For those that hate the BNP .......

[yoshie]

There is an over supply of numbnuts around Andy, the disscusion will never end.
Only boredom will end it hopefully.

[Maverick]

I believe I have come up with THE answer.

If the conveyor belt is doing 150mph (I know it's a very quick conveyor belt), and the planes prop is doing an air speed of 150mph (I know they like knots, I'm just using mph for ease). The plane WILL be travelling faster forward than the conveyor belt is going backwards. Not because of air flow over the wings, but because there is a pressure difference behind the plane in the turbulant air forced there from the prop.
Therefore contry to my earlier beleif the plane can never achive the appearance of being stationary, it will always have some forward movement.

See I can admit when I'm wrong, I just needed to work it through.
The spinning wheels were not the issue, I couldn't work out how two equal, but opposite forces could result in movement, but it was because I had forgotten that the differences in air pressure that produce lift, could also apply in the turbulance behind the plane caused by the prop.

[Albannach]

Not because of air flow over the wings, but because there is a pressure difference behind the plane in the turbulant air forced there from the prop.

What if it's a jet where all the thrust is behind the wings?

[Maverick]

The arguement arises because of folk's fixation for driven wheels. In reality, the wheels on the 'plane and the conveyor belt are irrelevant.

I love this arguement, I'm truly surprised it took off as well this time. Normally it fizzles out quite quickly.

My fault I'm afraid. I can't drop a puzzle until I've solved it. Hence why I try to avoid them. A my accounts teacher used to say "a thinking man is rarely a happy man".

[Maverick]

What if it's a jet where all the thrust is behind the wings?

Then there is still a pressure difference, because the air in front of the plane is travelling slower than the air behind the plane. Effectively bringing a third force into the equation (the forward force of the thrust, the backward force of the surface, finaly the semi-vacum in the air in front of the plane).

[MattF]

My fault I'm afraid. I can't drop a puzzle until I've solved it. Hence why I try to avoid them. A my accounts teacher used to say "a thinking man is rarely a happy man".

It'll ferking well fly. There. Solved.

[BUSHWHACKER]

It'll ferking well fly. There. Solved.

Prove it!

[MattF]

Prove it!

Git. Stop encouraging him.

[Albannach]

If you put a thermostat on the roof, would the spare wheel overheat if the head on a 3.0l was cracked?

Obviously not when cornering...

[BUSHWHACKER]

If you put a thermostat on the roof, would the spare wheel overheat if the head on a 3.0l was cracked?

Obviously not when cornering...

Of course it would because the wheel wouldn't be turning.

[MattF]

If you put a thermostat on the roof, would the spare wheel overheat if the head on a 3.0l was cracked?

Obviously not when cornering...

Would that be a hot thermostat out of the overheating engine or a cold thermostat?

[Albannach]

FFS, intermediate man! When have we ever been Hot or Cold in here?

[Albannach]

Of course it would because the wheel wouldn't be turning.

But how can you tell if the radiator cap hasn't been changed?

[BUSHWHACKER]

But how can you tell if the radiator cap hasn't been changed?

Because of the thrust from the ECT button!

Jeez man! have you been drinking??

[MattF]

FFS, intermediate man! When have we ever been Hot or Cold in here?

Is that tepid or lukewarm though?