Nuclear power available on carriers can produce more then enough power for such a contraption. I think the US Navy would have more then enough $$ to complete such a project that is if it would work (which it won't)
Good point, they could make the carriers a lot smaller and do away with those catapult things!!!
:idea:
The whole argument for not moving is already answered by the question.
Not necessarily. It could easily be interpreted as the 'standing' position being the initial state of the experiment, prior to the plane trying to take off. This is how others and myself have interpreted the question.
It's also how the question was intended. If you read back a few pages, you will see the person who posed the question has said your position of the plane not moving is incorrect.
this thread is retarded. i cant believe it has gone 10 pages. post whores
Point being Tom you can't hold the plane still regardless of ground speed. So it's irrelevant if the plane was static or moving?
If the plane is zero, and the conveyor belt "lurched" 100 mph for 2 seconds.. Disregarding drag coefficients again, the plane would still be in the same place.
This is almost like asking, if you lower the landing gear and the wheels are stopped, does the plane fall out of the sky?
RD
this thread is retarded.
... as are all who post in it.
If the planes GPS reads 80, what does the treadmill's speedo read? HMMM, that would mean the plane is moving forward, eh? (for you Canucks).
In the scenario that the plane cannot take off, the plane GPS would be reading 0, then how is the treadmill not also at 0, remember it is automatically adjusting to the planes speed (i.e. GPS reading)?
Three speeds:
Plane speed - X
Treadmill speed - X
wheel speed - 2x
Chicken or the Egg? Beef or Chicken? Taco Bell or Del Taco?
This is almost like asking, if you lower the landing gear and the wheels are stopped, does the plane fall out of the sky?
RD
Lol....great answer. This should clear things up.
If the plane is zero, and the conveyor belt "lurched" 100 mph for 2 seconds.. Disregarding drag coefficients again, the plane would still be in the same place.
Interesting. I was going to use the analogy of pulling the table cloth out from under the dishes.
This is almost like asking, if you lower the landing gear and the wheels are stopped, does the plane fall out of the sky?
It seems clear lots of people think it would.
A while ago, I asked which boat would win a drag race between an 8 second boat and a 10 second boat. Most of the answers were, "it depends". They wanted to talk about torque (since it's more important than horsepower
We need more Asian immigrants to bring up our science marks.
If the planes GPS reads 80, what does the treadmill's speedo read?
In the scenario that the plane cannot take off, the plane GPS would be reading 0, then how is the treadmill not also?
Chicken or the Egg? Beef or Chicken? Taco Bell or Del Taco?
If the planes GPS reads 80, then the MPH on the conveyor belt would be 80mph in the opposite direction.. (As answered by the original question "MATCHING PLANE SPEED IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION." The tires would now be doing 160mph though, and the plane will still be moving 80mph in a forward direction.
Again though The plane could read 80mph, and the conveyor could be 200mph, it doesn't matter.. The tires will be doing 280mph and the plane will still be doing 80mph and on it's way to take off.
RD
If you're the top man in an airtight chick project
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote