A question...

[MTMike]

Originally posted by BLLDOGG:
the reverse power would be overcomed by the engine, not matched

So you're telling me that you beleive that a treadmill with 4 freewheeling wheels on it will overcome the thrust of 4 jet engines at full throttle? Keep in mind the treadmill is matching the jet, not the jet matching the treadmill.

[ December 01, 2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: MTMike ]

[98Camaro3.8]

You could push a car/plane/whatever at 10 mph on a stationary road. It may be a little hard, but you've got only a fraction of the power of the plane.

If you can push the plane at 10 mph, that means you could keep it in place by pushing on it when the treadmill is going 10 mph. It's the same thing. The wheels are making the same amount of friction.

Now replace what you're pushing with a large engine. It's going to push alot harder than you, and harder than the friction of the wheels.

[BLLDOGG]

Originally posted by MTMike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BLLDOGG:
the reverse power would be overcomed by the engine, not matched

So you're telling me that you beleive that a treadmill with 4 freewheeling wheels on it will overcome the thrust of 4 jet engines at full throttle? Keep in mind the treadmill is matching the jet, not the jet matching the treadmill. </font>[/QUOTE]hehehehe....ummm yes :D

[MTMike]

Originally posted by BLLDOGG:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MTMike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BLLDOGG:
the reverse power would be overcomed by the engine, not matched

So you're telling me that you beleive that a treadmill with 4 freewheeling wheels on it will overcome the thrust of 4 jet engines at full throttle? Keep in mind the treadmill is matching the jet, not the jet matching the treadmill. </font>[/QUOTE]hehehehe....ummm yes :D </font>[/QUOTE]Then you sir, are a dumbass :D [img]graemlins/stickpoke.gif[/img]

[3.4 slow to go]

Originally posted by 98Camaro3.8:
You guys all say the plane won't move, but where's your proof? You can't show any! We have all the proof laid right out in front of you, but you can't show anything back except by comparing it to someone running on a treadmill.


Where is the force that counteracts the thrust?

and where is your proof?

all our proof is laid out too, and I've didn't use anyone on a treadmill.

[98Camaro3.8]

Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go:
and where is your proof?

Where's my proof? It's in every post I've made over the last 8 pages. For example:

It's all about forces. There is no force to cancel out the thrust from the engine. The plane is rolling freely over the treadmill, with very little friction.

If the airplane is moving to the left:
&lt;------------------ Thrust from the engine
-&gt; Drag from friction on the wheels (because they're rolling with the brakes off).

That results in a net force of thrust, so the plane accelerates.

Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go:
all our proof is laid out too, and I've didn't use anyone on a treadmill.

You have not given any proof at all. You just say the plane wouldn't move because it's on a treadmill.


Where is the force that counteracts thrust?

[3.4 slow to go]

already answered, next question

[98Camaro3.8]

Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go:
already answered, next question

Proving my point again. You've got nothing to support your argument except that "common sense" would make you think it would stay stationary.

[3.4 slow to go]

I've already proven my point, with support.

[L32Projekt]

Look at it this way, if the treadmill had any effect on the plane it's just that it doubles the speed of the wheels of the aircraft. Let's say an average aircraft takeoff speed is 100 mph. The treadmill only matches the speed of the aircraft in the opposite direction, so the aircraft's wheels are travelling at 200 mph.

If an aircraft had a tailwind of 100 MPH, do you think the aircraft's thrust wouldn't be sufficient to roll it on the ground to 200 mph to achieve the 100mph airspeed necessary to gain flight capability? I think it could, pending the tires don't blow out.

Or, apparently in some people's magic world a plane stops moving when it wheels reach 2 MPH...

Can a plane's wheels and tires generate enough force at 200 MPH to stop the acceleration of the aircraft generated by its thrust? No, I highly doubt it. Of course, it all depends on what type of aircraft we're talking about and what type of powerplant it utilizes. If you people don't think that an aircraft has enough power to travel at 200mph on the ground, you're so sadly mistaken.

[98Camaro3.8]

Originally posted by L32Projekt:
Look at it this way, if the treadmill had any effect on the plane it's just that it doubles the speed of the wheels of the aircraft. Let's say an average aircraft takeoff speed is 100 mph. The treadmill only matches the speed of the aircraft in the opposite direction, so the aircraft's wheels are travelling at 200 mph.

But according to him if the wheels are going faster than the plane, they must not be attached to the plane:

Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go:
sooooo, the wheels move at twice to speed of a plane, and are still connected to teh landing gear.......because????? sticker charged?

[3.4 slow to go]

thre treadmill doesn't have to equall all the thrust from the engine, just the speed in which it moves teh plain.

A plane can sit still w/it's engines running and still not move, how can this be??????? It generates enough thrust to move forward by rolling on it's wheels. The fster it goes, the more air moves across the wings to generate lift. If at the moment it starts to move forward from the stop, the tarmac starts moving backwards at the same speed, how fast is the plane, not the wheels, going? more thrust is applied to overcome so airspeed can be be upped, but the tarmac increases it's speed too.

[98Camaro3.8]

Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go:
If at the moment it starts to move forward from the stop, the tarmac starts moving backwards at the same speed, how fast is the plane, not the wheels, going?

The same speed as before. All the treadmill does is cause the wheels to spin faster underneath the airplane. The plane hasn't changed speed because there's no force that slows it down.

[L32Projekt]

Planes can generate thrust and not move because they have the BRAKES APPLIED. Weight, friction and the brakes can hold an aircraft in place easily... that is until the pilot cranks up the thrust and it'll drag those locked up tires across the tarmac.

You're thinking the treadmill is counteracting the force generated by the engines. It's only spinning the same speed as the aircraft's airspeed, but in the opposite direction.

So, if the plane generates enough thrust to move 1 mph (airspeed), the treadmill moves 1 mph in the other direction making 2MPH net groundspeed. The plane continues building thrust pushing it to 2 mph (airspeed), and now the wheels are moving at a net speed of 4mph (groundspeed) but the aircraft is STILL MOVING FORWARD at 2 mph, because the amount of thrust has not been decreased. It won't move the treadmill faster to hold the plane in the same spot, only to match an opposite wheelspeed to the plane's airspeed.

Airspeed+Wheelspeed=Groundspeed

Let me put it this way:
1 MPH Airspeed, 2MPH Groundspeed = AIRSPEED IS STILL 1 MPH, so the aircraft is still moving.
2 MPH Airspeed, 4MPH Groundspeed = AIRSPEED IS STILL 2 MPH, so the aircraft is still moving.

And this continues because the engines are capable of moving an aircraft with a wheelspeed of 4MPH and higher, aren't they? This is what I'm trying to explain that a modern aircraft can easily achieve 200MPH groundspeed due to the thrust generated by its powerplants.

[3.4 slow to go]

who said a plane couldn't achieve 200mph ground speed?