Conveyer Belt Takeoff- Mythbusters jumps in!!!

[LAdamson 240]

>This December; Mythbusters will settle once and for all>whether an aircraft can take off from a conveyer belt matching>its forward speed. They utilised a quarter mile belt and an>ultralight.>>Savage was quoted- "I won't say the outcome, but the pilot and>the entire flying club got it wrong.">>Last chance to put your money where your mouth is... did>L'adamsonget it right??? :-)>It takes off,,,,,Right???? :-hah L.Adamson

[Guest Shalomar]

We shall finally see... Just to be fair; I think it takes off too!!!:-)FLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Does the wing have air going around it?Yes, then it creates liftNo, then it stays on the ground.I don't know what the treadmill has to do with the aerodynamics of the wings.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

I don't think so. Conveyor belts do not have enough aerodynamic lift to take off. I suppose you could shoot one out of a magnetic rail gun and it would "fly" for a while, but a conveyor belt on its own? I don't think so. :)

[LAdamson 240]

>Does the wing have air going around it?>>Yes, then it creates lift>>No, then it stays on the ground.>>I don't know what the treadmill has to do with the>aerodynamics of the wings.The idea of the treadmill, is to technically pull the aircraft back as the prop tries to pull it forward. No forward velocity, & no lift.Supposably..

[Cessnaflyer 56]

The problem is that it is just a horribly written question that can be interpreted many ways.

[Guest Shalomar]

There were two very long threads "Something to think about" in which the question was expressed much clearer; if I can find one I will bump it. I merely wanted to report that Mythbusters has graciously settled the question, and we will see the fruits of their labor come December.Best Regards, Donny :-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[StoneC0ld 5]

I'm no expert, but here's the way I see it....Put a car on the conveyor belt, and it will stay absolutely still (or only move a tiny amount, depending on how quickly the belt will adjust to speed changes) in relation to the rest of the world. Because the force of acceleration is being applied to the conveyor belt itself. The car will not be able to overcome the conveyor belt..However, an aircraft, I believe, will. An aircraft, any aircraft, applies its force of acceleration to the air, not to the ground. Applying the thrust against the air will still cause the aircraft to move in relation to the rest of the world, and take off once the correct airspeed is reached. The conveyor belt will likely apply a certain degree of drag to the aircraft, as it attempts to pull the aircraft backwards via the small amount of friction in the landing gear, but that would not be enough to prevent forward motion or takeoff..You could get an aircraft to stay still in relation to the rest of the world by replacing the conveyor belt with a wind tunnel, but even that won't prevent the aircraft from taking off because there'd still be airflow over the wings generating lift..So, my bet is that their tests prove you can take off...

[Guest PARADISE]

The only way to make this theory plausible is to have the aircraft takeoff using only the power of the conveyer belt. The aircraft's engine(s) would have to be turned off with zero wind conditions at the test site.The Mythbusters' experiments have been busted in the past by slightly more scientific minds......they do make for good entertainment though.John

[Fitz505 21]

I'm confused as to how it's going to be set up. If the brakes of the aircraft are set, then yes it's going to fly a short distance. What you would have is the equivalent of a catapult launch. If the wheels are allowed to turn freely, then no way it's going to obtain flight. You would have no movement of air over the wings. Fitz

[Chaos81 110]

>The problem is that it is just a horribly written question>that can be interpreted many ways.That's not the problem, that's the point. ;)

[Guest Chese]

>>The problem is that it is just a horribly written question>>that can be interpreted many ways.>>That's not the problem, that's the point. ;)This is the point exactly. The whole question as laid out is a paradox and thats what makes it fun. There are many finer technical points that could make it an interesting physics problem but with out those points as stated, there is no answer.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

>> No - PLEASE... Let's not start this all over again! Way too much bandwidth being consumed. Let's just wait until we can watch the Mythbusters and then we can start all over again... :)

[Guest Shalomar]

This December; Mythbusters will settle once and for all whether an aircraft can take off from a conveyer belt matching its forward speed. They utilised a quarter mile belt and an ultralight.Savage was quoted- "I won't say the outcome, but the pilot and the entire flying club got it wrong."Last chance to put your money where your mouth is... did L'adamson get it right??? :-)Best Regards, Donny :-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[LAdamson 240]

> I'm confused as to how it's going to be set up. If the>brakes of the aircraft are set, then yes it's going to fly a>short distance. What you would have is the equivalent of a>catapult launch. If the wheels are allowed to turn freely,>then no way it's going to obtain flight. You would have no>movement of air over the wings.>If this is done, as in the original question, it's not a case of the conveyor belt providing the forward speed. Just the opposite. The belt is suppose to move backwards, at the same speed the aircrafts wheels rotate in a forward direction with the prop turning at takeoff speed. This is supposeably to stop all forward motion, which would in turn stop the creation of lift.However, using my treadmill as a sample belt, I discovered that my toy airplane tied to a string, had virtually no rolling resistance from the belt going in the opposite direction. The plane will almost act as though it's skimming ice...........and takeoff.L.Adamson