Will it take off?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I don't listen to that which makes no sense. It was blatantly obvious, to me at least, that those people had a very limited knowledge of physics.

It's blatantly obvious that the people who think the tread mill is going to hold back an airplane doesn't understand physics at all. The physics is the drag of the wheels can not come close to holding back the thrust of the motor. But not even the real point. The question says when the plane moves the ground moves in the opposite direction. Even if the plane couldn't overcome the treadmill the question says it does so the question of whether it can or can't doesn't matter. The question assumes it can. Even if it were a car it would still move. The speed has to be based on a non moving object or the problem doesn't work as written. Anybody that doesn't understand this has a limited knowledge to be able to understand the question.

[wolfdogs]

It's blatantly obvious that the people who think the tread mill is going to hold back an airplane doesn't understand physics at all. The physics is the drag of the wheels can not come close to holding back the thrust of the motor. But not even the real point. The question says when the plane moves the ground moves in the opposite direction. Even if the plane couldn't overcome the treadmill the question says it does so the question of whether it can or can't doesn't matter. The question assumes it can. Even if it were a car it would still move. The speed has to be based on a non moving object or the problem doesn't work as written. Anybody that doesn't understand this has a limited knowledge to be able to understand the question.

"jerk the handle, the razors inside, sir........"

Pink floyd

[Trash man]

Why cant this just die?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? (insert smiley with machine gun and/or bazooka firing)

[bru333]

Why cant this just die?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? (insert smiley with machine gun and/or bazooka firing)

[fastTa]

It's blatantly obvious that the people who think the tread mill is going to hold back an airplane doesn't understand physics at all. The physics is the drag of the wheels can not come close to holding back the thrust of the motor. But not even the real point. The question says when the plane moves the ground moves in the opposite direction. Even if the plane couldn't overcome the treadmill the question says it does so the question of whether it can or can't doesn't matter. The question assumes it can. Even if it were a car it would still move. The speed has to be based on a non moving object or the problem doesn't work as written. Anybody that doesn't understand this has a limited knowledge to be able to understand the question.

I never said the plane wouldn't move forward, just said it wouldn't have enough speed to take off. When you few guys made the horrible mistake of trying to compare a large airplane to that of the scale of a skateboard or a toy, I knew right then and there we had lost you for good.

So not only do you not have a grasp as to understanding this particular scale of physical laws and fundamentals, you don't listen either.

But then again, people who allow their tempers to get the best of them rarely do.

Anything that I have to say right now should not be put on this board.

[Trash man]

"Do not push the lil red button" (pushes red button) "nuke deployed, Target Air plane question"

[Jeff_in_Atl]

But then again, people who allow their tempers to get the best of them rarely do.

Yea I get that way when someone's opinions are disjointed, illogical, and not well formed. Sorry. My bad.

Here you say

I
LOL, of course the plane can eventually take off, but it would take more double the energy(thrust) to do so because of the added friction of the oppositely moving runway.

Breaking this down you are saying that if the friction of the wheels doubles then the thrust of the plane would have to double. That is not true. If the friction of the wheels requires 1% of the engine power to move the plane then doubling it to 2% only requires 1% more power out of the engines to overcome the force to move the plane. The air requires much more power to move the plane through it. As the speed of the airplane doubles the air resistance quadruples. I do not know the exact percentage of power it takes to roll the plane but it does not take much thrust to get it rolling and after it gets rolling they pull the engines back to idle and it keeps rolling. If there was a lot of resistance in the wheels they would have to keep the engines revved up to produce thrust to keep it moving and since they don't we know that is not true.

Jeff...Jeff...Jeff. In order for a plane to fly it must "take off". Equally but inversely consequently, it must "take off" to fly. Semantics my brother.

"Semantics my brother" is condescending.

Here you say

I always agreed that the plane would eventually fly if it were moving forward relative to the ground, BUT the original question, I feel, strongly incinuated that the plane would be sitting still relative to the ground with the conveyor runway moving backwards beneath it's wheels. That's where I found fault.

Which says you think the plane never moves. Which says the speed of the plane is measured based on the tread mill.

Here you say

I never said the plane wouldn't move forward, just said it wouldn't have enough speed to take off. When you few guys made the horrible mistake of trying to compare a large airplane to that of the scale of a skateboard or a toy, I knew right then and there we had lost you for good.

Which says you think the plane does move. Which says the speed of the plane is measured based on the ground.

So it's a little hard to follow when your opinion changes or was not well formed in the first place.

Here you say

It is almost inconceivable that some people can pretend to be so smart, yet their arrogance is what ultimately and inevadably prevents them from processing a logical thought within the realm of reality.

Talking about the idiot in the article BTW.

This is a well disguised cutting remark. Even though you say the comment is about the writer of the article since what the writer of the article is saying is the same thing I am saying the comment applies to me personally and is a personal attack. I'm sure you will come back saying it is not but you and I both know it is. The smiley face does not excuse it.

Yes I said

"Gah… people are freakin’ stupid." Just a quote from the article which is not necessarily my opinion.

But that was not my comment. That was a quote without adding any opinion from me. Yours was not the same thing. Those are your comments not one from the article. There is a big difference there.

I shouldn't have to explain this, BUT....
From http://www.f-body.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=209

Another cutting remark implying we are stupid.

...Unreal. Narcissism at it's finest. …
From http://www.f-body.com/forum/showpost...9&postcount=14

Saying that what a person said is "Narcissism" is also saying that the person who said it Narcissistic. It's just well disguised. That is flaming.

So not only do you not have a grasp as to understanding this particular scale of physical laws and fundamentals, you don't listen either.

I have a lot better grasp of it than you think. You seem to have a problem listening or reading in this case too. You throw out all of the evidence that does not support your opinion and quote someone's opinion who does not explain that opinion at all.

Worse, you made this a personal attack. You cleverly disguised it though enough to get it by the moderators so I have to give you credit for that. I should add that I have seen people do this unaware that they were doing it. Maybe this is the case here. Only you can answer that.

[Joe 1320]

Well, this one is now a prime candidate for the trash bin.

[Joe 1320]

Just thought I would bring this back to the top. For what it's worth, Mythbusters did a segment on this very arguement. The plane took off. Why? It's simple physics. The plane's prop performs work against air, not the treadmill. As soon as the plane's motor fires up, the prop starts it's work and the plane moves forward, the plane takes off.

Kind of interesting to look back at the posts in this thread, some people were quite pointed in their remarks and convinced of their own intellect. LMAO!

[Steel2686]

Oh no! It lives!

This was the most hotly debated topic in all my time here. I couldn't believe how much people got into it with each other over physics laws. I saw the Mythbusters episode you are referring to, Joe. I had to laugh while watching it just because of this very thread.

It's also interesting to see some old faces and names. Some left because... Ummm... They were "asked" to I guess the rest sold their f-body and moved on.

[Joe 1320]

Most are still on here, just don't post that often. Some sold their F-body and don't visit, and yeah..... a few were "requested" to vanish.

[thomas]

OMG I thought I went back in time! I remember this thread and actually remember this thread on just about every forum on the net! And it all went down hill on all of them. lol

ps yeah I wish I had my fbody.

[Trash man]

haha this was the hottest thread i'd ever posted, i did too see that episode, and im sure some people will say its not a proper test but either way, it still took off and always will.


btw - if my truck sells, i will be back in a f-body, a 95 formula. hopefully

[Steel2686]

Most are still on here, just don't post that often. Some sold their F-body and don't visit, and yeah..... a few were "requested" to vanish.

I was hoping the inception of the new Camaro would have spurred old users back and new users to join. I guess it's partly due to GM not using the "f-body" chassis name anymore? Who knows... I love coming here but I still long for the days when it was several updated threads an hour.

[Joshu]

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy is this thread back? hahahaha