Tweet
Originally posted by BUSHWHACKER
View Post
-
35", but no body or suspension lifts. Can't do a body lift because ProComp have went bust.Do you know that, with a 50 character limit, it's -
35"s are you crazy??!!
I'll have to go to bed and think this one over.Comment
-
But Chip Foose drew it? How can it be wrong?Originally posted by BUSHWHACKER View PostDo you know that, with a 50 character limit, it'sComment
-
How bored were you 3 in the eary hours.
Mind you it made better sense than some of the previous posts.BrianComment
-
Someone mentioned Mythbusters, they proved the aircraft would take off and filmed it. I bet it's out there on the net somewhere.Comment
-
-
Only because the septics didn't believe what they were seeing.Originally posted by BUSHWHACKER View Post
It took off, it would take off if they did it again and again. It was proven the conveyor had no effect on the thrust provided by the engines.Comment
-
It was probably due to the hallucinations from the infections.Originally posted by Dodge View PostOnly because the septics didn't believe what they were seeing.Comment
-
-
You're only seeing what you want to see.Originally posted by Dodge View PostOnly because the septics didn't believe what they were seeing.
It took off, it would take off if they did it again and again. It was proven the conveyor had no effect on the thrust provided by the engines.
The plane was at full throttle and moving forwards.
The experiment requires the plane to be stationary counteracting the rearward movement of the conveyor.
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode97Last edited by BUSHWHACKER; 20 June 2009, 15:47.Comment
-
That's the whole point, the aircraft isn't required to be stationary. A stationary aircraft won't take off (unless there is a strong enough headwind or it's in a wind tunnel) all is required of the conveyor is it travels in reverse at the same speed as the aircraft travels forward.Originally posted by BUSHWHACKER View PostYou're only seeing what you want to see.
The plane was at full throttle and moving forwards.
The experiment requires the plane to be stationary counteracting the rearward movement of the conveyor.
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode97
The conveyor going backwards won't move the aircraft backwards or keep the aircraft stationary or prevent it from moving forwards as the aircraft's wheels will just turn as the belt is pulled underneath it, it will accelerate and take off because it's forward momentum is provided by the thrust from the engines pushing the air and has no relation to the movement of the ground or the conveyor.
And . . . if you even read the link you posted you'd see . . .
First some small-scale tests were performed with a model airplane on a treadmill and the plane was able to take off. For the large-scale test, the MythBusters used a 400 pound ultralight aircraft with a 2000 foot tarp under it. The tarp was pulled backwards to simulate a moving runway. The ultralight pilot had no trouble taking off. This is because the thrust of the airplane engines acts on the air, not on the ground.Comment
-
The original hypothesis has two answers then, yes and no. Kind of like a paradox.
Comment
-
No, only one. The original question was "Can an aircraft take off if it is on a conveyor that travels in the opposite direction at a speed that matches the aircraft's take off speed." The answer is yes it can.Originally posted by BUSHWHACKER View PostThe original hypothesis has two answers then, yes and no. Kind of like a paradox.
or as they worded it . . . a simple statement "An airplane cannot take off from a runway which is moving backwards (like a treadmill) at a speed equal to its normal ground speed during takeoff."
They proved the statement to be untrue, hence the "busted", the aircraft can take off, the simple fact is the aircraft's engines provide thrust completely independently from the ground.Comment
-
The plane in the Mythbusters test was moving forwards!
All that proves is that particular aircraft can take of from a short runway.Comment
-
Wow, there are a lot of dumbasses here
Cutting steps in the roof of the worldComment
Comment