Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the aeroplane conundrum

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • the aeroplane conundrum

    I would have read it earlier, but "hotmail sux" as a thread title didn't really draw me in ^_^

    This conundrum has been argued on online forums by physics nerds for a while now and I reckon it's been corrupted by people arguing the finer points of friction coefficients, tyre manufacture, ball bearings and 21st century treadmill design.

    For my money, the plane won't take off, for the reason given by foolishboy. The plane wings must have enough velocity through the air to generate the requisite lift to overcome the weight of the plane.

    If the wheels are spinning freely (or the plane is up on blocks in the hangar, or the pilot has absentmindedly left the handbrake on ) the plane doesn't generate the velocity - and hence the lift - needed to overcome its weight.

    And I SUCK at physics.
    Originally posted by Melkor
    The Saint is all over the answer like a Saint on a cupcake.

  • #2
    State the conundrum please.

    Comment


    • #3
      For LAMS information and resources - http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/foru...thread-156358/
      For LAMS discussion and to ask questions - http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/foru...thread-143289/

      Comment


      • #4
        Hmm OK.

        I read it as: "If an aeroplane's velocity relative to the ground (and hence the air) is zero, can it generate enough lift to take off?"

        But that's not really a conundrum, because the simple answer is no.

        I think that what makes the original conundrum a conundrum is people fretting over the treadmill factor.
        Originally posted by Melkor
        The Saint is all over the answer like a Saint on a cupcake.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oi, can we do a poll on this too please, just so that we can see how many people cant understand the basics of the physics of flight?
          In Kazakhstan if you want sugar in your coffee you ask for Kunt

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by barfridge View Post
            Hehe point taken.

            Wouldn't have posted anything but for the fact that Tyson asked for a new thread restating the conundrum.
            Originally posted by Melkor
            The Saint is all over the answer like a Saint on a cupcake.

            Comment


            • #7
              whack it barfridge, whack it good
              In Kazakhstan if you want sugar in your coffee you ask for Kunt

              Comment


              • #8
                you know you want to barfy
                My Turbo Build

                Thanks to Sponsors:
                Motorcycle Panel & Paint
                Q-Zar Fremantle
                Rated-R Parts
                PerthStreetBikes.com and it's generous members
                Carlisle Printing - Deals for PSB members
                CIC - Competition & Industrial Coatings
                Carpet Liquidators - Midland

                Comment


                • #9
                  Whack it like a kid in a foodhall Jeff!
                  Last edited by Brougham; 09-12-2007, 06:17 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    lift generated by wings.
                    no airflow over wings = no lift


                    it's basic fucking physics that your average 12 year old should be able to figure out - the fact that we even have to discuss this lessens my faith in the human race...
                    “Crashing is shit for you, shit for the bike, shit for the mechanics and shit for the set-up,” Checa told me a while back. “It’s a signal that you are heading in the wrong direction. You want to win but crashing is the opposite. It’s like being in France when you want to go to England and when you crash you go to Spain. That way you’ll never get to England!” -- Carlos Checa

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes but Thro, Jedi was the one that posed the question.

                      Remember that he used araldite to try and join a broken bolt back together that was still stuck in the thread
                      In Kazakhstan if you want sugar in your coffee you ask for Kunt

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ok, maybe jedi knows something we don't, and we could replace the world's airports with fucking giant treadmills...
                        “Crashing is shit for you, shit for the bike, shit for the mechanics and shit for the set-up,” Checa told me a while back. “It’s a signal that you are heading in the wrong direction. You want to win but crashing is the opposite. It’s like being in France when you want to go to England and when you crash you go to Spain. That way you’ll never get to England!” -- Carlos Checa

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          :/ new mods.
                          Ummmm.
                          Yeah, ok.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            the wings would clip the sides of the treadmill duh!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If you assume that the treadmill causes the plane to be unable to achieve forward motion then the answer is no and the question is dumb.

                              In the real world however, i mean, if you were to actually construct a massive treadmill, the plane would fly fine (barring any destructive failure of the wheels during take-off).

                              So everyone's right. Does that cover it?
                              Originally posted by zobo
                              I'd be more prolific in answering but I thought of a use for the othe

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X