PDA

View Full Version : Aircraft on a conveyor belt



LStarosta
09-26-2006, 06:19 AM
.

joeap
09-26-2006, 06:22 AM
I voted not take off, but that was assuming NO wind.

Chuck_Older
09-26-2006, 06:22 AM
Aw, Luke, you should wait until we've forgotten about this one before posting this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
09-26-2006, 06:24 AM
The question is flawed, as it points to the incorrect answer. The conveyor "nullifys" nothing.

But if there were space aliens, and a temporal dimension shift in the 3rd paralell.. it may just take off using the same amount of space.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-26-2006, 06:24 AM
Is that with gear up or down?

LStarosta
09-26-2006, 06:27 AM
Kthx for pointing that out Megiel. foixed

MEGILE
09-26-2006, 06:27 AM
Thanks Luke.

I'm a stickler for correct fishing procedures.

LStarosta
09-26-2006, 06:28 AM
p.s. You're dangerous.

tom19073
09-26-2006, 06:31 AM
I remember seeing a WWII era fighter that had conveyer belt style main landing gear. Possibly a P-40 but I can't remember for certain. It didn't work out well from what I remember.

LStarosta
09-26-2006, 06:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

-HH- Beebop
09-26-2006, 06:34 AM
Where is raaid when you really need him?

WOLFMondo
09-26-2006, 06:35 AM
I read the post before the poster and thought it was raaaaid.

p-11.cAce
09-26-2006, 06:36 AM
Let's see if this goes longer this time - how many pages did the original get?? 14, 15?

MEGILE
09-26-2006, 06:36 AM
26

BaldieJr
09-26-2006, 06:42 AM
A better question would be:
If rails moved the opposite direction and same speed of an underground train leaving Mornington Crescent, where would the next stop be?

ploughman
09-26-2006, 06:50 AM
Bourbon Strasse.

rnzoli
09-26-2006, 07:01 AM
the conveyor belt will take off, the airplane remains on the ground

i think that was the answer from the original thread

*edit*

"Beware of conveyor belt flyers" - followup thread
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/290...901054314#2901054314 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2901054314?r=2901054314#2901054314)

Klemm.co
09-26-2006, 07:02 AM
Ok, back to subject. I'd say because the wheels have no friction and the airplane uses the air, not it's wheels to accellerate, that the airplane would accellerate normal.
The conveyor belt would get really fast in a short time, but it's of no matter because it practically doesn't exist for the airplane because of no friction.
It's like the plane had it's undercarriage retracted and would be held above the ground by an anti-gravity device.

I don't know what the last discussion about this led to, but this is my take on the subject.

Anyone willing to discuss this anymore or is this thread already a spam- thread?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-26-2006, 07:09 AM
So what would propel the aircraft forwards once it has risen from the conveyor belt? Would it not lose speed? Would it not descend back onto the belt? Would the whole process go on and on for ever? Would big Debbie from accounts take me up on my offer of a night in with a couple of cans of squirty cream? I gots to know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

rnzoli
09-26-2006, 07:12 AM
this thread was a spam-thread from post #1


see original thread "Interesting riddle" http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8551099804/p/1

it's locked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
09-26-2006, 07:23 AM
Where's raaaid, when you need him?

LStarosta
09-26-2006, 07:32 AM
He who is raaaid runs on one leg silently.

Philipscdrw
09-26-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
So what would propel the aircraft forwards once it has risen from the conveyor belt? Would it not lose speed? Would it not descend back onto the belt? Would the whole process go on and on for ever? Would big Debbie from accounts take me up on my offer of a night in with a couple of cans of squirty cream? I gots to know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The inertia of the plane would keep it moving, the thrust from the engine would counter the drag and let it accelerate, exactly like any aircraft at takeoff speed just after it leaves the runway.

If the rails at Mornington Crescent moved backwards at the same speed as the train moves forwards, it means the train is moving forwards but at half the speed it would be doing if the rails were fixed. It would then arrive at Euston, if memory serves and the train is going south.

Klemm.co
09-26-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
this thread was a spam-thread from post #1


see original thread "Interesting riddle" http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8551099804/p/1

it's locked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok i see http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif didn't see who started the topic.
Let's go on spamming then.

MEGILE
09-26-2006, 08:34 AM
If this gets 10 pages, I quit life.

BaldieJr
09-26-2006, 10:58 AM
You were aborted anyway.

p-11.cAce
09-26-2006, 11:02 AM
The plane takes off and the trains next stop is...Mornington Crescent.

Snodrvr
09-26-2006, 12:32 PM
That is a tricky one. My first guess would be to assume that because the Conveyor belt is moving backwards at the same speed the aircraft is moving, it couldn't get enough air flowing over the wing to get it into the air.

Think of it as the opposite of a carrier Take off. The plane hits ten mph, the carrier is doing ten mph backwards, your base speed is zero, the air is not moving over your wings except for wind (Which we will ignore, as it's effect would be negligible on this experiment).

In theory, you would never be able to get enough air flowing over the wings to generate the lift needed for take off. The plane would roll indefinitly until either the your run out of Fuel or you burn the engine out.

The only other possibility, would be because of the impossibility of an infinitely long conveyor belt, that we say it never happened and move on.

Cold Meat Platter
09-26-2006, 01:00 PM
hi
usually lurk but i remember there being a really berserk man in that thread who kept me amused. May have to go and have another look.

Klemm.co
09-26-2006, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Snodrvr:

In theory, you would never be able to get enough air flowing over the wings to generate the lift needed for take off. The plane would roll indefinitly until either the your run out of Fuel or you burn the engine out.


No, no.
You didn't understand that the conveyor belt has got no effect on the airplane because the wheels have no friction.
There is NO bit of energy of the forward movement of the plane subtracted by the conveyor belt. Only the WHEELS forward movement is countered by the conveyor belt, not the planes.
Further the aircraft doesn't accellerate whith it's wheels but rather with it's propeller/ jet engine.
SOOOOO... the conveyor belt and what happens to it in it's attempt to match the planes wheels speed is totally, absolutely irrelevant.
On the other hand, from what i see the conveyor belt would get pretty fast very soon, it may have an effect on the air above it and because of it's speed drags enough air whith it to give the plane's wings lift so it can take off faster and forget about the stupid conveyor belt.
Since the aircraft took off and the wheels are no longer on the conveyor belt, the conveyor belt has no longer to worry about matching some speed of some wheels of an aircraft standing on it.
So in turn it would come to a very abrupt stop when the aircraft takes off and the wheels are leaving, so the airflow it produced would vanish.
The A/C could not have gotten very high and fast in the meantime and whith the added airspeed taken away, it would thus plunge right back on the conveyor belt.
When it's a sturdy A/C with a sturdy gear, it may remain intact and the game would begin all over again...
Since the wheels have not stopped spinning at the moment of the reunition of the A/C and the conveyor belt, the conveyor belt would get incredibly fast again and the A/C would probably take off again.
This would go on till either the aircraft broke or it ran out of gas. Or it finally takes off and gets the h*ll away from the stupid conveyor belt.

So to summarize: This conveyor belt and aircraft and no frition of wheels and matching of the speed of conveyor belt and wheels stuff is TOTAL, MEANINGLESS BULLSH**.

I wonder if anybody cares to read through that fancy theory???

OD_79
09-26-2006, 01:54 PM
Actually you're all missing the point, all he said is it matches the speed of the wheels...he didn't say how fast the wheels were going! So if it is not moving then it is matching the speed of the wheels!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Maybe when you start the engine it will take off!

OD.

Treetop64
09-26-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Let's see if this goes longer this time - how many pages did the original get?? 14, 15?

Almost 30 pages. Yup.

F6_Ace
09-26-2006, 02:00 PM
How much vertical deflection of the belt is there? Or, if you prefer, how close to each other are the rollers?

I predict that an initial deflection greater than 2.7mm would induce a third harmonic oscillation that would match the resonant frequency of the aircraft and, thus, the aircraft would implode like the bad guy in that minisub thing in the Abyss.

BOA_Allmenroder
09-26-2006, 02:07 PM
Based upon observations of our online flying community I can speculate:

1. the plane goes to full throttle immediately.
2. it kareems 45 to 90 degrees off the belt.
3. proceeds to bounce repeatedly until it either,
4. crashes into another conveyor belt containing another aircraft, or,
5. hits the trees, or
6. successfully takes off.
7. in the event of 2 through 5, the offending pilot will call all around him noobs and immediately repeat the same tactic with another aircraft.

Klemm.co
09-26-2006, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by OD_79:
Actually you're all missing the point, all he said is it matches the speed of the wheels...he didn't say how fast the wheels were going! So if it is not moving then it is matching the speed of the wheels!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Maybe when you start the engine it will take off!

OD.

Hmmmm...
Now that your'e saying it...
The conveyor belt doesn't have to move on it's own AT ALL. Cause when the plane starts moving, the conveyor belt starts moving RELATIVE to the plane in the other direction, thereby exactly matching the speed of the wheels! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Man this is simply brilliant. Thanks for the hint http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Treetop64
09-26-2006, 03:18 PM
Somebody please pinch me.

This cannot be happening again... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Akronnick
09-26-2006, 03:42 PM
The only thing that went trough the bowl of petunias head was: "Oh no, not again!"

It has been suggested that if we knew why the bowl of petunias thought that, We would all be a lot happier.

and the answer is 42.

Klemm.co
09-26-2006, 03:50 PM
and the answer is 42. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

That's right! How did you know that!

arjisme
09-26-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by OD_79:
Maybe when you start the engine it will take off!
Um, he never said anything about the plane having an engine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sergio_101
09-26-2006, 05:39 PM
take the same amount of space to take off.\\

Really incorrect, it would take the same amount of distance to take off.

No aircraft, except a few off car/aircraft hybrids
use the wheels for drives.
Unless the air remains at the speed of the conveyor
there will be no effect.

Usless poll, I'm an idiot to bother responding.

Sergio

biggs222
09-26-2006, 05:56 PM
this si an old thread... what is it with you guys? what is this the one year aniversary of this thread?....

although i do enjoy how it STILL gets ppl fired up about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

bun-bun195333
09-26-2006, 05:58 PM
Lucy takes the cake to the window and the plane falls off the end of the conveyor.

AKA_TAGERT
09-26-2006, 06:00 PM
Now that we have that all figured out, lets move onto more important questions.. Which is shinner, a dime or a nickle?

Sergio_101
09-27-2006, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Now that we have that all figured out, lets move onto more important questions.. Which is shinner, a dime or a nickle?


Pre 1964 or post 1964 dime? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sergio

gdfo
09-27-2006, 05:16 AM
The whole scenario is flawed.

It is like the 'half the distance' thing.

Consider the impossibility of a frictionless contact (oxymoron) between the wheels and an improbable conveyer belt system that would have to have zero time response to the action on it. The premise is illogical.

Breeze147
09-27-2006, 06:31 AM
Taking off from a conveyor belt is a piece of cake. Try landing on one.

skarden
09-27-2006, 06:46 AM
wow!!
Are we bored or what http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LStarosta
09-27-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by gdfo:
The whole scenario is flawed.

It is like the 'half the distance' thing.

Consider the impossibility of a frictionless contact (oxymoron) between the wheels and an improbable conveyer belt system that would have to have zero time response to the action on it. The premise is illogical.

I am afraid that you are flawed, sir.

DuxCorvan
09-27-2006, 04:19 PM
Anyway, I'd end doing it with the stewardess in the aircraft bathroom just the same. So, answer is: it takes the same amount of time till I take off... clothes.

zbw_109
09-28-2006, 04:25 AM
Kiel, Germany's next capital (Berlin,Munich)

OD_79
09-28-2006, 04:49 AM
I think a more relevant question is how the coconuts got here in the first place. Was it carried by two European Swallows or an African swallow (non-migratory)?
This question is fundamental to the understanding of impersonating horses and the principles of flight - I mean how can a 2lb bird carry a 4lb cocnut?

OD.

han freak solo
09-28-2006, 07:00 AM
What's your favourite colour?

MEGILE
09-28-2006, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
What's your favourite colour?

Blue... no yellow!

shahram177
09-28-2006, 10:07 AM
Guys this is an easy question!
Zero friction wheels?
Think ice skates + jet pack!
In theory assuming zero frictin wheels the plane will take off with less room because standard wheels have friction thus it takes longer to reach needed speed for lift.
A plane on ice skates needs less room for it accelerates faster.

Monty_Thrud
09-28-2006, 11:12 AM
Y'all realise this SPAM slows the t'internet down evertime you post...teh .50's will cease to work all together, veeeerrrry soon...y'all have been warned.


***THIS IS A PUBLIC HEATH WARNING, KINDLY BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE T'INTERNET MILITIA***

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gifPeace out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

gdfo
09-28-2006, 01:22 PM
To LStarosta

Your was the only post to make a personal insulting remark. I will add that what I stated is still true.

You cannot get a logical solution from a problem that poses impossible qualities.

If you shoot an arrow at a target and it takes 2 seconds to go 50% of the distance you can theoretically state that it would take 1 second to go 50% of the second half of the distance. If you keep dividing the distances by half you will quickly be down to microseconds and the arrow never reaches the target.
Get it. Flawed premise.

Breeze147
09-28-2006, 02:36 PM
What type of arrows? What type of bow? What materials are they made of? What were the weather conditions? Is there are chart plotting the velocity of different type arrows shot from different type bows?

Jetbuff
09-28-2006, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
which matched the aircraft's wheel spin speed perfectly,
Without this key phrase this would be like the original post. However, if the wheel speed is matched, then the aircraft is not moving, hence no wind over the wings and no lift.

The last time round, the conveyor belt matched the speed of the aircraft, not the wheels, which in turn could spin twice as fast allowing the plane to move forward inspite of the conveyor belt. In that case it would take twice the conveyor belt distance to take off but only normal distance relative to terra firma.

NonWonderDog
09-28-2006, 06:18 PM
Are you trying to stir things up? If the axle friction is zero, the conveyor belt has no possible mechanism to apply force to the plane in any direction except normal to its surface. The conveyor belt can't keep the plane from moving unless the plane's brakes are on.

Of course, it isn't possible for the conveyor to match the wheel speed unless the wheels have zero friction or the plane is stationary. There is absolutely nothing whatsover keeping the plane from moving forward, so the only rational conclusion is that the conveyor speed and the wheel speed will never match.

In the theoretical case, the wheel speed and conveyor speed would instantaneously approach infinity as soon as the speed of the plane was increased from anything but exactly zero... but the plane would still take off.

In the real case, the wheels would spin very quickly up to a very high speed until the bearing friction overcame the friction of the wheels on the conveyor and the tires screeched along the runway. You'd probably reach some maximum conveyor/wheel speed, and the accelleration of the plane would depend on the ratio of thrust to sliding friction. If the thrust were less than sliding friction, you'd probably have the plane moving backwards on the conveyor with the wheels spinning at several million RPM and screeching against the conveyor. If the thrust and sliding friction were equal, the plane would stand still on the runway with the wheels spinning at several million RPM and screeching against the conveyor. If the thrust was greater than sliding friction, the plane would take off, but with a longer takeoff roll and the wheels spinning at several million RPM and screeching against the conveyor.

Of course, all these cases are nonsense, because the arbitrary constraints on the problem are impossibilities.

LStarosta
09-28-2006, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by gdfo:
To LStarosta

Your was the only post to make a personal insulting remark. I will add that what I stated is still true.

You cannot get a logical solution from a problem that poses impossible qualities.

If you shoot an arrow at a target and it takes 2 seconds to go 50% of the distance you can theoretically state that it would take 1 second to go 50% of the second half of the distance. If you keep dividing the distances by half you will quickly be down to microseconds and the arrow never reaches the target.
Get it. Flawed premise.

If you know me at all or anything about my reputation around here, you would know that everything I say is tongue-in-cheek and I'm just joking.

Don't take anything personally. I'm sure you're a great guy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

About the problem: these are GIVENS for the sake of an argument. When you went to physics class and learned projectile motion, you were told a GIVEN and that given is that you are to assume there is no air resistance.

It's a hypothetical scenario. Of course it's not realistic.

WWMaxGunz
09-28-2006, 06:35 PM
Since the wheels are not what makes the plane go forward, the whole issue of wheel and conveyor
speed has no meaning except to eliminate wheel bearing friction during the takeoff roll. And
tire friction... you get that normally anyway.

However, does the belt friction on the air above it create a lift force on the underside of
the wings?

So this must be one long and useless conveyer belt. Sort of like the thread.

NonWonderDog
09-28-2006, 06:41 PM
Ah, yes. As the conveyor moves at several million mph, it would create the most unholy ground effect ever seen by man, allowing the plane to float straight up to whatever altitude allows it to accellerate normally to takeoff speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I forgot that bit.

NonWonderDog
09-28-2006, 06:48 PM
Or, of course, there's the simple answer. If the conveyor matches the linear speed of the wheel's contact patch, relative to the ground (ZERO!), the conveyor would behave exactly like a fixed runway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Klemm.co
09-28-2006, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Or, of course, there's the simple answer. If the conveyor matches the linear speed of the wheel's contact patch, relative to the ground (ZERO!), the conveyor would behave exactly like a fixed runway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Right, read my post on page 2 of this thread for the same statement a bit more exaggerated, if you missed it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

major_setback
09-29-2006, 09:08 AM
This may have been posted:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-...rcraft+conveyor+belt (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLC,GGLC:1970-01,GGLC:en&q=aircraft+conveyor+belt)

BfHeFwMe
09-29-2006, 05:25 PM
All your convery belt belong us, be sure.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/2000/images/1sqnnews5.jpg

Jatro13th
09-30-2006, 12:30 AM
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! !!!!!!
Huys you've gotta be joking!!!!!!!!! A long absence from the forums and when I finally come to see again what's going on, I see this again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've made my day ladies and gentlemen! Greetings to you all!!!!!

major_setback
10-01-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Jatro13th:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! !!!!!!
Huys you've gotta be joking!!!!!!!!! A long absence from the forums and when I finally come to see again what's going on, I see this again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've made my day ladies and gentlemen! Greetings to you all!!!!!

yes, we haven't actually got around to discussing anything else yet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You haven't missed much.