If they were to do it again, they need to use the same plane but a more grippier, stickier conveyer for more traction.

quote:

Originally posted by Mythion3:
If they were to do it again, they need to use the same plane but a more grippier, stickier conveyer for more traction.

Umm, why? Do you think the wheels were sliding or something?

Planes don't need traction.

quote:

Planes don't need traction.

Let me clarify that before someone busts my chops over it.

Planes don't need traction to take off on a windless day, as in the POAT conditions.

perhaps he's trying to say that if the conveyor belt had a coefficient of friction of higher than 1 (stuff sticks to it), then you could potentially find a plane that would not be able to takeoff from that treadmill even under full power

OK, for us who haven't finished morning coffee yet.....

He want's to glue the plane to the treadmill?

Glue seems like overkill. I wonder if Velcro would be good enough?

quote:

Originally posted by killick123:
OK, for us who haven't finished morning coffee yet.....

He want's to glue the plane to the treadmill?

not a clue what he wants, only guessing on some way that changing the surface of the treadmill will change the outcome.

doesn't have to be glue per se, could be molasses for example

merely increasing the amount of friction on the surface of the treadmill will not change the outcome until the point where the tires stick to the treadmill (i don't think it will anyway)

The only thing that would have made this episode better is if they blew up the plane at the end (without the pilot of course).

Seriously though, I can't believe this is still being debated. They confirmed the myth TWICE; once on the scale model and once with the ultra-light. Scaling it up AGAIN is not going to change the results!!!

quote:

As a pilot, this was a no-brainer to me. Planes fly because of their motion relative to the air, not relative to the ground. With enough of a head wind, a plane doesn't have to be moving relative to the ground to take off.

And you still have it wrong. The plane moves. No need for a head wind.

quote:

Originally posted by killick123:
Let me clarify that before someone busts my chops over it.

Planes don't need traction to take off on a windless day, as in the POAT conditions.

You call that clarification?

The correct answer is that planes don't use traction, period.

Powered flight uses jet propulsion. Some gliders are towed by vehicles that use tractive force, such as a truck. Others are towed by powered planes. But the gliders (and powered airplanes) themselves exert no tractive force whatsoever.

quote:

Powered flight uses jet propulsion. Some gliders are towed by vehicles that use tractive force, such as a truck. Others are towed by powered planes. But the gliders (and powered airplanes) themselves exert no tractive force whatsoever.

Except in braking on landing, which is the "bust my chops" moment I think killick was trying to get around.

quote:

Originally posted by davjosmes:
Except in braking on landing, which is the "bust my chops" moment I think killick was trying to get around.

No, braking is the opposite of tractive force. It's completely passive.

quote:

No, braking is the opposite of tractive force. It's completely passive.

Uh... No. Tractive force is reaction force from the ground to the tire. If you didn't have that, then braking torque would be useless.

quote:

Originally posted by death_mage:
What we have here is a failure to educate.


Myth busted, done correctly, plane flies, if you think otherwise you simply don't understand what's going on and by this point you never will. Willful ignorance of the highest magnitude. You have to strive to be that dumb.

You make baby Darwin cry.

Hey, don't make this personal.

It all depends on how you define 'speed'. Try defining the plane / car / whatever's speed as being relative to the surface it is traveling on. And the conveyor / treadmill / whatever's speed as being relative to the ground / air / whatever stationary element you like.

quote:

Originally posted by phubar:
It all depends on how you define 'speed'. Try defining the plane / car / whatever's speed as being relative to the surface it is traveling on. And the conveyor / treadmill / whatever's speed as being relative to the ground / air / whatever stationary element you like.

Measuring "speed" in different ways yields results that cannot be compared. I know, I know, you'll go ahead and compare them anyway. That's why your conclusions are invalid.

quote:

Originally posted by davjosmes:
Uh... No. Tractive force is reaction force from the ground to the tire. If you didn't have that, then braking torque would be useless.

Maybe in your secret world, but not in the real one. Look at a dictionary some time.

quote:

Maybe in your secret world, but not in the real one. Look at a dictionary some time.

From IEEE...

"Tractive force is reaction force from the ground to the tire."

From an article on braking... Yeah. That's where I got it to begin with.

Just one small problem with that claim: IEEE is the professional organization for ELECTRICAL engineers, not mechanical. As the former, I'm a member of IEEE. Didn't count on that, did you?

Better luck next time.

quote:

Just one small problem with that claim: IEEE is the professional organization for ELECTRICAL engineers, not mechanical. As the former, I'm a member of IEEE. Didn't count on that, did you?

Hey, sparkey... The article was about sensing and control. Better luck next time...

lol. Why are we arguing this? We are on the same side of the PoaT argument, right? And killick made the original statement. Let him clarify it.