• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

Will this plane fly??

MazDan said:
Actually to be honest I think the biggest challenge with this question is not the understanding of it but for those who do to be able to explain it............. that is the toughest part.

I went from being dead against the idea they could fly to then a few days of toing and froing as I still couldnt quite get my head arround it all to finally understanding.............. It really is tough to explain it in layman type terms.........and they are the only ones i can even start to try to explain it with.........lol.
Click to expand...


Planes take off from a force on the wings.

The wheels are freemoving and do not control the plane - merely stablise the plane and move to allow the plane to go forward without scraping.

Proppella/Thrust is added plane moves forward, wheels move backwards, until enough force allows the plane to take off.

Laymans enough?

Im sorry but i really do not understand what is so complicated about this, i thought it was a strange question to ask, as the answer was obvious, to me.

Its the wording that confuses people.
 
yes, this question had me thinking "no" right at first, but its intentially misleading. once your really wrap your head around what is happening, its pretty easy to see it'll take off
 
^ yep..

Theres another one, 3 woman pay 10 pounds each, each woman is given a pound back as 'discount', so each woman actually paid 9 pounds.

However the bill was suppose to be 30 and the woman only paid 27, how does this work#/

This is completely wrong and i wrote it while stoned - there is something similar to this in existance that works just the same way as this will the plane fly.

Its all about wording.

Simply put a plane does not take off due to its ground speed, that has no factor in wether it will take off, the only thing that matters is the force propelling the plane, either thrust shooting the plane forwards, while the wheels roll backwards.

Wind would either make this easier or harder, the fact theres a conveyabelt meants jackall.

The reason it doesnt exist? too many variables that are to costly to mistake.
 
Last edited:
that one has to do with the order of the wording.

the "actually paid 9 pounds" has nothing to do with the total bill.

they each paid 10, the bill was 30. bill was payed, and then they were given back a pound afterwards, so IN THE END, they each payed 9.
 
-T{H}R- said:
It's so common to insert pointless words into sentences just for the sake of it. And so often they look wanky.
Click to expand...

Theyre not pointless, as Alpha said, it helps to show the flow of logic.
 
MazDan said:
"On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?"
Click to expand...

I need you to clarify the phrase "The plane moves in one direction". Moves relative to what? Relative to a point on the conveyor belt, so there is no net forward movement by the plane? Or it moves relative to the ground, while the conveyor moves equally opposite driving the wheels at twice expected speed....but totally irrelevant to the movement of the plane's wings to the ground?

If there is movement relative to the ground, then yes, the plane is building speed and will lift off (as the wheels spin like crazy and probably snap off). If the plane is not moving relative to the ground, but is simply keeping it's place on the conveyor, then it will not rise.
 
I think you need to take it as relative to the ground, much like the conveyor belt would be moving relative to the ground.
 
I think I need to read the entire thread next time before commenting ;)

But now that I have, I'll go find my sanity again elsewhere. I know what I understand the situation to be...I'm happy with that, I'll get on with my life now.

:p to MazDan ;)
 
-T{H}R- said:
It's so common to insert pointless words into sentences just for the sake of it. And so often they look wanky.
Click to expand...
Nice attitude. I didn't want to say that's not the kind of thinly-veiled, vague ad-hom one expects from a moderator in here but I just did.

I originally believed that this plane could not take off but now I'm beginning to understand that I was wrong.

So, thank you to those who took the time to try to patiently explain even when it was staring you in the face.

And no thanks to you who got on your horses and posted suggestions that I'm essentially stupid and you're so much better because you got it so much faster than I did.
 
JeffreyDahmer said:
Nice attitude. I didn't want to say that's not the kind of thinly-veiled, vague ad-hom one expects from a moderator in here but I just did.

I originally believed that this plane could not take off but now I'm beginning to understand that I was wrong.

So, thank you to those who took the time to try to patiently explain even when it was staring you in the face.

And no thanks to you who got on your horses and posted suggestions that I'm essentially stupid and you're so much better because you got it so much faster than I did.
Click to expand...

Mate, I am not sure what your problem is, but I do it myself - that's why I find proofreading so important. I normally will write something, read it, realise it sounds a bit "wanky" and edit it. So I am not directing any comments at you. I am making a generalised statement about the use of the language - stop trying to turn everything into an argument.

I never suggested anyone was stupid and certainly know that is not the case. It's a problem where there is no immediate answer and myself, not having a science background, have learned as much as anyone from a lot of the answers. If you have any further issues, PM me.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
I think I need to read the entire thread next time before commenting ;)

But now that I have, I'll go find my sanity again elsewhere. I know what I understand the situation to be...I'm happy with that, I'll get on with my life now.

:p to MazDan ;)
Click to expand...


LMFAO........quality mate.
 
Fixed-wing aircraft require AIRSPEED to take off. If it is on the ground, it must be able to move forward relative to its exact point in space to gain airspeed. This takes into account the calm wind. If you have a 15kt headwind, you will have 15kts of airspeed even though you aren't moving relative to the ground (thus no groundspeed). That is why all aircraft take off and land into the wind whenever possible, you contact the ground slower than you are going through the air, you'd get the advantage of more lift and less stopping distance. If the a/c is on the ground and the conveyor belt cancels out the groundspeed it will never gain airspeed (on a clam day as you mentioned). It wont take off. But you'd need a damn fast conveyor belt.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
But aren't you assuming a conveyor belt which can respond instantly and perfectly to the plane? Both cases are idealised. If you accept the existance of such a perfect conveyor belt (which itself must have zero mass or experience infinite force, or else it's reactions cannot be instant) then you accept no friction.
Click to expand...

Because of the deliberate use of a conveyor belt in the initial question, then we can assume that yes it is perfect, and yes it will cause friction.

Without friction the whole thing is redundant, pointless, and a waste of time discussing :\
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Exactly like the 0.9r=1 arguments which rage on various forum sites. It is a mathematical fact. Of course you could argue against logic if you wish, but then you can argue black is up, white is east if you like irrational points of discussion.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, and 2+2=5 ;)
 
KemicalBurn said:
Because of the deliberate use of a conveyor belt in the initial question, then we can assume that yes it is perfect, and yes it will cause friction.

Without friction the whole thing is redundant, pointless, and a waste of time discussing :\
Click to expand...

Yeah. The whole premise is based on silly assumptions/unrealistic scenarios. But that's the whole fun of it ... and why it is so difficult to prove either way :) If it wasn't difficult, someone would just go out and do it.
 
I saw on the Discovery Chanel or some shit where they are teaching chimps to fly small planes.LOL! I swear! It said like 12 or 13 had already crashed.

hm,mmmI wonder if they could teach a funny goat? hmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top