jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
quote:
Originally posted by jr
i agree with SVM,
why, because i dont know the anwser, and he seems to have put across his agrument quite well
what do we win 
Because he's used some fancy words occasionally does not mean he has put his argument across quite well.
If you read any of his argument you would see he's actually shown himself up.
TBH i really dont care, i was just trying to add something to 24 pages of bickering
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
SVM you are posting consecutive contradictory posts now.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
The speeds being the same is mere co-incidence.
The wheels freewheel.
The speed of the belt is therefore unrelated to the speed of the plane. They effect each other so marginally its not important.
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
This damn belt is having no effect whatsoever on the planes ability to thrust itself forward.
What do base that conclusion on Ian?
We already know that the belt travels at the same speed as the aircraft, so it can only retard/prevent it's progress.
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
JR your car exerts 7661.6N of force downwards through its wheels
the average corsa will be over 10 000 N
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by LiVe LeE]
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
so because the wheels freewheel, the speed of the belt does not affect the speed of the plane?
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenGSi
so because the wheels freewheel, the speed of the belt does not affect the speed of the plane?
Exactly.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
To be honest I think the people who are correct have given up repeating themselves again and again...
If you read through this whole post properly - you would probably understand better - there are people that were thinking like you guys SVN etc are, then read what people said and realised how people were looking at it from a different point of view - think outside of the box.
To be honest I'm sick of just typing the same stuff, Ok so every now and then gets it - but for every 1 person that understands it, another 2 come along that are stuck thinking in the old way.
I can only assume you guys were so busy to reply often, you didn't even read or skim read what other's were replying.
If you read it all you'd soon understand our point of view.
We understand yours, but we also understand why it is wrong in this context.
You guys don't even seem to be able to grasp our concept at all.  still stuck thinking the plane is taking off stationary WTF?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
I STILL CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE DONT GET THIS!!! ITS SO OBVIOUS ITS UNTRUE, I SERIOUSLY THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE PART OF THE BRAIN MISSING OR SOMETHING
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
there is - mass and gravity
981000 N of the stuff
No there is not. Gravity is perpendicular to the two forces which we are comparing.
Makes not a blind bit of difference to the belts ability to move the plane.
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
FFS people calm down, its a question brad peoberly got from a cracker and its caused this much hassel
get over it
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
yes but the point is its so fcuking obvious why the planewould tkae off, thats why its so frustrating that people are arguing black is white
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
of course it does Ian - how can the physical mass of the plane not be accounted for?
it will be taken account of via a cosine squared relationship!
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
It was an interesting question jr and actually got a good debate going.
But then people come in with flawed theorys they have made up on the spot and then arguing as if they are 100% correct.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Because you used velocity in your explanation does not mean you are correct svm.
You are showing more and more stupidity as you reply.
Its not even just to this question.
Its showing a total lack of understanding.
I realy do apologise for offending you John.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenGSi
so because the wheels freewheel, the speed of the belt does not affect the speed of the plane?
Exactly.
Ooh nice one darren 
Yeh so the wheels are free wheeling so the belt affects it only little, meaning the thrust has the ability to over power the small effect the belt has and push the plane forward.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
You aren't offending me.
I just can't get how you can have totally contradicting arguments, say its prminary school physics, then still be totally wrong.
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
OMG i think i do get it,
put simply,
the plane accelerates to the designated speed say 100mph, and the belt is going 100mph, the plane isnt geographically stationary because the belt is only turning the free-turning wheels and not affecting the plane speed, therefore the plane does accelerate to 100mph AIRSPEED, not road speed. this means going through wind at 100mph and lift is generated!
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
aye
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Thats it darren, do you realise why your previous arguments were so wrong now.
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
no Darren that is not what theyre saying - even if I agreed with them which I dont - your not saying the same as they are
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenGSi
OMG i think i do get it,
put simply,
the plane accelerates to the designated speed say 100mph, and the belt is going 100mph, the plane isnt geographically stationary because the belt is only turning the free-turning wheels and not affecting the plane speed, therefore the plane does accelerate to 100mph AIRSPEED, not road speed. this means going through wind at 100mph and lift is generated!
its how i would have thought it wuld work
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
no Darren that is not what theyre saying - even if I agreed with them which I dont - your not saying the same as they are
yes he is
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
read what hes put - airspeed is in no way relevant to the ground speed
his argument isnt the same as yours/johns anyone elses - he's missed your point
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
i just didnt know the wheels were freewheeling
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
of course airspeed is not related to ground speed, thats why we have said all along the speed the ground is moving underneath the free wheeling wheels does not hinder the planes acceleration
|
