Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  

Conveyor belt controversy put to rest :-)

Recommended Posts

I think that some people may have actually been conned, depending on where they first came across this myth. I have seen it phrased so that you assume that the aircraft must be stationary for the conditions to be met, but this isn't the case. The 'myth' deals with whether or not placing the plane on a conveyor would prevent it from taking off. Of course if it was stated differently -- and the aircraft needed to be stationary -- then the conveyor would also be stationary. Since the best way to keep an aircraft -- and a conveyor -- stationary is to keep the engines turned off, then of course they'd both just sit there doing nothing for as long as you cared to wait:)The other bit which non-believers need to get their head around is that if the aircraft is moving, it WILL be moving forward. How do you measure an aircraft's speed? Normally in relation to the air speed. This differs from a car, where you measure speed by the revolutions of the wheels. Of course if you replaced the plane with a car, you could say that the car is going 60mph according to the speedo, but because of the moving conveyor it would still be standing still. Which is it? Now if you take this question, and apply it to an aircraft, you can have a lot of fun confusing folk, because they are trying to apply the principles which drive a car to driving an aircraft -- and they really have nothing in common.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...