was proved? A show that draws thousands of guys watching Kari tore a long tarp on a runway with an unscientific experiment?


037.gif
Click to expand...

but it took off. and if you think about the logic they stated it makes perfect sense.

now, instead of making the wheels spin twice as fast, why not make them no spin?
 
rubber314chicken said:
but it took off. and if you think about the logic they stated it makes perfect sense.

now, instead of making the wheels spin twice as fast, why not make them no spin?
Click to expand...
Your wheels are spinning faster than your reading. Look at the entire post.
 
KennyFlys said:
What was proved? A show that draws thousands of guys watching Kari tore a long tarp on a runway with an unscientific experiment?


037.gif
Click to expand...
I would be seriously disturbed if I failed to properly understand a simple aerodynamic concept that the rest of the world understands if I were a flight instructor like you.
 
jesse said:
I would be seriously disturbed if I failed to properly understand a simple aerodynamic concept that the rest of the world understands if I were a flight instructor like you.
Click to expand...
Does ANYONE see the sarcasm intended in my post? I went over to the PB to grab a icon to help out with the process. I didn't put a smiley because I didn't want to make it THAT obvious.

Gosh, people are taking things far too serious.

Bottom line? I don't care if it flies or not. I was "stirring the pot" just for the fun of it. Until yesterday was over, I was more concerned over teaching it to fly a GS properly than if it departed.
 
rubber314chicken said:
good point because I don't think anyone every takes off or lands on conveyor belts.
Click to expand...

No--but the question does test basic understanding of airplanes. There is some value in understanding this because plenty of pilots have bent up airplanes by being more concerned with the wheels instead of the wings.

KennyFlys said:
Bottom line? I don't care if it flies or not. I was "stirring the pot" just for the fun of it. Until yesterday was over, I was more concerned over teaching it to fly a GS properly than if it departed.
Click to expand...
Of course not--and I'm sure you actually understand why you were wrong for arguing that it won't take off. At least, I hope you understand that, because you're certainly too proud to admit that you do..
 
jesse said:
No--but the question does test basic understanding of airplanes. There is some value in understanding this because plenty of pilots have bent up airplanes by being more concerned with the wheels instead of the wings.
Click to expand...

*noob question as I venture to learn more* how is that? cross wind landings with wings hitting the ground?:dunno:
 
jesse said:
Of course not--and I'm sure you actually understand why you were wrong for arguing that it won't take off. At least, I hope you understand that, because you're certainly too proud to admit that you do..
Click to expand...
It will fly, pure and simple. I still say the Myth Buster's experiment was as unscientific as you can get along with not the most ideal materials. They proved the point on a shoestring budget and I doubt it will get any better than that.

But, back when everyone was arguing it, I was coming up with everything possible to argue the other point. I gave up because I had other things going on and was losing my creativity in the argument. Beside the fact I was getting a kick in the pants watching people practically wetting themselves trying to convince me, I loved playing the devil's advocate. That was one of the few times I have outside the SZ. Actually, I can't recall another time. Fred was so ticked off, you'd think someone stole his Rice Krispies. It was amusing to me to watch how seriously people were taking this argument.

Now, if only our government were chosen with such deliberate thought and care.

MC, we need a "Pot Stirring" icon. :yes: :D
 
rubber314chicken said:
jesse said:
There is some value in understanding this because plenty of pilots have bent up airplanes by being more concerned with the wheels instead of the wings.
Click to expand...
*noob question as I venture to learn more* how is that? cross wind landings with wings hitting the ground?:dunno:
Click to expand...
For one example, think of landing at high altitudes. For another, think about headwinds vs tailwinds. For a third, think about microbursts. Not all specifically about ground speed, but an understanding of relative winds, as well as true airspeed compared to indicated airspeed compared to groundspeed comes into play.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Kenny,

You're a CFI. People are going to take you seriously whether that's what you intended or not. Consider the consequences of your actions.
Click to expand...
Themes throughout the thread were joking around. Damn, if people are going to lay out that kind of attitude, they need to get a life.

If you want to blame me for whatever reason, go ahead. Where matters of my being a CFI are involved, I do take them seriously. But, on this particular thread? Nope.

Damn, get over it already.
 
KennyFlys said:
If you want to blame me for whatever reason, go ahead. Where matters of my being a CFI are involved, I do take them seriously. But, on this particular thread? Nope.
Click to expand...

Then you need to make darn sure that you make that clear. We have lots of smilies available here. :yes:
 
gprellwitz said:
Do you really mean "nope" or is this like another thread where you took a contrary position just to see what the reaction would be and held to it after a lot of questioning? Just askin'.
Click to expand...
In answering your previous question I definitely meant, "Nope". Nothing to contrary!

Satisfied? Or, do you require further clarification?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You just don't get it. :no:

Sigh. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, you don't get it. I don't care about the conveyor. Get it? I don't care.

I'll repeat it for you....

I don't care.

If you want to pick on someone with such detail, find someone else. You're like a little kid who keeps saying, "Why?" The only difference is the little kid may not know any better.

It's time to let it go.
 
The real question is if you land on a treadmill will you ever be able to shut down your engine without risking being thrown backwards off of the treadmill and damaging at least the tail of the aircraft?
 
Yes (and here are the obligatory extra characters because "yes" is too short of a reply)
 
smigaldi said:
The real question is if you land on a treadmill will you ever be able to shut down your engine without risking being thrown backwards off of the treadmill and damaging at least the tail of the aircraft?
Click to expand...

Only if you have frictionless wheel bearings. Eventually, you will move backwards a little bit.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
The real question is if you land on a treadmill will you ever be able to shut down your engine without risking being thrown backwards off of the treadmill and damaging at least the tail of the aircraft?
Click to expand...

Why would you shut down on the runway?
 
roncachamp said:
Why would you shut down on the runway?
Click to expand...
is there a treadmill taxiway attached? I was envisioning the most simple of situations. But if there were a taxi way how would one enter it? it would seem that once you turn 90 degrees from the rotational direction of the belt that the exit would also have to move as well.
 
smigaldi said:
is there a treadmill taxiway attached? I was envisioning the most simple of situations. But if there were a taxi way how would one enter it? it would seem that once you turn 90 degrees from the rotational direction of the belt that the exit would also have to move as well.
Click to expand...
I think you'ld have to exit the runway on a very slight angle. The wheels, being free spinning, wouldn't be in any serious risk as they transitioned from rolling runway to stationary ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top