RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
precisely what Darren has put isnt what youve been arguing - hes missed your point!
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
surely thats the first stage, as there not driven, so it will make no diffrence as the power is deliverd in thrust through the engines, and not wheel driven
???
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
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.
John, any examples of me 'showing myself up' would be gladly received. 
I didn't use fancy words, I used plain English.
Maybe you would like to try it sometime as opposed to plain rudeness which seems to be your preference.
Btw, are you sure you're not Ross?
Once again, I realy realy apologise for offending you.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
SVM you are posting consecutive contradictory posts now.
I have not contradicted myself once John.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
of course it does Ian - how can the physical mass of the plane not be accounted for?
Because the question of whether the plane can generate forward motion depends on whether its ability to move foward is counteracted by the forces acting on it backwards.
Gravity DOES NOT affect this.
To achieve the equilibrium under which some people are claiming that the plane would not take off, the forward force would have to equal the backward force.
If you want some formulas that point would be something like
drag at wheels = propulsion at engine
Drag at wheels being the product of belt speed and frictional loss at the wheels.
Propulsion at engine being a factor of engine power and frictional drag of air resistance, ie. not much.
While equilibrium is of course possible, it would be achieved at a thrust level so low, the plane could easily overcome it and take off.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
His argument is exactly what we're saying lee.
The plane is moving through the air towards its takeoff speed ireelevant to the speed of the conveyor or wheels.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Iv just had a little pray and even god gets it
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
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.
No Ian, the belt does not match wheel speed, it matches aircraft speed, that is the most important point.
Wheel speed is academic and doesn't factor into the debate.
[Formatting fixed]
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Ian]
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
arrgh ffs it does not matter how fast the belt moves, it could move 5 times the speed of the plane and it would make no differnce
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I've just had a little pray for strength.
God says even he can't give me enough.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
No Ian, the belt does not match wheel speed, it matches aircraft speed, that is the most important point.
Wheel speed is academic and doesn't factor into the debate.
surely that'll just mean the wheels spin faster?  plane will still take off due to the FORCE propelling it, being greater than the force holding it back.
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Ian]
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
No Ian, the belt does not match wheel speed, it matches aircraft speed, that is the most important point.
It could surpass aircraft speed by some considerable margin if it wanted, it won't slow the plane down.
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
I've just had a little pray for strength.
God says even he can't give me enough.
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
GREAT SCOT!
yes lee i get it.
i dont even think you know the question!
my theory would prob be right if the plane was wheel driven.
I apologise for getting it wrong and arguing with everyone. as soon as ian said the wheels are free-turning, it clicked!
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
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!
No Darren, the plane and belt both travel at the SAME speed mate.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
 just
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
the number of people in the wrong is gradually going down...phew!
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
The question says the belt will be moving at the same speed as the "plane", not how much the engines are thrusting or how much the wheels are spinning.
i.e. If i was running ("moving") at 10mph and the running machine was moving at 10mph then I wouldn't go anywhere.
It's like me saying, if i take longer strides on the running machine then i'll start to move up. No, because i wouldn't be going the same speed! 
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by loafofbrett]
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by loafofbrett]
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
arrgh ffs it does not matter how fast the belt moves, it could move 5 times the speed of the plane and it would make no differnce
It can't move 5 times the speed of the plane Steve.
Brad stated that they travel at the same speed.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
OMG this is actually unbelievable
So by your account the belt moves at the same speedof the plane yeah? then the plane wouldnt move ACCORDING TO yOU, yeah?
Well if the question was changed to the belt moves 5 times faster than the plane, according to your theory the plane would go backwards, yeah?
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Steve]
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
yes svm but as the planes wheels are free-turning, the can go at any speed and not affect the plane. the plane speed comes from the engine and pushes the air backwards which meanks it is not geographically stationary
|
Jules S
Premium Member
Registered: 24th Dec 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
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!
Would you please stop quoting random theories and start stating some facts.
I could pick all sorts of random theorem that nobody would undertand here...thats all you do to back up your opinons
To quote somebody earlier, this isnt primary school physics...its more like structural mechanics. Different forces are being exerted on different bodies with diffrenet interaction points between the bodies in question.
Ive posted in laymans terms three or four times why it would take off.
some are intelligent enough to get it, other choose to just perpetuate the arguement to justify their misguided opinion.
edit: makes more sense for the masses
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Jules S]
|
J da Silva
Member
Registered: 10th Apr 03
Location: The FACTory
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by loafofbrett
The question says the belt will be moving at the same speed as the "plane", not how much the engines are thrusting or how much the wheels are spinning.
i.e. If i was running ("moving") at 10mph and the conveyor was moving at 10mph then I wouldn't go anywhere.
It's like me saying, if i take longer strides on the running machine then i'll start to move up. No, because i wouldn't be going the same speed! :rolleye:
Your theory suggeststhere will be no air passing over the wings, hence no lift,the plane can go forwards at 3587857mph but it can't get lift then the answer is it won't take off.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I understand the saying, never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience, now more than ever before.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
OMFG iv got it now, THE PLANE WOULD NOT MOVE 
j/k
|
