Trick question

[xman59]

sure it can take off, simply lock one rear brake and it will turn on the conveyor belt/runway when the plane is spun 1180 release the brake and take off as normal, maybe a little faster

[Man]

If we can waste $559,681 to test a shrimp on the conveyer belt..we can surely afford to test the 747 on the conveyer belt.

[Big_gun]

nope unless there is a wind storm coming in, blowing from left to right...

[Roger]

On my God stop teaching kids

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Reading comprehension is a lost art . The question clearly states that the conveyor always matches the wheels speed and in the opposite direction. Forget what you think may happen, this is what the question states is happening and the answer must be based on it. That statement negates any and all outside forces because, no mattet what else happens in the x direction, the belt will always change to match the wheels exact rotational speed. It's not a trick question. It's as basic of a relative velocity question as you can get. The problem is folks trying to add to the problem and ignoring what it actually says. The problem also does not state any kind of upward force in the y direction due to a tilted prop, rotating jet engines, etc.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Duckologist]

Reading comprehension is a lost art . The question clearly states that the conveyor always matches the wheels speed and in the opposite direction. Forget what you think may happen, this is what the question states is happening and the answer must be based on it. That statement negates any and all outside forces because, no mattet what else happens in the x direction, the belt will always change to match the wheels exact rotational speed. It's not a trick question. It's as basic of a relative velocity question as you can get. The problem is folks trying to add to the problem and ignoring what it actually says. The problem also does not state any kind of upward force in the y direction due to a tilted prop, rotating jet engines, etc.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

You can run the treadmill 5 million mph and yet the plane still easily flys away. Why can't you understand that the wheels on an airplane just spin freely? This thing has been hashed out a million times. It's not a car, it's an airplane.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Artos]

If you suspend this jet way up in the air, release it into free fall & then add thrust??

Doesn't matter if the wheels are up, down, spinning a million miles an hour or got the brakes on...thrust is gonna thrust.

[Duane]

Based on the exact wording of the question, the plane's velocity relative to ground would be zero and the plane would stay fixed in position while the wheels and the conveyor belt matched speed. But this would only be possible if the thrust of the jets exactly matched the propulsion required to maintain this perfect velocity, which would likely be equal and opposite to the friction the tires would exert on the conveyor belt if the engines were driving the wheels rather than providing propulsion (which of course they do not). In reality, the takeoff propulsion of the jet engines would easily exceed this, the speed of the wheels would exceed the speed of the moving conveyor and the plane would takeoff without a problem. Unless a flock of geese flew into the jet engines, then there would be problems.

[Duane]

You can run the treadmill 5 million mph and yet the plane still easily flys away. Why can't you understand that the wheels on an airplane just spin freely? This thing has been hashed out a million times. It's not a car, it's an airplane.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

This is true but you are ignoring what the question asks. The question is not practical and doesn't deal in reality.

[BlessedVeteran0305]

I change my answer to yes.

[bowfishin fool]

Reading comprehension is a lost art . The question clearly states that the conveyor always matches the wheels speed and in the opposite direction. Forget what you think may happen, this is what the question states is happening and the answer must be based on it. That statement negates any and all outside forces because, no mattet what else happens in the x direction, the belt will always change to match the wheels exact rotational speed. It's not a trick question. It's as basic of a relative velocity question as you can get. The problem is folks trying to add to the problem and ignoring what it actually says. The problem also does not state any kind of upward force in the y direction due to a tilted prop, rotating jet engines, etc.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Right on Roger.. thank you for the great articulation from a physics teacher!

People keep getting stuck in practicality, no the conveyor cannot realistically turn fast enough to create enough friction to hold the plane in place… unless someone forgot to grease the hubs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smokeater]

Reading comprehension is a lost art . The question clearly states that the conveyor always matches the wheels speed and in the opposite direction. Forget what you think may happen, this is what the question states is happening and the answer must be based on it. That statement negates any and all outside forces because, no mattet what else happens in the x direction, the belt will always change to match the wheels exact rotational speed. It's not a trick question. It's as basic of a relative velocity question as you can get. The problem is folks trying to add to the problem and ignoring what it actually says. The problem also does not state any kind of upward force in the y direction due to a tilted prop, rotating jet engines, etc.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Based on this, the same plane not sitting on the magic conveyor ain't gonna take off either. It asked if the plane can take off. Well...none of em can if you don't crank em up. If no outside forces...the wheels and conveyor ain't moving either.

[Lynn21]

Let me settle this for all of y’all- Burt Reynolds died.

[Duckologist]

Based on this, the same plane not sitting on the magic conveyor ain't gonna take off either. It asked if the plane can take off. Well...none of em can if you don't crank em up. If no outside forces...the wheels and conveyor ain't moving either.

Yep. For the conveyor to match the speed of the wheels they'd either have to stay off or the plane has to move. The wheels on a plane ain't movin unless the plane is movin. It's not a car. There by, the conveyor can match the speed of the planes wheels in the opposite direction right up until the plane flys away. Poor physics students

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[rolylane6]

Reading comprehension is a lost art . The question clearly states that the conveyor always matches the wheels speed and in the opposite direction. Forget what you think may happen, this is what the question states is happening and the answer must be based on it. That statement negates any and all outside forces because, no mattet what else happens in the x direction, the belt will always change to match the wheels exact rotational speed. It's not a trick question. It's as basic of a relative velocity question as you can get. The problem is folks trying to add to the problem and ignoring what it actually says. The problem also does not state any kind of upward force in the y direction due to a tilted prop, rotating jet engines, etc.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Exactly but no mYter how fast the plane moves forward the wheel speed increases, the conveyor speed increases and the plane speed increases. Remember, unless the plane is moving forward, the wheels will not turn at all. So you're saying if thrust is applied to the engines the plane won't move forward and the wheels will never turn and wheels and conveyor remain at zero rpms?

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[bpa556]

This thread started out as great entertainment. Now it just makes me sad for my kids and the country they’ll inherit…[emoji17]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk