Thread: Airplane on a treadmill

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

no doubts about it...

there are facts though.....and laws....it won't fly.

I think I get it now... the treadmill is covered with fly paper.

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

no doubts about it...

there are facts though.....and laws....it won't fly.

I think yo need to go back to school and take year 10 Physics again.

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

no doubts about it...

there are facts though.....and laws....it won't fly.

I am beginning to suspect that you have realised by now that you are wrong and are just playing some sort of game.

Nevertheless, I am prepared to continue the game for a bit longer.

There must be some points on which we are prepared to agree, so it should save all of us some time if we can identify the issues on which we agree and where the areas of disagreement are.

If we ignore the points of agreement and focus on the disagreement, we may be able to bring this to a resolution more quickly.

If you could answer yes or no to each of the following, it should allow us to eliminate those things about which there is no disagreement. We can consider the reasons for your response later.

1. Do you accept that the wording of the original question was that the pilot attempts to take off and the treadmill operator attempts to match the speed of the plane?
2. Do you accept that for the sake of this debate, we should assume that the plane has been properly maintained and the pilot knows how to operate the plane?
3. Do you accept that the force that propels a plane forward is the thrust of the propeller or jet engine?
4. Do you accept that since the pilot is competent, attempting to take off will involve opening the throttle to get the engine up to the revs normally used for take-off?
5. Do you agree that a couple of men can easily push a light plane around on the ground and that a Land Rover Defender once demonstrated the effectiveness of the anti-stall feature by dragging a full size airliner?
6. Do you accept that the previous point demonstrates that the rolling resistance of the wheels on an aircraft is quite small compared to the thrust the aircraft engine can produce?
7. Do you accept that the only force allowing the treadmill to drag the plane backwards is the rolling resistance of the wheels?
8. Do you accept that the thrust produced by the plane propeller or jet is much greater than the drag created by the wheels?
9. Do you accept that if the above was not the case, then a plane would never be able to take off from level ground on a normal runway?
10. Do you accept that no matter how hard the treadmill operator tries to "match the speed of the plane", all that happens is that the plane's wheels spin a bit faster with no significant increase in the force dragging the plane back?

I look forward to your responses.

Without forward AIRspeed (airflow over the wing, sufficient to overcome the aeroplane's weight), the aeroplane won't fly. It's really a basic rule of aerodynamics.

The only place I'm aware of that an aeroplane could consistently fly with no forward GROUNDspeed is a wind tunnel

Hi,
Surely the hypothetical treadmill effect is the same as the practical effect of taking off downwind?

Take off air speed will need to be as normal, only achieved by overcoming the handicap of an induced tailwind plus the added resitance of wheel rotation speed needed along the backwards travelling treadmill.

Simiar to an amphibious aircraft taking off against a water current.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-N5110 using AULRO mobile app

Originally Posted by Hugh Jars

Without forward AIRspeed (airflow over the wing, sufficient to overcome the aeroplane's weight), the aeroplane won't fly. It's really a basic rule of aerodynamics.

The only place I'm aware of that an aeroplane could consistently fly with no forward GROUNDspeed is a wind tunnel

The point is that on a treadmill, the plane will have airspeed.

The treadmill has no noticeable effect.

The plane will fly.

Ground speed or treadmill speed is irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is airspeed and the plane will have that.

The plane will fly.

Why do people think the plane will not have airspeed?

Originally Posted by Hugh Jars

Without forward AIRspeed (airflow over the wing, sufficient to overcome the aeroplane's weight), the aeroplane won't fly. It's really a basic rule of aerodynamics.

The only place I'm aware of that an aeroplane could consistently fly with no forward GROUNDspeed is a wind tunnel

g'day Hugh Jars, I was a private pilot and flew aeroplanes as you do , not planes or airplanes.

I was also an aircraft airframe fitter , trained in subsonic flight , supersonic flight and rotary wing.

you and I both know we are correct as well as any other pilots in here.

is it worthwhile bothering to continue this argument?

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

g'day Hugh Jars, I was a private pilot and flew aeroplanes as you do , not planes or airplanes.

I was also an aircraft airframe fitter , trained in subsonic flight , supersonic flight and rotary wing.

you and I both know we are correct as well as any other pilots in here.

is it worthwhile bothering to continue this argument?

Please answer my questions.

You have never addressed any of the specific facts I have pointed out. You have just made general statements about the need for airspeed. I have explained why the plane WILL have airspeed. You have not explained WHY it won't.

I would like to know the particular point on which you disagree with me.