NO FlY, this helped convert someone in a different thread, please look at it and respond to the question at the end.


- Strap a rocket onto a skateboard.

- Place that skateboard on a treadmill.

- Fire the rocket with the treadmill's track matching the speed exactly.

Q - What will the rocket do? Stay in one place or go shooting off the front of the treadmill?

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:
We already know that you use the belt as a reference frame for the plane. In that reference frame the belt is moving with 0 mph.

Well, THERE'S your problem. That is not true.
Myth is only plane is can move X speed forward, belt will move X speed in reverse.

quote:

Originally posted by ericw66:

Well, THERE'S your problem. That is not true.
Myth is only plane is can move X speed forward, belt will move X speed in reverse.

Belt cannot move relative to itself with any speed different than 0 mph. Well, unless you have smoked something very strong

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
poor choice of words.
as you sorta stated and I agreed with....if it does move relative to the ground/air then the belt can't do its job and the attempt is broken because of setup violation.
You hit the big red STOP button.

No, you're changing the myth itself.
The belt's only "job" is to rotate backwards, not "hold the plane back", you're READING that into the wording, which is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't say "with the plane staying stationary", it simply asks "can the plane take off". YOU are assuming the plane will stay stationary.

BTW, if the plane is moving at 25mph FORWARD (the track has to match it backward remember), how can the plane be going zero?

We are NOT talking about wheel speed, we are talking about PLANE SPEED, which an observer with a radar gun would track.

quote:

Originally posted by c26bt34c:

True...but some planes, get lift from the props sending air over the wings (C-26, C-130, E-2). I flew C-26's...and we got a lot of lift from our props blowing wind over the wing...regardless of forward air speed. It was not enough to fly...but it did allow for shorter takeoff/landing distances. I suppose its theoretically possible to build a plane that generates so much lift this way that it could hover.

It couldn't hover, because all that air blowing backwards is still going to push the plane forward (and pretty rapidly with that much power). What it COULD do, however, is take off without a runway. You'd just have to keep the brakes locked until it lifted off. But this is all theoretical, because to get that much power, your machine is going to be waaaay too heavy to fly.

In a way, it's almost irresponsible for us to talk about this, because it's only going to confuse some people even more.

graham75, I know the answer of my question. You would measure the speed of the belt relative to the Earth. That means you use different reference frames to measure your speeds. But don't be afraid. I'll let you do it, unlike other guys. Just be honest and confirm that.

Don't worry about that, Paladin... they mostly just post a complaint or two and leave without reading anything... if they haven't read the explanations, why would they read any sidetracks?

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
poor choice of words.
as you sorta stated and I agreed with....if it does move relative to the ground/air then the belt can't do its job and the attempt is broken because of setup violation.
You hit the big red STOP button.

No, you're changing the myth itself.
The belt's only "job" is to rotate backwards, not "hold the plane back", you're READING that into the wording, which is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't say "with the plane staying stationary", it simply asks "can the plane take off". YOU are assuming the plane will stay stationary.

BTW, if the plane is moving at 25mph FORWARD (the track has to match it backward remember), how can the plane be going zero?

We are NOT talking about wheel speed, we are talking about PLANE SPEED, which an observer with a radar gun would track.

now where did I say the that the belt's job was to "hold the plane back"? Where? This is yet another example of you guys adding extra stuff to a pov that isn't yours.

I have not changed the myth. What I did do was attempt to provide a post that had both sides of the argument in it. Not so surprisingly you and others can't counter one side without blatently changing the information at the very heart of teh argument. Case in point...."hold the plane back".

Again, notice the you are the one mentioning wheel speed.....where did I mention it in this particular discussion?

FOWARD on the BELT SURFACE. not sitting still on the BELT SURFACE or moving backwards on the BELT SURFACE.

BTW, I too am NOT talking about wheel speed....but you sure like to mention it. Perhaps you should do a little more reading before posting like that again.

quote:

Not paying real close attention to what is being written are you? Heck, you even quote and challenge some of the info.

Graham Cracker...youre right about one thing...I haven't been paying attention cause I'm drunk. But one thing is for sure...if ever a guy was WRONG...it's you. You are one dumb S@B.

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:
graham75, I know the answer of my question. You would measure the speed of the belt relative to the Earth. That means you use different reference frames to measure your speeds. But don't be afraid. I'll let you do it, unlike other guys. Just be honest and confirm that.

Confirm what? That when YOU are given specific information YOU can't follow it? That you simply must change the information? I can whole heartedly agree to that.
Remember what this discussion is about...I posted three views and you are I suppose replying to one of them but if you change the given are you still participating in the discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by c26bt34c:

quote:

Not paying real close attention to what is being written are you? Heck, you even quote and challenge some of the info.

Graham Cracker...youre right about one thing...I haven't been paying attention cause I'm drunk. But one thing is for sure...if ever a guy was WRONG...it's you. You are one dumb S@B.

well if i'm wrong you haven't done one thing to prove me wrong.
Perhaps you should stop drinking before too much damage is done, that is unless it is too late already. I'm leaning towards the latter.

And since to admit to not paying attention I feel perfectly justified in ignoring any further posts from you on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:

quote:

Originally posted by ericw66:

Well, THERE'S your problem. That is not true.
Myth is only plane is can move X speed forward, belt will move X speed in reverse.

Belt cannot move relative to itself with any speed different than 0 mph. Well, unless you have smoked something very strong

No, the belt is NOT the reference to the plane. If the plane is moving 25mph the belt is moving 25 mph backwards. That's the myth. And since the plane is moving, it will take off.

Where do you get the "plane has to not be moving in relation to the belt?"

quote:

Perhaps you should stop drinking before too much damage is done, that is unless it is too late already. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Somebody else should stop talking before they prove how damaged they actually are.

quote:

Originally posted by reillyjb:

quote:

Perhaps you should stop drinking before too much damage is done, that is unless it is too late already. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Somebody else should stop talking before they prove how damaged they actually are.

If you can actually counter my explaination post then by all means do so.
Just remember that you are countering me and not some text of mine that you butcher or some other pov that you pull out of the air.

quote:

If you can actually counter my explaination post then by all means do so

Nobody can counter your explanation, becuase your explanations make no sense to those of us that opperate in the real world.

quote:

Originally posted by reillyjb:

quote:

If you can actually counter my explaination post then by all means do so

Nobody can counter your explanation, becuase your explanations make no sense to those of us that opperate in the real world.

well i'm sorry your reading comprehension is sub-par. not a thing I can do about that. thought my explaination was pretty good, except the whole "plane won't move" admitted goof.

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
Confirm what? That when YOU are given specific information YOU can't follow it? That you simply must change the information? I can whole heartedly agree to that.
Remember what this discussion is about...I posted three views and you are I suppose replying to one of them but if you change the given are you still participating in the discussion?

I follow the information very well. You never defined how you're going to measure the speed of the belt in clear text. I had to assume that you measure the speed of the belt relative to some unmovable part of the device. If I also assume that the device is mounted on the ground, then I'm correct that you measure the speed of the belt relative to the ground.

But you see there are two assumptions here. That's why I need confirmation.

quote:

well if i'm wrong you haven't done one thing to prove me wrong.
Perhaps you should stop drinking before too much damage is done, that is unless it is too late already. I'm leaning towards the latter.

And since to admit to not paying attention I feel perfectly justified in ignoring any further posts from you on the subject.

Graham Cracker...I have been writing on this post since it started months ago....I have proved you wrong....see my earlier posts. theres hundreds on this subject. Youre wrapped up on this treadmill belt thing. Its irrelavent. What if a hovercraft were on the treadmill...would the speed of the belt matter? Or what if the belts surface was ICE...and the plane was on skis...would the belt speed matter? The belt could travel 100,000 mph...and a hovercraft or skiplane wouldn't know the difference. That is essentially what WHEELS do. They simulate a frictionless surface. Now...I am headed to the fridge to get another beer...to do more "damage" which is what all naval aviators do the day prior to the superbowl.

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
poor choice of words.
as you sorta stated and I agreed with....if it does move relative to the ground/air then the belt can't do its job and the attempt is broken because of setup violation.
You hit the big red STOP button.

No, you're changing the myth itself.
The belt's only "job" is to rotate backwards, not "hold the plane back", you're READING that into the wording, which is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't say "with the plane staying stationary", it simply asks "can the plane take off". YOU are assuming the plane will stay stationary.

BTW, if the plane is moving at 25mph FORWARD (the track has to match it backward remember), how can the plane be going zero?

We are NOT talking about wheel speed, we are talking about PLANE SPEED, which an observer with a radar gun would track.

now where did I say the that the belt's job was to "hold the plane back"? Where?

You said it right here - "if it does move relative to the ground/air then the belt can't do its job", which means "hold the plane back", because you think that the belt WILL hold the plane back. If you didn't, you wouldn't be a no fly.

quote:

Originally posted by ericw66:

Well, THERE'S your problem. That is not true.
Myth is only plane is can move X speed forward, belt will move X speed in reverse.

Belt cannot move relative to itself with any speed different than 0 mph. Well, unless you have smoked something very strong [/QUOTE]

No, the belt is NOT the reference to the plane. If the plane is moving 25mph the belt is moving 25 mph backwards. That's the myth. And since the plane is moving, it will take off.

Where do you get the "plane has to not be moving in relation to the belt?"[/QUOTE]

I never said that. I said "the BELT is not moving relative to the BELT". There is no "plane" in that sentence.