...oops. As I was saying, naysayers are hung up on wheel friction. They just cannot grasp how little force is necessary to overcome this, thereby negating it. I'd bet they'd all be willing to admit a hovercraft with wings could take off on the same conveyor belt. Just hung up on wheel friction.
@Yairgeva7 if you think the "tiny" amount of friction present in the gear is enough to keep the plane stationary, you're an idiot. That's what keeps the naysayers from "getting" this whole concept. Obsessed with
Okay, so assuming the conveyor belt (and hence the runway) is the length of the plane, the aircraft would just tip over and crash. If the the conveyor belt was the length of a common runway, then it would still build up speed - wheels be damned.
Conveyor belts are a bad idea though. Wind tunnels would work much better.
People who support this "bust" still defend it by saying the plane is not effected by the ground,
well i call bullshit, do you really think the wheels and the gears that connect them to the plane don't create any drag via friction at all? you think that if the planes engine was OFF and the belt was moving back, that the plane would just remain stationary?
the wheels & gears aint perfect. a belt moving back fast enough would overpower the planes engine, it will not move forward/liftoff.
If the truck pulls the belt at 20 mph, and the pilot sets his plane to move forward at 20 mph, the wheels will then move at 40 mph to keep up with the two. The engine speed determines the forward thrust, not the wheel speed.
@tadflip A conveyor belt cannot stop a plane from taking off because no matter how fast the belt goes, the wheels will match the speed, and therefore cancel the force from the conveyor belt. A plane's engines push against the air to make it move forward. They don't push against the ground like a car does. A plane moves forward through the air like a swimmer moves forward through water: by pushing backwards on the fluid, not the ground.
They weren't testing it the right way. The "myth" is that a plane won't take off if the conveyor belt is moving fast enough that the plane is sitting stationary to an observer off to the side. In this situation, the plane is stationary to the air, and it won't take off.
@Imclueless12 The conveyor belt won't affect to the speed of the plane, no matter how fast it moves. The plane is moved by its propeller, not by its wheels like a car. The wheels are just there to support it. Granted that the wheelspin will cause some friction, but nothing that the engine couldn't counter. You're indeed clueless.
@Silanael Yeah, you're right. I've thought about this since I posted that comment, and the wheels really won't make a difference. And I've also regretted picking that name ever since I first got my account, it takes away a hell of a lot of credibility.
If the myth is, can a conveyer belt prevent a plane from taking off then, no it cant
but it seems that the myth is, if a conveyer belt is going at take off speed in the opposite direction and the plane is just maintaining its position on it, can the plane take off? no it cant.
Although this wasn't a well-performed experiment the conclusion is correct. A conveyor belt that goes in one direction will not stop an aircraft from accelerating in the other direction (in relation to a datum on the ground) as long as no braking force is applied to the aircraft's wheels. To understand this you must appreciate that unlike a car (whereby power is transmitted to a surface in contact with the ground) an aircraft derives forward motion from its relationship between thrust and drag.
the plane was actually moving much more faster than the belt, thats why it can take off - if it was on same speed it would not because it wont have any lift on wings
@Stillwater900 the propeller moves it forward but the air thru the wings moves it UPWARD it could only fly stopped if there is a propeller upside lide an helicopter. i sugest search about a machine called autogiro
@itabiritomg Do you understand that it does not matter how fast the treadmill is going? The propellor moves it until its fast enough to GET air over its wings, then it takes off. It has absolutely NO bearing on ANYTHING how fast the treeadmill is going, AT ALL. There are dozens of videos on here of people using there RC planes to take off from treadmills. Its a proven concept, its physically sound. We're all laughing at you who can't understand it
@Phray81 If there was a fan behind the plane, then you would have a tailwind which would make it harder for the plane to takeoff because you're moving the air in the opposite direction that it's supposed to relative to the wings. That's why planes always takeoff into the wind.
Isn't whole idea of a plane on a conveyer belt there in order to make a point that plane wouldn't fly if it is stationary on the ground with engine running?
Put some block on the wheels, throttle the engine to full and see if it will fly. Maybe you can sell the patent to the NAVY to use on the carriers.
but hey we did learn that it took off in a shorter amount of time. so maybe they can use that technology on an aircraft carrier or something to make ships of shorter length capable of launching aircraft. not a bad idea?
what's the point of that though? Surely it's just like taking off from a runway then? Surely the whole point is for the treadmill to be much shorter than a normal runway?
@MegatronSmurf Do you really need to see them do it to be convinced that the plane will takeoff? It's basic physics. No conveyor belt can stop an airplane from taking off because no matter how fast the conveyor belt is moving, the plane's wheels will match the belt's speed and cancel out the backwards force. The engines push air backwards to move the plane forward, just like a swimmer pushes water backwards to go forward. Planes DO NOT push backwards on the ground like a car does.
I don't even get what they are testing. They need to clarify. When they talk about the plane going the same speed in the other direction, do they mean with respect to the conveyor belt or the ground? When they set up the myth, it sounds like the plane is moving the same speed with respect to the belt, and therefore motionless with respect to the air. Not taking off. But in practice, they do exactly the opposite. There would be no controversy if they clarified what they meant.
@dnebdal - Yes, you are right, I take it back. I was really tired and therefore a bit too stupid when i wrote these comments. The takeoff IS indeed possible, since the traction is in the propeller NOT in the plane's wheels. The propeller pulls itself (and therefore the plane too) forward, by gripping on the air. The plane WILL takeoff normally but the wheels will spin twice the normal speed cause the belt is moving back. So belt or runway, it would take the same distance to build lift and fly.
and that's not a conveyor belt. that's a sheet of textile playing the role of a conveyor belt. if you want this thing to be by the book you build a rubber conveyor belt and calculate acceleration so it matches the torque of the engine. obviously in the "big scale" experiment the plane accelerated way faster then the textile below it and the friction between the textile and the plane's wheels is close to 0 therefore the plane wins. cheap trick mythbusters. that will never work. ask any aviator.0
You're very close to seeing why it wouldn't matter anyway.
Imagine a plane with wheels and really good bearings, on a belt. As the belt speeds up, how much force is required to hold the plane still? Not very much, even though the wheels are spinning fast.
The plane then uses the propeller to push against the air. If it has enough force, shouldn't it still be able to move the plane forward (relative to the air)? And isn't airspeed, not groundspeed, what gives lift?
@innersilencedotcom Torque is irrelevant when it comes to planes. We're not talking about cars. Plane engines do not send any torque to the wheels. Airplane engines produce thrust. They push air backwards to move the plane forward, just like a swimmer pushes water backwards to go forward. They act on a fluid: the air. Planes DO NOT push backwards on the ground like a car does and therefore, are not affected by the ground's movements.
the only reason the small scale example sort of worked out is because the model they used was very light and therefore the downforce on the conveyor belt was poor and above that, aeromodels such as the one they used in the small scale experiment use electric motors, which deliver 100% power instantly and even more, the power to weight ratio is huge due to the fact that the model is very light. therefore that will never work with a real cessna. i had a better impression about mythbusters.
@dudegasten - agreed. basic aerodynamics tell us that in order for a plane to fly, it needs airflow on the profile of its wings. that's how lift builds up. that's why it's called "airspeed" - the speed of an aircraft relative to the air. therefore, if the conveyor belt moves in the opposite direction at takeoff speed, it will only cancel the propeller's effort of moving the plane forward and therefore the result is equal to the plane sitting on the ground with brakes on and the engine running.
@innersilencedotcom No conveyor belt can stop an airplane from taking off because no matter how fast the belt is moving, the plane's wheels will match the belt's speed and cancel out the backwards force. Since the wheel bearings are essentially frictionless, they will not transfer any force from the belt. The fact that the wheels are matching the belt's speed tells you that hardly any backward force is being transferred to the plane itself. That will only happen if the wheel brakes are applied.
The description of the myth is confusing a lot of people right now, even me.
The idea of the myth isn't about whether the plane can achieve flight while remaining in one place on a moving conveyor belt. The real question of the myth is, will the plane be able to achieve forward momentum on a moving conveyor belt.
So the better description will be "Can a plane move forward on a conveyor belt that is pulling in the opposite direction at the exact same speed".
@SuperFunBag Your title is still confusing, are you talking about wheel speed or airspeed (for plane)? If wheel speed, it will not take off and like the pilot says will sit like a brick. If it were airspeed then the wheels are spinning alot faster than the conveyor belt to achieve the correct take off air speed.
The title is actually: "Can a plane take off" The earth is a giant conveyor belt.
The wheel isn't the one causing the plane to move forward, the air flow caused by the propeller is moving the plane.
At first, I thought they were going to try and see if a normal aircraft can lift off like a harrier jet. It seemed to me they failed miserably and still cheered for some reason, than I read though all the post and realized they meant something else.
@SuperFunBag Yea the myth they tested was if a plane would take off on a giant conveyor belt the length of the runway. Its not the same as the prototype car on a conveyor they tested which had zero airspeed. It doesn't matter if it were rockets or jet engines, it just needs something to exactly counter the moving conveyor belt to maintain the same reference point on the ground.
The airplane was suppose to stay in the same place but it was faster then the conveyor belt which made air move above the wing which created lift, if the plane stayed in the same place like it should be, there would be no air passing above the wing so you wouldn't have the vacuum effect that creates lift.
wow reading comments is more enjoyable than watching the video. can someone with some time on their hands go through the comments and make a list of smart people and idiots!!
anyone that makes the idiot list.. think 'freeeewheel'
for take off,has be pressure under the wings bigger than over the wings! create with the high speed on the ground !if the plan stay at the same point ,and engines have the maximum power,only one will be happen! turn of wheels!
are not the engines that take off an airplane, the wings are!!the engines are just to continue the high speed in the air!!!
Invalid and complete BS! Mark Johnson should have his recreational permit revoked for going along with this hillbillie-science, you know that plane was moving and not stationary as the test would dictate that it must. This is the first episode I've watched of the so-called Mythbusters, but amazing to me that so many people don't understand that they just perpetuated a myth with it's conclusions. It's like these jerks would think rockets wouldn't work in space because there's no air!
1:58 That moron should have his pilot's licence revoked. I would have thought a basic understanding of aerodynamics would be at least desirable in a pilot!
airplanes fly even when their wheels arn't touching anything, haha. (sarcasm) a 15 minute discussion on basic aerodynamics would have save the mythbusters some time.
The fact is that the truck was only going 20 mph and the plane accelerated past that speed to reach a forward speed enough to where air was moving over the wings so it could take off.
In a more perfect test, the plane would go nowhere.
So what makes the plane go up? Is it the propeller rising the plane or is is the air blowing threw the wings lifting the plane? In this episode, the plane has forward speed. Which would create wind under the wings to cause it to rise. If that isn't the factor to cause lift and only the propeller would cause lift then whether the plane was moving or not would make no difference. Am I right or wrong?
So what makes the plane go up. Is it the propeller creating Air and forcing the plane to go up or is it the air blowing threw the wings causing the plane to lift? If it's the propeller causing the plane to lift then this makes complete sense. If its air blowing threw the wings creating the lift then this doesn't make sense to me. I'm no physics student so that could be my drawback.
This is just a moving surface. Once overcoming surface friction, thrust does whatever it wants, matching the airspeed moving opposite doesn't create a special airflow allowable for lift!
@Sidlexic When they first introduced the segment was the first time I had ever heard of this. From the comments I now see you could think of this in a few ways. But when I first was watching this I was a might confused because I kept thinking that perhaps I was missing something. I kept thinking hard! But could never understand anything about the belt. The belt was totally out of the equation! Which of coarse it is. I can't believe the pilot!!! Too many cartoons!!!
Whether the plane is moving forward, backward, or side to side is irrelevant. What is relevant is the direction the wind is moving in relation to the wings. Wind moving across the wings on a plane is what creates lift. If the propeller can force air over the wings fast enough, even though the plane is stationary (due to the conveyor belt), it should still generate enough lift to get the plane off the ground - whether or not you could sustain flight from there depends on the engine's power.
@bckayser Almost. But the conveyor belt won't keep the plane still in the first place. The propeller moves the plane forward through the air, regardless of what the useless free rolling wheels are doing. See my previous comment.
OK DOUBTERS. Tell me this. If a plane was airborne and flying at 100MPH and landed on a conveyor belt moving the opposite direction at 100MPH, would you expect it to immediately stop dead in it's tracks? Or would you just expect the wheels to spin twice as fast as normal and the plane doesn't stop? Thought so..
@YourUsernameBoresMe The planes wheels would spin twice as fast and the plane would stop.. On a conveyor belt, the plane would come to a stop then move backwards with the belt. Throw a marble on a conveyor belt, it amounts to the same thing.
The conveyor belt would make a CAR stationary, sure, but this is a PLANE! It's road is THE AIR. Only someone who doesn't know the difference between a plane and a car would believe it would stay still.
@YourUsernameBoresMe but if the plane remains stationary due to the conveyor belt and no lift is created then it is pretty obvious that the plane wont be airborne. Planes and cars react exactly the same on a conveyor belt, the only difference is that one has an engine that powers a propellor and one has an engine that power's wheels. If the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at exactly the same speed, then both will remain stationary. Mythbusters conducted the experiment wrong.
@swimjim4012 You a right. A car has WHEEL power and a plane has PROPELLER power. Which is exactly why a conveyor wont do jack to a plane because a planes wheels are NOT it's source of power. They just roll. The conveyor just makes them roll faster and the plane takes off like normal.
If you really want to make a plane stay still you would need to blast AIR towards it. Because AIR is it's power. Playing with the wheels does nothing, the plane just uses them for balance, they provide no power.
that pilot should have his certificate yanked for thinking he couldn't take off. I nearly fell off the couch when he said that. I could understand someone without much physics background making that mistake but not a pilot. holy cow. I'll bet he's the laughing stock at his airport now.
I can't believe anyone would think this would prevent takeoff. If that pilot really believed the belt would prevent him from flying he should have his license yanked.
all people who genuinely believe that the plane can not take off are retards. Anyone with even a basic understanding of how planes fly would know it has nothing to fo with ground speed. its the air speed that matters.
@juggleknot ---Good question. Yes. I've seen planes "fly one their chains" under this circumstance. I've seen planes move backward relative to the earth. The landing gear (and the earth as well) have very little to do with the aerodynamics of flight. That treadmill could've been moving much faster than the plane, it could've been moving sideways (with castering gear). Doesn't matter. The only reason the wheels move at all is because the air mass the plane is in is at ground level momentarily.
You have to realize that the wheels do not matter. The wheels are not attatched to anything that causes the plane to move. The propeller is what makes the plane move. The wheels could be going forwards, backwards, 20 miles and hour, or 200 miles an hour. It doesn't matter though because the wheels have nothing to do with how fast it goes. The plane will still take off.
You're all dumb. If the tarp and plane are traveling at the same speed in different directions, then the plane's horizontal velocity us 0, ergo, it will not take off. If you watch, the plane is moving faster than the tarp. That's why it flew. The pilot was right, the experiment was flawed.
Doesn't matter how fast the tarp is going, the wheels will compensate it and the plane will start anyway. Why? Because the wheels have nothing to do with the velocitiy of the plane.
@frenchsaber If the plane was not moving, and the belt was going the same speed, it would also be not moving, The plane was moving at 25 MPH and the tarp was moving at 25 MPH the opposite direction. Speeds were matched, the plane took off. A treadmill can never hold any airplane stationary because the way an airplane moves is different than a car or human. You expected the plane to react like a human on a treadmill and sit stationary, because thats what you are used to seeing, think deeper.
@frenchsaber ---Super funny. The plane wasn't traveling at the same speed though. And not due to a flaw in the experiment but because it's "horizontal velocity" has almost nothing to do with the tarp.
What they should've done is had an identical plane take off right next to it (not on a conveyer). They would've lifted off at roughly the same position. And then many of you would have yet more evidence or your idiocy.
Where did they find the world's most stupid pilot? I think he must be the only pilot who doesn't understand that it's air-speed and not ground-speed which determines lift.
Did he think that his ground wheels were driven by his airscrew thereby providing forward momentum?
Cripes...! I think someone should revoke his licence until he understands the basics of aerodynamics ! That pilot has just demonstrated that he has no idea how a headwind will affect his craft. He's dangerous !
Ummm... as far as the wheels are concerned this is just taking off in a tail wind == to the plane's takeoff airspeed. Come on internet doubters did we really need Mythbusters to solve this one?
[If your plane has a takeoff speed of 50mph, you have a 50mph tailwind and you're traveling down the runway at 50mph the airspeed is 0 mph (you're moving with the wind). If you reach 100mph down the runway then you have an airspeed of 50mph and you can takeoff. Same idea on treadmill.]
U people... When they use the convoy belt, they move the wheels, and when the plane goes forward pulled by the FAN, the wheel will just turn faster but the plane goes at the same speed since the are not moving the AIR, but only the GROUND that has nothing to do with the fact of if the plane will take off or not =_=
@supervegito2277 it wouldnt, the plane still goes forward because the propellor moves it, not the wheels, so you'd need a runway of the exact same length
a stationary plane will never take off,on a treadmill yes but only once it reached the speed required to create lift with its wings .but if it is tethered so as to keep it stationary it would not lift .the experiment proved that people had different expectations of what the treadmill would achieve.
The plane wasn't moving by the power of the wheels. The wheels going spin 10 times faster that the planes take of speed int he opposite direction and the plane wont be affected because it is getting its power from the propeller which is not related tot he wheels in anyway.
if anyone ever argued tht it would not move they r just plain out retards the prop is wat drives the plane not the wheels....now if it was a car tht would be a tootally different story....or if u had a huge ass fan in front of the plane
@Rapmastac1 Yes, but it would be impossible to make it so that the plane would stay stationary because the wheels have nothing to do with the planes forward movement. Even if the "treadmill" went twice as fast as the plane the plane would still go forward.
@TomARowly Well, at 500 times I bet the wheels would melt, fuse to the landing gear and act as if the breaks were fully engaged. In which case the plane would start moving backwards due to friction.
But yes. With perfect bearings and minimal rolling friction between the tires and the ground it should take off.
I would be intrigued to know at what speed the friction would be greater than the force of the propeller.
@valentinojivko same way you can get a drivers license without knowing the basics of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, the physics of friction and motion or the chemistry of combustion. you dont really need to know how something works to use it, just look at most computer users.
yeah...the problem here is that the plane wouldn't stay on the treadmill. no matter how fast the treadmill was going.
that's what makes it a bs question. the IMPLIED experiment in the original question creates an assumed link between the treadmill's "infinite runway" and the lift of the plane.
a link that doesn't exist.
if you actually had a TREADMILL (the size of one plane) the plane would fall off the treadmill, not take off, and it would be really f(#$*ing anticlimactic.
The myth is: "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."
I am not a physics major yet I can tell that the plane had a greater speed than the "treadmill."Reason? The plane was moving forward meaning that the net speed is NOT EQUAL TO ZERO.
If you guys don't understand why a net speed of zero should not move at all and why this video is wrong, go back to Physics
@kamizerox You said "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."
The belt was moving at the aircrafts normal ground speed during takeoff. The plane took off.
The video is very conclusive. Think a bit harder, or maybe re watch the video.
@kamizerox I don't understand your problem with it. The whole point IS that the plane would move forward regardless of the speed of the treadmill, because the plane doesn't care what the wheels are doing. As long as the pilot "steps on the pedal" the airplane creates thrust with the propeller and that's what moves it forward. Whether the wheels are turning at the same speed, twice or 10 times the speed the other way doesn't matter, because its speed comes from air thrust, not ground traction.
A plane does take off even if on a treadmill. A plane moves through air, the wheels on the ground are free spinning so a treadmill wont make a difference to the plane's forward motion.
well, this has probably been the stupidest attempt to prove a myth that I ve ever seen. It is so simple: If the plane and the conveyor belt move at the same speed, which they didn't do at all, neither in the RC-plane experiment nor in the full size, the plane can't take off, because if it stays at the same place in relation to the air surrounding it, there is no airflow over the wing and therefore absolutely no lift. It worked here, because the plane went much faster than the belt.
@boelkstoffschlucker No its not. The wheels are not powered by the engine. The plane's propeller uses air to pull itself forward, and does not rely on ground traction like cars to get moving.
When the prop pulls the plane forward it doesn't matter that the ground is moving in the opposite direction; the wheels just spin faster when the conveyor moves and doesn't have any bearing on whether the plane can fly or not.
@boelkstoffschlucker ah ah, ok, you said that it is the most stupid attempt to prove, and you lamed failed in your explaination ;) what is a making speed for a plane? it is not the wheel, so the plane do not care at all about the ground speed, can be 1000km/h in invesre direction or exactly the same speed in the same direction (so the wheel will not turn) you will have the same results. it is the propeller which give the power to the plane, not the wheels...
Wait . . . If the 'conveyor belt' and the airplane are moving at the same speed in opposite directions . . . doesn't that mean that the plane would not be moving relative to the runway?
The only reason this made it as far as Mythbusters is most people are so fucking stupid when it comes to aviation, to the uneducated masses flying is magic & shrouded in mystery whereas to pilots & others involved in aviation this experiment was a waste of time & the result stood out like dogs balls right from the beginning.
@padperson The plane sure is going past the cones! The reason being is that the power to comes from engine propulsion, not the wheels (unlike a car). In short the plane might be being pulled at 20MPH but the engine is pulling the plane independently to the wheels... that's why it passed... does that make sense?
Over the many months since I first saw this brain-teaser, I realized it was sent to divide humanity and turn brothers against one another. There's two ways of looking at it. There are those who see the spirit of the question being that the conveyor would be pulled sufficiently fast so that the plane is stationary relative to an outside observer but with engines revved to max and then there are those who jump straight to the real limitations and the wheel/belt/friction aspects.
So, you're right. And it's the propeller that's giving the thrust and there's just not enough friction between the belt and the plane wheels to drag the plane back that much, but just understand that there will be a large number of people who will say that this practical experiment doesn't seem to match the profile of the thought experiment that was raised in the first place, which was also ambiguously worded, for example the idea of the conveyor speed matching the plane speed.
@qwerty100500 So.. myth busted. An airplane can take off from a moving conveyor belt just fine. The myth said nothing about the airplane being stationary on the belt. That was your assumption of what would happen, and your assumption was wrong.
This myth is retarded. Shame on you myth busters!
PersonalRaineri 4 days ago
...oops. As I was saying, naysayers are hung up on wheel friction. They just cannot grasp how little force is necessary to overcome this, thereby negating it. I'd bet they'd all be willing to admit a hovercraft with wings could take off on the same conveyor belt. Just hung up on wheel friction.
Deekity 1 week ago
@Yairgeva7 if you think the "tiny" amount of friction present in the gear is enough to keep the plane stationary, you're an idiot. That's what keeps the naysayers from "getting" this whole concept. Obsessed with
Deekity 1 week ago
If the airplane will be moved to the air by speed of his gear it will not work, but propeller does not have anything common with gear :)
is stupid to count apples and pears together :)
matesakoid 1 week ago
Okay, so assuming the conveyor belt (and hence the runway) is the length of the plane, the aircraft would just tip over and crash. If the the conveyor belt was the length of a common runway, then it would still build up speed - wheels be damned.
Conveyor belts are a bad idea though. Wind tunnels would work much better.
tenou213 4 weeks ago
People who support this "bust" still defend it by saying the plane is not effected by the ground,
well i call bullshit, do you really think the wheels and the gears that connect them to the plane don't create any drag via friction at all? you think that if the planes engine was OFF and the belt was moving back, that the plane would just remain stationary?
the wheels & gears aint perfect. a belt moving back fast enough would overpower the planes engine, it will not move forward/liftoff.
YairGeva7 1 month ago
Нихуя не влетит. Тут самолет все же двигался относительно земли, так что уберите к хуям дорожку с колесами и поставьте его на лыжи. Заебали.
Slayer71rus 2 months ago
If the truck pulls the belt at 20 mph, and the pilot sets his plane to move forward at 20 mph, the wheels will then move at 40 mph to keep up with the two. The engine speed determines the forward thrust, not the wheel speed.
stulax18 2 months ago 4
@stulax18
the pilot shouldn't even touch the throttle at all since the wheel speed is already matching treadmill speed.
taledarkside 1 month ago
there needs to be air going over the wings to cause lift so no it wont work
tadflip 2 months ago
@tadflip A conveyor belt cannot stop a plane from taking off because no matter how fast the belt goes, the wheels will match the speed, and therefore cancel the force from the conveyor belt. A plane's engines push against the air to make it move forward. They don't push against the ground like a car does. A plane moves forward through the air like a swimmer moves forward through water: by pushing backwards on the fluid, not the ground.
jetengine7 1 month ago
They weren't testing it the right way. The "myth" is that a plane won't take off if the conveyor belt is moving fast enough that the plane is sitting stationary to an observer off to the side. In this situation, the plane is stationary to the air, and it won't take off.
Imclueless12 2 months ago
@Imclueless12 The conveyor belt won't affect to the speed of the plane, no matter how fast it moves. The plane is moved by its propeller, not by its wheels like a car. The wheels are just there to support it. Granted that the wheelspin will cause some friction, but nothing that the engine couldn't counter. You're indeed clueless.
Silanael 1 month ago
Comment removed
Imclueless12 1 month ago
@Silanael Yeah, you're right. I've thought about this since I posted that comment, and the wheels really won't make a difference. And I've also regretted picking that name ever since I first got my account, it takes away a hell of a lot of credibility.
Imclueless12 1 month ago
Он не машина, самолёт отталкивается от воздуха с помощью винта а не от земли. Ему все равно на то, что "земля едет назад"
Giltoniell 2 months ago 2
Ничего не понимаю из обсуждений заумных иностранцев, но почему он поехал вперед я тоже не понял. А в целом круто!
alekseyleonidovich 2 months ago
Terrible experiment...
mataloce 3 months ago
If the myth is, can a conveyer belt prevent a plane from taking off then, no it cant
but it seems that the myth is, if a conveyer belt is going at take off speed in the opposite direction and the plane is just maintaining its position on it, can the plane take off? no it cant.
patatepowa 3 months ago
Although this wasn't a well-performed experiment the conclusion is correct. A conveyor belt that goes in one direction will not stop an aircraft from accelerating in the other direction (in relation to a datum on the ground) as long as no braking force is applied to the aircraft's wheels. To understand this you must appreciate that unlike a car (whereby power is transmitted to a surface in contact with the ground) an aircraft derives forward motion from its relationship between thrust and drag.
bravobravo74 4 months ago
what a retarded myth,
janjohandealgenman 4 months ago
what a retarded myth,
janjohandealgenman 4 months ago
the plane was actually moving much more faster than the belt, thats why it can take off - if it was on same speed it would not because it wont have any lift on wings
itabiritomg 4 months ago
@itabiritomg it doesn't need lift on the wings, the PROPELLOR moves it forward
Stillwater900 3 months ago
@Stillwater900 the propeller moves it forward but the air thru the wings moves it UPWARD it could only fly stopped if there is a propeller upside lide an helicopter. i sugest search about a machine called autogiro
itabiritomg 3 months ago
@itabiritomg Do you understand that it does not matter how fast the treadmill is going? The propellor moves it until its fast enough to GET air over its wings, then it takes off. It has absolutely NO bearing on ANYTHING how fast the treeadmill is going, AT ALL. There are dozens of videos on here of people using there RC planes to take off from treadmills. Its a proven concept, its physically sound. We're all laughing at you who can't understand it
Stillwater900 3 months ago
I wonder what would happen if there was a fan blowing the opposite direction of the propeller behind the plane.
Phray81 4 months ago
@Phray81 If there was a fan behind the plane, then you would have a tailwind which would make it harder for the plane to takeoff because you're moving the air in the opposite direction that it's supposed to relative to the wings. That's why planes always takeoff into the wind.
jetengine7 1 month ago
This sucks. Even i saw the conveyor belt moving slover than the plane. That's why it have taken off - plane speed relatet to the earth was not 0.
PSXDooMERR 5 months ago
Comment removed
PSXDooMERR 5 months ago
Isn't whole idea of a plane on a conveyer belt there in order to make a point that plane wouldn't fly if it is stationary on the ground with engine running?
Put some block on the wheels, throttle the engine to full and see if it will fly. Maybe you can sell the patent to the NAVY to use on the carriers.
lebac 5 months ago
@lebac No, the point was that a conveyor belt can not hold an airplane in place.
mitchio83 4 months ago
They thought the 747 was too big...look at the a380!
nrsrrox960 5 months ago
this is obvious, the plane gains lift via airspeed, not ground speed.
josephoo7 6 months ago
Mark doesn't understand the principle of the thing ... it's like a monkey driving a car !
doldei 6 months ago
but hey we did learn that it took off in a shorter amount of time. so maybe they can use that technology on an aircraft carrier or something to make ships of shorter length capable of launching aircraft. not a bad idea?
edirty199 6 months ago
@edirty199 Terrible idea because it won't work. There's a reason we use steam catapults instead of conveyor belts.
JOTRKID 6 months ago
@edirty199 Bad idea. You're still not understanding the principle here, the treadmill doesn't help it take off faster
Stillwater900 3 months ago
what's the point of that though? Surely it's just like taking off from a runway then? Surely the whole point is for the treadmill to be much shorter than a normal runway?
woutersnel 6 months ago
thats the most bullshit test ever.
i thought they were going to uild a proper run way and fucking do it properly.
wtf is this shit.
i always knew they were faggots and now that myth has been proved right.
MegatronSmurf 7 months ago
@MegatronSmurf Do you really need to see them do it to be convinced that the plane will takeoff? It's basic physics. No conveyor belt can stop an airplane from taking off because no matter how fast the conveyor belt is moving, the plane's wheels will match the belt's speed and cancel out the backwards force. The engines push air backwards to move the plane forward, just like a swimmer pushes water backwards to go forward. Planes DO NOT push backwards on the ground like a car does.
jetengine7 1 month ago
This is basically a plane driving along a big gay cloth and then taking off...
ahadyama69 7 months ago
To watch the mythbusters guys set off a half a ton of thermite in an effort to burn a car in half, see my video "Incendiary Experiments"
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
Comment removed
ch0k0lakula 7 months ago
I don't even get what they are testing. They need to clarify. When they talk about the plane going the same speed in the other direction, do they mean with respect to the conveyor belt or the ground? When they set up the myth, it sounds like the plane is moving the same speed with respect to the belt, and therefore motionless with respect to the air. Not taking off. But in practice, they do exactly the opposite. There would be no controversy if they clarified what they meant.
dragonfiremalus 8 months ago
@dnebdal - Yes, you are right, I take it back. I was really tired and therefore a bit too stupid when i wrote these comments. The takeoff IS indeed possible, since the traction is in the propeller NOT in the plane's wheels. The propeller pulls itself (and therefore the plane too) forward, by gripping on the air. The plane WILL takeoff normally but the wheels will spin twice the normal speed cause the belt is moving back. So belt or runway, it would take the same distance to build lift and fly.
innersilencedotcom 8 months ago 3
they could've just tested an RC plane, but nooooo
bztheman 8 months ago
ugh learn some basic engineering principles people! This will never work!
rhymes116 8 months ago
think about it. if that conveyor shit was working airports would use 100 m long conveyor belts instead of runways to launch 747s. DOH.
innersilencedotcom 9 months ago
@innersilencedotcom Yeah, 'cause that's way more cost effective than land and some pavement.
bladerunner12 8 months ago
oh and that mark johnson is an idiot. faking that he's amazed.
innersilencedotcom 9 months ago
and that's not a conveyor belt. that's a sheet of textile playing the role of a conveyor belt. if you want this thing to be by the book you build a rubber conveyor belt and calculate acceleration so it matches the torque of the engine. obviously in the "big scale" experiment the plane accelerated way faster then the textile below it and the friction between the textile and the plane's wheels is close to 0 therefore the plane wins. cheap trick mythbusters. that will never work. ask any aviator.0
innersilencedotcom 9 months ago
@innersilencedotcom
You're very close to seeing why it wouldn't matter anyway.
Imagine a plane with wheels and really good bearings, on a belt. As the belt speeds up, how much force is required to hold the plane still? Not very much, even though the wheels are spinning fast.
The plane then uses the propeller to push against the air. If it has enough force, shouldn't it still be able to move the plane forward (relative to the air)? And isn't airspeed, not groundspeed, what gives lift?
dnebdal 8 months ago
@innersilencedotcom Torque is irrelevant when it comes to planes. We're not talking about cars. Plane engines do not send any torque to the wheels. Airplane engines produce thrust. They push air backwards to move the plane forward, just like a swimmer pushes water backwards to go forward. They act on a fluid: the air. Planes DO NOT push backwards on the ground like a car does and therefore, are not affected by the ground's movements.
jetengine7 1 month ago
the only reason the small scale example sort of worked out is because the model they used was very light and therefore the downforce on the conveyor belt was poor and above that, aeromodels such as the one they used in the small scale experiment use electric motors, which deliver 100% power instantly and even more, the power to weight ratio is huge due to the fact that the model is very light. therefore that will never work with a real cessna. i had a better impression about mythbusters.
innersilencedotcom 9 months ago
@dudegasten - agreed. basic aerodynamics tell us that in order for a plane to fly, it needs airflow on the profile of its wings. that's how lift builds up. that's why it's called "airspeed" - the speed of an aircraft relative to the air. therefore, if the conveyor belt moves in the opposite direction at takeoff speed, it will only cancel the propeller's effort of moving the plane forward and therefore the result is equal to the plane sitting on the ground with brakes on and the engine running.
innersilencedotcom 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@innersilencedotcom No conveyor belt can stop an airplane from taking off because no matter how fast the belt is moving, the plane's wheels will match the belt's speed and cancel out the backwards force. Since the wheel bearings are essentially frictionless, they will not transfer any force from the belt. The fact that the wheels are matching the belt's speed tells you that hardly any backward force is being transferred to the plane itself. That will only happen if the wheel brakes are applied.
jetengine7 1 month ago
Anyone who honestly thinks a plane will not take off from a conveyer belt is a fucking idiot.
blackt0wer 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
ch0k0lakula 7 months ago
The description of the myth is confusing a lot of people right now, even me.
The idea of the myth isn't about whether the plane can achieve flight while remaining in one place on a moving conveyor belt. The real question of the myth is, will the plane be able to achieve forward momentum on a moving conveyor belt.
So the better description will be "Can a plane move forward on a conveyor belt that is pulling in the opposite direction at the exact same speed".
SuperFunBag 9 months ago
@SuperFunBag Your title is still confusing, are you talking about wheel speed or airspeed (for plane)? If wheel speed, it will not take off and like the pilot says will sit like a brick. If it were airspeed then the wheels are spinning alot faster than the conveyor belt to achieve the correct take off air speed.
The title is actually: "Can a plane take off" The earth is a giant conveyor belt.
detectiveinspekta 9 months ago
@detectiveinspekta
The wheel isn't the one causing the plane to move forward, the air flow caused by the propeller is moving the plane.
At first, I thought they were going to try and see if a normal aircraft can lift off like a harrier jet. It seemed to me they failed miserably and still cheered for some reason, than I read though all the post and realized they meant something else.
SuperFunBag 9 months ago
@SuperFunBag Yea the myth they tested was if a plane would take off on a giant conveyor belt the length of the runway. Its not the same as the prototype car on a conveyor they tested which had zero airspeed. It doesn't matter if it were rockets or jet engines, it just needs something to exactly counter the moving conveyor belt to maintain the same reference point on the ground.
detectiveinspekta 9 months ago
Вот что бывает, когда у людей много денег и времени, но мало мозгов и знаний.
XaHyMaH 9 months ago
The airplane was suppose to stay in the same place but it was faster then the conveyor belt which made air move above the wing which created lift, if the plane stayed in the same place like it should be, there would be no air passing above the wing so you wouldn't have the vacuum effect that creates lift.
ypisoni 9 months ago
Why do they even need to prove this???
nikkatak 9 months ago
wow reading comments is more enjoyable than watching the video. can someone with some time on their hands go through the comments and make a list of smart people and idiots!!
anyone that makes the idiot list.. think 'freeeewheel'
truckdrifter 9 months ago
for take off,has be pressure under the wings bigger than over the wings! create with the high speed on the ground !if the plan stay at the same point ,and engines have the maximum power,only one will be happen! turn of wheels!
are not the engines that take off an airplane, the wings are!!the engines are just to continue the high speed in the air!!!
890050 10 months ago
Basically,
If you tie another plane of the same model tied that the tail and each accelerate exactly opposite direction, then the plain will not fly.
This experiment worked because the plane just worked harder to reach the take off speed (slower acceleration)
hyungsup2 10 months ago
Mythbusters is funny.
It's a program for stupid geeks or bored geeks.
There's no power going to the wheel anyways. Why do you wanna know?
Also, how can the plane take off if the speed was constant?
I doubt that pile of junk has the same power to ratio as the plane, therefore different acceleration.
If you believe that wheels spin twice as fast, then you are saying that the coefficient of friction of the belt is 0 which is clearly not true.
hyungsup2 10 months ago
Invalid and complete BS! Mark Johnson should have his recreational permit revoked for going along with this hillbillie-science, you know that plane was moving and not stationary as the test would dictate that it must. This is the first episode I've watched of the so-called Mythbusters, but amazing to me that so many people don't understand that they just perpetuated a myth with it's conclusions. It's like these jerks would think rockets wouldn't work in space because there's no air!
ChicaWolverina 10 months ago
The part that I hate, is that people still don't think Mythbusters got this one right.
ChakatBlackstar 10 months ago
they didn't match the belt speed with the plane speed.
sashcache 10 months ago
1:58 That moron should have his pilot's licence revoked. I would have thought a basic understanding of aerodynamics would be at least desirable in a pilot!
Nilguiri 10 months ago
its because the plane is not powered by its wheels so it doesnt matter how fast they spin
raichlbob 10 months ago 2
omg this truely me amazed me
realflow100 10 months ago
airplanes fly even when their wheels arn't touching anything, haha. (sarcasm) a 15 minute discussion on basic aerodynamics would have save the mythbusters some time.
iemgus 11 months ago
The fact is that the truck was only going 20 mph and the plane accelerated past that speed to reach a forward speed enough to where air was moving over the wings so it could take off.
In a more perfect test, the plane would go nowhere.
KillerBYTE367 11 months ago
@KillerBYTE367
you cannot be serious.
axelerat3d 11 months ago
So what makes the plane go up? Is it the propeller rising the plane or is is the air blowing threw the wings lifting the plane? In this episode, the plane has forward speed. Which would create wind under the wings to cause it to rise. If that isn't the factor to cause lift and only the propeller would cause lift then whether the plane was moving or not would make no difference. Am I right or wrong?
Shadowdawnz 11 months ago
So what makes the plane go up. Is it the propeller creating Air and forcing the plane to go up or is it the air blowing threw the wings causing the plane to lift? If it's the propeller causing the plane to lift then this makes complete sense. If its air blowing threw the wings creating the lift then this doesn't make sense to me. I'm no physics student so that could be my drawback.
Shadowdawnz 11 months ago
This is just a moving surface. Once overcoming surface friction, thrust does whatever it wants, matching the airspeed moving opposite doesn't create a special airflow allowable for lift!
Dominoes282 11 months ago
boolshit!!!!
The plane was moving!
This dosen't prove a thing!
SamantaBlack 11 months ago 2
@SamantaBlack You do realize the plane moving was the whole point of the myth right?
ChakatBlackstar 10 months ago
Planes work on air speed under the wing, not ground speed under the free-wheeling tires. This is retarded.
Sidlexic 1 year ago
@Sidlexic When they first introduced the segment was the first time I had ever heard of this. From the comments I now see you could think of this in a few ways. But when I first was watching this I was a might confused because I kept thinking that perhaps I was missing something. I kept thinking hard! But could never understand anything about the belt. The belt was totally out of the equation! Which of coarse it is. I can't believe the pilot!!! Too many cartoons!!!
johneastmond 9 months ago
Whether the plane is moving forward, backward, or side to side is irrelevant. What is relevant is the direction the wind is moving in relation to the wings. Wind moving across the wings on a plane is what creates lift. If the propeller can force air over the wings fast enough, even though the plane is stationary (due to the conveyor belt), it should still generate enough lift to get the plane off the ground - whether or not you could sustain flight from there depends on the engine's power.
bckayser 1 year ago
@bckayser Almost. But the conveyor belt won't keep the plane still in the first place. The propeller moves the plane forward through the air, regardless of what the useless free rolling wheels are doing. See my previous comment.
YourUsernameBoresMe 1 year ago
OK DOUBTERS. Tell me this. If a plane was airborne and flying at 100MPH and landed on a conveyor belt moving the opposite direction at 100MPH, would you expect it to immediately stop dead in it's tracks? Or would you just expect the wheels to spin twice as fast as normal and the plane doesn't stop? Thought so..
YourUsernameBoresMe 1 year ago 8
@YourUsernameBoresMe That's the best illustration of this concept I've heard! Great job, and thanks!
masteryoda41309 1 year ago
@YourUsernameBoresMe The planes wheels would spin twice as fast and the plane would stop.. On a conveyor belt, the plane would come to a stop then move backwards with the belt. Throw a marble on a conveyor belt, it amounts to the same thing.
RazerWire722 3 months ago
Of course it takes off!!
The conveyor belt would make a CAR stationary, sure, but this is a PLANE! It's road is THE AIR. Only someone who doesn't know the difference between a plane and a car would believe it would stay still.
YourUsernameBoresMe 1 year ago
@YourUsernameBoresMe but if the plane remains stationary due to the conveyor belt and no lift is created then it is pretty obvious that the plane wont be airborne. Planes and cars react exactly the same on a conveyor belt, the only difference is that one has an engine that powers a propellor and one has an engine that power's wheels. If the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at exactly the same speed, then both will remain stationary. Mythbusters conducted the experiment wrong.
swimjim4012 1 year ago
@swimjim4012 You a right. A car has WHEEL power and a plane has PROPELLER power. Which is exactly why a conveyor wont do jack to a plane because a planes wheels are NOT it's source of power. They just roll. The conveyor just makes them roll faster and the plane takes off like normal.
If you really want to make a plane stay still you would need to blast AIR towards it. Because AIR is it's power. Playing with the wheels does nothing, the plane just uses them for balance, they provide no power.
YourUsernameBoresMe 1 year ago
@YourUsernameBoresMe ok yea, you're right. i thought about it for a little bit and then it dawned on me.
swimjim4012 1 year ago
that pilot should have his certificate yanked for thinking he couldn't take off. I nearly fell off the couch when he said that. I could understand someone without much physics background making that mistake but not a pilot. holy cow. I'll bet he's the laughing stock at his airport now.
yz9890 1 year ago
Bad landing? He forgot to flare :3
DIMATIF 1 year ago
This is similar to the Knight Rider/ Big Rig episode.
porkupine73 1 year ago
I would refer this as STOVL (short take off and verticanllanding, which a light plane could not do)
3801Catcher 1 year ago
I can't believe anyone would think this would prevent takeoff. If that pilot really believed the belt would prevent him from flying he should have his license yanked.
shananagans5 1 year ago 3
Mythbusters are idiots.... nuff said.
I0S3PH 1 year ago
all people who genuinely believe that the plane can not take off are retards. Anyone with even a basic understanding of how planes fly would know it has nothing to fo with ground speed. its the air speed that matters.
ToothOgre 1 year ago
@ToothOgre If a plane's engine wasn't running but it was faced upwind it would still lift off and just hover in one spot?
juggleknot 1 year ago
@juggleknot
if the wind were fast enough, you'd have to tie the plane down.
porkupine73 1 year ago
@juggleknot ---Good question. Yes. I've seen planes "fly one their chains" under this circumstance. I've seen planes move backward relative to the earth. The landing gear (and the earth as well) have very little to do with the aerodynamics of flight. That treadmill could've been moving much faster than the plane, it could've been moving sideways (with castering gear). Doesn't matter. The only reason the wheels move at all is because the air mass the plane is in is at ground level momentarily.
yz9890 1 year ago
You have to realize that the wheels do not matter. The wheels are not attatched to anything that causes the plane to move. The propeller is what makes the plane move. The wheels could be going forwards, backwards, 20 miles and hour, or 200 miles an hour. It doesn't matter though because the wheels have nothing to do with how fast it goes. The plane will still take off.
masteryoda41309 1 year ago
I like Mythbusters but this is retarded. I can't believe the never redid this - obviously flawed - experiment.
Havgry 1 year ago
the plane is fucking moving, this troll physics myth is still busted
FPVsean 1 year ago
air moving over the wings = flight.
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
You're all dumb. If the tarp and plane are traveling at the same speed in different directions, then the plane's horizontal velocity us 0, ergo, it will not take off. If you watch, the plane is moving faster than the tarp. That's why it flew. The pilot was right, the experiment was flawed.
frenchsaber 1 year ago
@frenchsaber:
Doesn't matter how fast the tarp is going, the wheels will compensate it and the plane will start anyway. Why? Because the wheels have nothing to do with the velocitiy of the plane.
Don't confuse plane and car ;)
Abbath77 1 year ago 2
@frenchsaber If the plane was not moving, and the belt was going the same speed, it would also be not moving, The plane was moving at 25 MPH and the tarp was moving at 25 MPH the opposite direction. Speeds were matched, the plane took off. A treadmill can never hold any airplane stationary because the way an airplane moves is different than a car or human. You expected the plane to react like a human on a treadmill and sit stationary, because thats what you are used to seeing, think deeper.
mitchio83 1 year ago
@frenchsaber ---Super funny. The plane wasn't traveling at the same speed though. And not due to a flaw in the experiment but because it's "horizontal velocity" has almost nothing to do with the tarp.
What they should've done is had an identical plane take off right next to it (not on a conveyer). They would've lifted off at roughly the same position. And then many of you would have yet more evidence or your idiocy.
yz9890 1 year ago
only an idiot would think the plane would not take off ...
carlover 1 year ago
Comment removed
Grey13Human 1 year ago
Where did they find the world's most stupid pilot? I think he must be the only pilot who doesn't understand that it's air-speed and not ground-speed which determines lift.
Did he think that his ground wheels were driven by his airscrew thereby providing forward momentum?
Cripes...! I think someone should revoke his licence until he understands the basics of aerodynamics ! That pilot has just demonstrated that he has no idea how a headwind will affect his craft. He's dangerous !
RoadRunnerLaser 1 year ago
Ummm... as far as the wheels are concerned this is just taking off in a tail wind == to the plane's takeoff airspeed. Come on internet doubters did we really need Mythbusters to solve this one?
[If your plane has a takeoff speed of 50mph, you have a 50mph tailwind and you're traveling down the runway at 50mph the airspeed is 0 mph (you're moving with the wind). If you reach 100mph down the runway then you have an airspeed of 50mph and you can takeoff. Same idea on treadmill.]
iwishiwasthatoneguy 1 year ago
U people... When they use the convoy belt, they move the wheels, and when the plane goes forward pulled by the FAN, the wheel will just turn faster but the plane goes at the same speed since the are not moving the AIR, but only the GROUND that has nothing to do with the fact of if the plane will take off or not =_=
darrincool1 1 year ago 45
@darrincool1 hmm makes sense.
with this knowledge using a belt like this would save a huge bunk of work and materials for the landing level, or what its called.
supervegito2277 6 months ago in playlist TV::Mythbusters
@supervegito2277 it wouldnt, the plane still goes forward because the propellor moves it, not the wheels, so you'd need a runway of the exact same length
killernies 6 months ago 2
What a stupid myth... some people are basic as batshit!
ShmeareD 1 year ago
Сраные колеса, чертов самолет, чертов эксперимент!!! Ненависть, надо попробовать реактивный самолет с колесами 4*4!
bayanis4e 1 year ago
The plane moved, and point of a conveyor belt is that the plane is stationary... -.-
str4jo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
americans are so stupid
dudegasten 1 year ago 13
@dudegasten
is that why you are using our internet?
taledarkside 8 months ago
@dudegasten why???
chesternolan 8 months ago
a stationary plane will never take off,on a treadmill yes but only once it reached the speed required to create lift with its wings .but if it is tethered so as to keep it stationary it would not lift .the experiment proved that people had different expectations of what the treadmill would achieve.
klick71 1 year ago 3
SHIT TEST!!!
biglandfarm 1 year ago 3
The plane wasn't moving by the power of the wheels. The wheels going spin 10 times faster that the planes take of speed int he opposite direction and the plane wont be affected because it is getting its power from the propeller which is not related tot he wheels in anyway.
GHOSTthaHOST 1 year ago
@GHOSTthaHOST resistance my friend.
swimjim4012 1 year ago
this is dump the plane isnt moving by wheels but by air pushing
MrMuscleMacho 1 year ago
if anyone ever argued tht it would not move they r just plain out retards the prop is wat drives the plane not the wheels....now if it was a car tht would be a tootally different story....or if u had a huge ass fan in front of the plane
lilrider100 1 year ago
Comment removed
astrosoftsqlserver 1 year ago
This myth has been terribly tested, the plane wasn't even close to being stationary.
Rapmastac1 1 year ago
@Rapmastac1 Yes, but it would be impossible to make it so that the plane would stay stationary because the wheels have nothing to do with the planes forward movement. Even if the "treadmill" went twice as fast as the plane the plane would still go forward.
Leg4tus 1 year ago
@Rapmastac1 u r a fucking retard it was the best it will ever get there was something moving under neeth....uuuu like a tradmeal dimb ass
lilrider100 1 year ago
@Rapmastac1
The plane shouldn't have been stationary. If it were, nothing would happen.
But, the propeller causes the plane to move forward relative to the air around it, not the ground.
So the plane would move forward even if the tarp were going at 500 times the speed in the opposite direction, because the wheels are free moving.
TomARowly 1 year ago 3
@TomARowly Well, at 500 times I bet the wheels would melt, fuse to the landing gear and act as if the breaks were fully engaged. In which case the plane would start moving backwards due to friction.
But yes. With perfect bearings and minimal rolling friction between the tires and the ground it should take off.
I would be intrigued to know at what speed the friction would be greater than the force of the propeller.
iwishiwasthatoneguy 1 year ago
@iwishiwasthatoneguy
That is the sort of this Mythbusters should be doing! Not these wishy-washy things that can be worked out on paper!
TomARowly 1 year ago
yes, but the plane is moving a lot faster than the belt and has enough speed to take off.
vinceythefly 1 year ago
how the hell did that man get his pilot permit if he doesn't understand the basics of lift and drag?
valentinojivko 1 year ago
@valentinojivko It's clear! He's a stupid American))
Matskoff 1 year ago
@valentinojivko same way you can get a drivers license without knowing the basics of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, the physics of friction and motion or the chemistry of combustion. you dont really need to know how something works to use it, just look at most computer users.
demondim5 1 year ago
@valentinojivko haha thts wat i was thinking haha lol thank you so much
lilrider100 1 year ago
the weight of the plane is pushing that conveyor belt down, it doesn't grip on the wheels at all.
knuble 1 year ago
Comment removed
rmhhouse 1 year ago
The treadmill is irrelevant. No matter what, the plane will move forward and gain lift.
terminaldeity 1 year ago
the propeller / jet engine creates enough air movement over the wings to create lift. you dont need to be moving.
cmanclan101 1 year ago
yeah...the problem here is that the plane wouldn't stay on the treadmill. no matter how fast the treadmill was going.
that's what makes it a bs question. the IMPLIED experiment in the original question creates an assumed link between the treadmill's "infinite runway" and the lift of the plane.
a link that doesn't exist.
if you actually had a TREADMILL (the size of one plane) the plane would fall off the treadmill, not take off, and it would be really f(#$*ing anticlimactic.
MrZebra69 1 year ago
@MrZebra69 Of course i am implying that the plane would fly. The myth never mentions a "treadmill" it says "conveyor belt" and does not mention size.
The plane took off just fine from the conveyor belt on the show.
mitchio83 1 year ago
This video is INCONCLUSIVE.
The myth is: "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."
I am not a physics major yet I can tell that the plane had a greater speed than the "treadmill."Reason? The plane was moving forward meaning that the net speed is NOT EQUAL TO ZERO.
If you guys don't understand why a net speed of zero should not move at all and why this video is wrong, go back to Physics
kamizerox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kamizerox You said "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."
The belt was moving at the aircrafts normal ground speed during takeoff. The plane took off.
The video is very conclusive. Think a bit harder, or maybe re watch the video.
mitchio83 1 year ago
@kamizerox I don't understand your problem with it. The whole point IS that the plane would move forward regardless of the speed of the treadmill, because the plane doesn't care what the wheels are doing. As long as the pilot "steps on the pedal" the airplane creates thrust with the propeller and that's what moves it forward. Whether the wheels are turning at the same speed, twice or 10 times the speed the other way doesn't matter, because its speed comes from air thrust, not ground traction.
dradeel 1 year ago
A plane does take off even if on a treadmill. A plane moves through air, the wheels on the ground are free spinning so a treadmill wont make a difference to the plane's forward motion.
pwnmaster9 1 year ago
It's airspeed.
The plane did not stay still.
aclsalrfp 1 year ago
well, this has probably been the stupidest attempt to prove a myth that I ve ever seen. It is so simple: If the plane and the conveyor belt move at the same speed, which they didn't do at all, neither in the RC-plane experiment nor in the full size, the plane can't take off, because if it stays at the same place in relation to the air surrounding it, there is no airflow over the wing and therefore absolutely no lift. It worked here, because the plane went much faster than the belt.
boelkstoffschlucker 1 year ago 2
@boelkstoffschlucker No its not. The wheels are not powered by the engine. The plane's propeller uses air to pull itself forward, and does not rely on ground traction like cars to get moving.
When the prop pulls the plane forward it doesn't matter that the ground is moving in the opposite direction; the wheels just spin faster when the conveyor moves and doesn't have any bearing on whether the plane can fly or not.
WolfInExile 1 year ago
@boelkstoffschlucker ah ah, ok, you said that it is the most stupid attempt to prove, and you lamed failed in your explaination ;) what is a making speed for a plane? it is not the wheel, so the plane do not care at all about the ground speed, can be 1000km/h in invesre direction or exactly the same speed in the same direction (so the wheel will not turn) you will have the same results. it is the propeller which give the power to the plane, not the wheels...
docsharp00 1 year ago
lol @ how they have the British RAF and French insignias on their little animated plane.
semtex84 1 year ago
Wait . . . If the 'conveyor belt' and the airplane are moving at the same speed in opposite directions . . . doesn't that mean that the plane would not be moving relative to the runway?
madklowndisease 1 year ago
Now for the next myth. If a plane is flying and it's wheels are turning faster than the propellors, will the plane fall out of the sky?
Ambushcrysis 1 year ago
Lmao 3:30 his segway is escaping!
Tibobhe 1 year ago
The only reason this made it as far as Mythbusters is most people are so fucking stupid when it comes to aviation, to the uneducated masses flying is magic & shrouded in mystery whereas to pilots & others involved in aviation this experiment was a waste of time & the result stood out like dogs balls right from the beginning.
Steve181 1 year ago
oh my good... they didnt prove anything, the myth is that the airplane doesnt move
M4xxA 1 year ago
@M4xxA um, except that the airplane moves and manages to take off. What are you, retarded?
776locust 1 year ago
Umm....the plane is moving past the cones.
padperson 1 year ago 58
@padperson The plane sure is going past the cones! The reason being is that the power to comes from engine propulsion, not the wheels (unlike a car). In short the plane might be being pulled at 20MPH but the engine is pulling the plane independently to the wheels... that's why it passed... does that make sense?
Jonneymarket 1 year ago
@Jonneymarket
Over the many months since I first saw this brain-teaser, I realized it was sent to divide humanity and turn brothers against one another. There's two ways of looking at it. There are those who see the spirit of the question being that the conveyor would be pulled sufficiently fast so that the plane is stationary relative to an outside observer but with engines revved to max and then there are those who jump straight to the real limitations and the wheel/belt/friction aspects.
padperson 1 year ago
@Jonneymarket
So, you're right. And it's the propeller that's giving the thrust and there's just not enough friction between the belt and the plane wheels to drag the plane back that much, but just understand that there will be a large number of people who will say that this practical experiment doesn't seem to match the profile of the thought experiment that was raised in the first place, which was also ambiguously worded, for example the idea of the conveyor speed matching the plane speed.
padperson 1 year ago
@padperson yeah...this is a good point. the plane is moving
fozzi900 1 year ago
MythBusters ability to bust myths busted!
Plane is clearly moving forward relative to the ground, therefore generating lift at the wings and taking off.
qwerty100500 10 months ago 2
@qwerty100500 So.. myth busted. An airplane can take off from a moving conveyor belt just fine. The myth said nothing about the airplane being stationary on the belt. That was your assumption of what would happen, and your assumption was wrong.
mitchio83 10 months ago
The speed of the ground have nothing to do with the plane
Rayden440 1 year ago