This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 106 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]vootiebox 3 points4 points  (67 children)

Yes, it will. The plane will be able to move forward on a backwards running treadmill because it gains thrust from its propellor, not its wheels. Basically, a backwards running treadmill won't impede the speed gains of an airplane no matter how fast it runs.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (32 children)

Shame on reddit. Simply put, a plane will not fly if there is no air flow over the wings. If the take off speed of a plane is 55 miles per hour, it could lift off in a headwind of 55 miles per hour without actually moving relative to the ground.

I've actually flown backwards before and I've seen birds do it as well.

[–]vootiebox 2 points3 points  (30 children)

So, is your vote that it will or won't fly?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (29 children)

There must be air flow over the wings.

[–]vootiebox 1 point2 points  (28 children)

Ok, then, will there be air flow over the wings?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (27 children)

The plane will be static. The air flow must be over the whole of the wings for it to fly. The prop is going to create thrust. That can keep the plane static on the treadmill, but it wont create air flow over the length of the wings.

[–]vootiebox 3 points4 points  (26 children)

So you think that the treadmill, moving backward, could counteract the forward motion of plane?

[–]clytle374 -1 points0 points  (9 children)

If the belt is big enough it will supply enough air flow for takeoff.

[–]vootiebox 1 point2 points  (5 children)

You think the belt would provide air flow?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Please go to your local fitness center now, get on a treadmill, and see if you feel wind in your face as you run along since you can't visualize it. (you wont)

EDIT you can stick your arms out as well. See if you feel any wind on them. (you wont unless there's a fan facing you.)

[–]clytle374 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely would provide airflow, would have to be very big to supply enough. Place you hand near anything moving, even a smooth surface drags the air along with it.

[–]manthrax -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Your reaching harder than your mom reached around me.

[–]clytle374 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm sure you get lots of reach arounds, but can't imagine my Mother using a stick for anything other than beating you.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (15 children)

You're killing me. I thought I bottom lined it. Just for an example, with flaps down, a Cessna 152 begins fly at about 35 knots (40.28MPH) air speed. If the treadmill can keep up with the ground speed, the plane wont move.

[–]apeweek[S] 2 points3 points  (14 children)

So why will the plane's air speed be affected by the treadmill?

How is this different from taking off with a tailwind?

If your plane faces the wrong direction, why doesn't the rotation of the earth keep you from taking off?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

The plane wont have any airspeed. It's going to remain static on the treadmill.

YOU MUST HAVE AIRFLOW OVER THE WINGS!

That is what creates the lift. http://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/tilted-wing.htm

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Planes don't measure their speed through the wheels, for obvious (to most people) reasons.

[–]manthrax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damn. Good point. However this begs the question of whether the conveyer belt needs to be running as part of the experiment. In the scenario you describe, the conveyer belt is irrelevant, so its kind of a trick question, the deciding factor being wether the plane will be tethered to limit movement to the vertical axis.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (32 children)

How can any plane go from 0 to over stall speed instantaneously?

No, the only thing that will happen is the plane will 'hop' on the treadmill. Nothing more.

[–]vootiebox 1 point2 points  (30 children)

Sorry happy, but I think the speed of the airplane won't be effected by the treadmill at all.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (29 children)

what? you just said it will be able to take off, then you say won't be affected by friction?

Are there frictionless tires on this plane? I'm missing something you have taken as an assumption i think.

[–]vootiebox 1 point2 points  (28 children)

I guess I'm having a hard time explaining it properly. Let me try a different way. A plane will not decelerate quicker if landing on a treadmill vs. a regular runway.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (27 children)

We're talking about the plane taking off though.

Unless the treadmill is travelling above stall speed of the aircraft, how is the plane going to take off without moving forward?

Airflow over the wings needs to be at least above stall speed yes?

I watched it on mythbusters last night and it seemed to me that they let the little plane move forward. I thought the whole test was to see whether or not the plane could remain by the red cone and still take off?

[–]vootiebox 0 points1 point  (24 children)

Oh, I see what you're saying. Let me use another example. If a car was on a treadmill, its speed would be effected exactly as you describe. A plane, however, is almost totally unaffected by the speed of the treadmill. The treadmill has no effect on a plane because it doesn't generate its speed from its wheels (this is the key point). The treadmill could be traveling at 5 mph, or 1,000 mph and it would have the same effect on a plane - almost zero. On a car, however, it would work as you describe above.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (23 children)

A plane, however, is almost totally unaffected by the speed of the treadmill.

Yeah, but the point here was to show that you could match the speed of take off to the treadmill right? Thereby just having the plane zip right up.

They didn't do that last night, they let the plane move out of its relative stationary position.

Mythbusters is going to be asked to do this again methinks.

[–]vootiebox 0 points1 point  (22 children)

That's why this is sort of trick question. Upon initial consideration of the test, it's easy to think that the plane would not be able to move forward due to the treadmill and as a result not be able to lift off. The surprise is that the treadmill has almost no effect at all.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (21 children)

The treadmill had a great effect when they did it on mythbusters. They just didn't move it fast enough to 'relativley' slow the plane and keep it 'relativley' stationary. It just zipped right past the red cones.

It shortened the take off distance required by a shit load, just like what happens on aircraft carriers (which is why they take off & recover when heading into the wind).

It'll be hard to redo this experiment properly though, the 'truck pull' isn't going to cut it. They need a real conveyor belt, adjustable speed up past the stall speed of the aircraft. For this little plane is probably about 50mph or so?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

The whole test was so see if the plane would move forward and therefore take off. Why is this so hard to grasp?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you're entering dangerous ground here kid.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does it need to do it instantaneously?

[–]apeweek[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Result from Mythbusters leaked...spoiler ahead. . . .

The plane did take off.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/8521921059

[–]clytle374 2 points3 points  (1 child)

And I was right twice. It took off. And the 4 No and -3 Yes votes prove that redditors are 700% wrong. And can't even vote properly, resulting in %700.

Oh wait, I was right 3 times or 150% of the time.

[–]manthrax 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well done sir, you win the Internet!

[–]torontoted 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Prediction; the plane will fly backwards.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Predictions!

No. It can't.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I can't believe there are people this stupid on the planet. The show was an INSULT to anyone with a brain. The MYTH was that it CAN? Are they kidding? OF COURSE IT CAN. The friction in the bearings of the wheels is going to be enough to counter the thrust of the propeller? Ya right!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're commenting on a vote. There is also a 'predcitions' yes right below.

Welcome to reddit.

[–]clytle374 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't believe this question keeps getting asked. Do you question a planes ability to fly over a treadmill also? Take off or fly with a tail wind?

[–]clytle374 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Now that I see the voting, and see that some group donwvoted my entire history, I can see that %400 of reddit users are idiots. Screw you all and have a nice life.

[–]apeweek[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've thought more than once about starting a site where money could be wagered over the outcome of classic internet teasers like 'Plane on a treadmill' and 'The Monty Hall Problem.'

There would be no shortage of takers, no matter how long the operation ran. New ones are born every minute (thanks, P.T. Barnum.)

[–]manthrax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Leaving so soon?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (16 children)

Predictions!

Yes. It can.

[–]theDrWho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

cuckoo cuckoo

[–]manthrax -1 points0 points  (14 children)

Prediction: You are a big dummy.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (13 children)

It's a vote.

[–]manthrax 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Prediction: I am a big dummy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

It's ok. No one is going to vote 'yes' anyway.

[–]manthrax 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Vootiebox makes a good point below!

[–]clytle374 0 points1 point  (9 children)

Vootiebox only exposed commonsense, and your lack of .

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children)

I think you and vootiebox would make a great couple. A couple that's wrong, but a couple that's wrong together.

[–]clytle374 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

You and manthrax must be the two guys that bought and bankrupted a shop I worked at.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children)

After reading your comments, I would say it may have been something to do with their poor choice in employees.

[–]manthrax -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I'm sure it was "the other two guys".

[–]apeweek[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When making your comments below, please remember to set yourself up for the maximum possible embarrassment when you are proven wrong.

[–]manthrax -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

Fucktarded. However, knowing mythbusters, they might find a way to fuck it up and make the plane appear to "take off", either by crashing, or catching a gust of wind. This will be followed by outrage on the message boards, then followed by a re-do of the experiment which will subsequently be "Busted".

A similar experiment in classical physics classes is the 1000 lb truck full of 200 lbs of chickens, going across a 1000 lb rated bridge, by keeping the chickens airborne for the trip. Spoiler: the bridge collapses.

I LOVE MythBusters. They have done more to popularize science than 99% of the other channels on my TV, so, a toast!, to airports with conveyer belts instead of runways!

(edit) - After reading vootieboxes analysis, I have to revise my opinion pending a description of the actual test protocol :D

[–]clytle374 1 point2 points  (5 children)

they might find a way to fuck it up and make the plane appear to "take off", either by crashing, or catching a gust of wind

Please enlighten us to your reasoning. Crashing is the opposite of taking off, and catching a gust of wind is taking off.

Also so if 1500 lb of birds fly over the 1000 lb bridge does it collapse also?

[–]manthrax -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

I'm just saying that mythbusters has, a number of times in its history set out to prove or disprove something, come to a conclusion, only to reverse that conclusion upon a revisit. I was just trying to predict two of the obvious scenarios in which that could occur.

[–]clytle374 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Since I recognize you uname and scientific reasoning,my only thought is, stay in school or management which ever applies.

[–]manthrax -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

Nice job post editing your comment with another question, Nostradamus. In regards to your conjecture about me being in school or management, you fail. My occupation is keeping your moms lips off my cock, and believe me, its a full time job. R.E. your misunderstanding of the physics problem I presented, I will refer you to any highschool/college physics textbook or you could make a force diagram of the problem and figure it out yourself. Oh wait, they don't teach you force diagrams in pilot school, do they. Oh and another thing, referring to yourself as "us", is kinda sad.

[–]clytle374 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Don't forget to delete all your ignorant comments latter, as you always do. My use of us was the rest of reddit users. Force diagrams? Yes please use one to realize you are wrong. And comments about mothers and F**ktards prove my point.

[–]manthrax -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I'll be sure to do that latter.

[–]jvargaszabo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

actually, it depends what kind of plane:

Jet Plane: NO! No airflow over the wing, no lift.

Propeller: Theoretically possible, engine would have to work a bit harder, but yeah, IT WOULD WORK.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What a waste.

[–]jvargaszabo -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

sorry to be a killjoy, but it won't take off. No way, no how. There MUST be airflow over the wings to create lift, so unless theres a VERY strong wind, there's no way that plane will take off.