what's with all the wind?
there was no headwind or tailwind mentioned in the original question.
shouldn't calm air be the assumption?
in which case, the plane takes off at take off speed, and the belt is going that speed, and the wheels are going twice that speed.
snore.
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 25 2006, 01:58 AM)
Hurrah you got it!!!!
The prop WILL pull the plane to a max IAS. NOT a max ground speed.
Remeber "its all about IAS"
You still don't get it do you!
If a plane is travelling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens:
1) It's groundspeed remains at 90mph.
2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph.
So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly.
The prop WILL pull the plane to a max IAS. NOT a max ground speed.
Remeber "its all about IAS"
You still don't get it do you!
If a plane is travelling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens:
1) It's groundspeed remains at 90mph.
2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph.
So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly.
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 10:55 AM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 25 2006, 01:58 AM)
Hurrah you got it!!!!
The prop WILL pull the plane to a max IAS. NOT a max ground speed.
Remeber "its all about IAS"
You still don't get it do you!
If a plane is travelling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens:
1) It's groundspeed remains at 90mph.
2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph.
So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly.
A plane has no limit to it's ground speed. To say it does proves you have very little understanding of how a plane works.
A plane is limited to an IAS.
Look at a standard airspeed indicator for a plane. Read on how it works. Static vs ram air pressures. See how it has NOTHING to do with the speed of the ground. Ponder that!!
I think that NASA guy would be embarrased to have you quote him in such a mannor.
Did you read anymore than pieces of that one page??
The prop WILL pull the plane to a max IAS. NOT a max ground speed.
Remeber "its all about IAS"
You still don't get it do you!
If a plane is travelling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens:
1) It's groundspeed remains at 90mph.
2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph.
So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly.
A plane has no limit to it's ground speed. To say it does proves you have very little understanding of how a plane works.
A plane is limited to an IAS.
Look at a standard airspeed indicator for a plane. Read on how it works. Static vs ram air pressures. See how it has NOTHING to do with the speed of the ground. Ponder that!!
I think that NASA guy would be embarrased to have you quote him in such a mannor.
Did you read anymore than pieces of that one page??
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 25 2006, 01:58 AM)
Hurrah you got it!!!!
The prop WILL pull the plane to a max IAS. NOT a max ground speed.
Remeber "its all about IAS"
You still don't get it do you!
If a plane is travelling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens:
1) It's groundspeed remains at 90mph.
2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph.
So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly.
That is your problem! you don't understand the physics involved.
1) incorrect! Think about it! what is the limiting factor? the propeller/engine has reached equilibrium with the surrounding (still) air. It cannot push against the air any harder so it stops accelerating! Now move that air at 30-mph (tail wind) and you no longer have equilibrium! so the plane accelerates as if it were only going 60-mph back up to 90-mph airspeed.
2) Momentarily this is correct, but the plane will then start to accelerate back up to 90-mph airspeed.
Your confusion is that you think (incorrectly) that the limiting factor is the spinning of the wheels! It's not! its the power of the engine that can only push so much against the surrounding air. The air resistance increases with the square of the velocity! The plane accelerates until the power can no-longer push the plane faster because of this air resistance. Once you lessen this air resistance by creating a tail wind, the plane can continue to accelerate until it reaches that equilibrium again which is at 90-mph airspeed! The ground speed is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the max speed of the plane!
Krreagan
The prop WILL pull the plane to a max IAS. NOT a max ground speed.
Remeber "its all about IAS"
You still don't get it do you!
If a plane is travelling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens:
1) It's groundspeed remains at 90mph.
2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph.
So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly.
That is your problem! you don't understand the physics involved.
1) incorrect! Think about it! what is the limiting factor? the propeller/engine has reached equilibrium with the surrounding (still) air. It cannot push against the air any harder so it stops accelerating! Now move that air at 30-mph (tail wind) and you no longer have equilibrium! so the plane accelerates as if it were only going 60-mph back up to 90-mph airspeed.
2) Momentarily this is correct, but the plane will then start to accelerate back up to 90-mph airspeed.
Your confusion is that you think (incorrectly) that the limiting factor is the spinning of the wheels! It's not! its the power of the engine that can only push so much against the surrounding air. The air resistance increases with the square of the velocity! The plane accelerates until the power can no-longer push the plane faster because of this air resistance. Once you lessen this air resistance by creating a tail wind, the plane can continue to accelerate until it reaches that equilibrium again which is at 90-mph airspeed! The ground speed is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the max speed of the plane!
Krreagan
QUOTE (newton+Feb 25 2006, 01:23 AM)
what's with all the wind?
there was no headwind or tailwind mentioned in the original question.
shouldn't calm air be the assumption?
in which case, the plane takes off at take off speed, and the belt is going that speed, and the wheels are going twice that speed.
snore.
You are of course correct! We have been trying to educate Quotient on the limiting factors in aerodynamic flight! So far without success. He seem unwilling to cede several points that he does not fully understand.
Although, I am starting to get the impression that he is here more for the argument then for the understanding of physics. He seems unwilling to read and understand links HE provided to prove his point, or he has completely misinterpreted main points in these documents. Which it turns out, make it all quite clear!
Krreagan
there was no headwind or tailwind mentioned in the original question.
shouldn't calm air be the assumption?
in which case, the plane takes off at take off speed, and the belt is going that speed, and the wheels are going twice that speed.
snore.
You are of course correct! We have been trying to educate Quotient on the limiting factors in aerodynamic flight! So far without success. He seem unwilling to cede several points that he does not fully understand.
Although, I am starting to get the impression that he is here more for the argument then for the understanding of physics. He seems unwilling to read and understand links HE provided to prove his point, or he has completely misinterpreted main points in these documents. Which it turns out, make it all quite clear!
Krreagan
I don't know what else I can do to help you guys. I really don't! I've quoted multiple sources. I've given you the formula 'VAirspeed = VGroundspeed - VWindspeed'. It's that simple. You've even had one of the other fly guys stating that I'm perfectly correct in what I say. And yet you still refuse to accept it yourselves!
But in one last futile attempt, I'll make one final try at quoting another well-known aviation source:
If the aircraft is rolling at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind the airspeed = 30 – (– 10) = 40 knots. If it was rolling at 30 knots with a 10 knot following wind (a tailwind) the airspeed = 30 – (+10) = 20 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind has a constant airspeed of 40 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots with a 10 knot tailwind has a constant airspeed of 20 knots.
You are defying all known logic by refusing to accept this!
But in one last futile attempt, I'll make one final try at quoting another well-known aviation source:
If the aircraft is rolling at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind the airspeed = 30 – (– 10) = 40 knots. If it was rolling at 30 knots with a 10 knot following wind (a tailwind) the airspeed = 30 – (+10) = 20 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind has a constant airspeed of 40 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots with a 10 knot tailwind has a constant airspeed of 20 knots.
You are defying all known logic by refusing to accept this!
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 09:02 AM)
I don't know what else I can do to help you guys. I really don't! I've quoted multiple sources. I've given you the formula 'VAirspeed = VGroundspeed - VWindspeed'. It's that simple. You've even had one of the other fly guys stating that I'm perfectly correct in what I say. And yet you still refuse to accept it yourselves!
But in one last futile attempt, I'll make one final try at quoting another well-known aviation source:
If the aircraft is rolling at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind the airspeed = 30 – (– 10) = 40 knots. If it was rolling at 30 knots with a 10 knot following wind (a tailwind) the airspeed = 30 – (+10) = 20 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind has a constant airspeed of 40 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots with a 10 knot tailwind has a constant airspeed of 20 knots.
You are defying all known logic by refusing to accept this!
Everything you said is correct! Your improving (slowly). It's your definition of max speed that is still incorrect as defined above. You are not reading posts from others it appears!
I'll quote it again here:
If you actually read and understand my explanation, it will all be clear! If not, dissect it and and we'll go from there! You don't seem to explain where you think others have it wrong so it is hard to tell where you are going wrong!
Krreagan
If the aircraft is rolling at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind the airspeed = 30 – (– 10) = 40 knots. If it was rolling at 30 knots with a 10 knot following wind (a tailwind) the airspeed = 30 – (+10) = 20 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind has a constant airspeed of 40 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots with a 10 knot tailwind has a constant airspeed of 20 knots.
Yes, this is correct, but the throttle setting is different in these two scenarios. NASA's formula 'VAirspeed = VGroundspeed - VWindspeed' is misleading (to you anyway), airspeed is not a result of groundspeed and windspeed, it's the other way around, groundspeed is a result of airspeed and windspeed.
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed (100mph) would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
But in one last futile attempt, I'll make one final try at quoting another well-known aviation source:
If the aircraft is rolling at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind the airspeed = 30 – (– 10) = 40 knots. If it was rolling at 30 knots with a 10 knot following wind (a tailwind) the airspeed = 30 – (+10) = 20 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind has a constant airspeed of 40 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots with a 10 knot tailwind has a constant airspeed of 20 knots.
You are defying all known logic by refusing to accept this!
Everything you said is correct! Your improving (slowly). It's your definition of max speed that is still incorrect as defined above. You are not reading posts from others it appears!
I'll quote it again here:
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You still don't get it do you! If a plane is travelling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens: 1) It's groundspeed remains at 90mph. 2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph. So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly. That is your problem! you don't understand the physics involved. 1) incorrect! Think about it! what is the limiting factor? the propeller/engine has reached equilibrium with the surrounding (still) air. It cannot push against the air any harder so it stops accelerating! Now move that air at 30-mph (tail wind) and you no longer have equilibrium! so the plane accelerates as if it were only going 60-mph back up to 90-mph airspeed. 2) Momentarily this is correct, but the plane will then start to accelerate back up to 90-mph airspeed. Your confusion is that you think (incorrectly) that the limiting factor is the spinning of the wheels! It's not! its the power of the engine that can only push so much against the surrounding air. The air resistance increases with the square of the velocity! The plane accelerates until the power can no-longer push the plane faster because of this air resistance. Once you lessen this air resistance by creating a tail wind, the plane can continue to accelerate until it reaches that equilibrium again which is at 90-mph airspeed! The ground speed is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the max speed of the plane! Krreagan |
If you actually read and understand my explanation, it will all be clear! If not, dissect it and and we'll go from there! You don't seem to explain where you think others have it wrong so it is hard to tell where you are going wrong!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 04:02 PM)
If the aircraft is rolling at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind the airspeed = 30 – (– 10) = 40 knots. If it was rolling at 30 knots with a 10 knot following wind (a tailwind) the airspeed = 30 – (+10) = 20 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind has a constant airspeed of 40 knots.
An aircraft travelling along the ground at 30 knots with a 10 knot tailwind has a constant airspeed of 20 knots.
Yes, this is correct, but the throttle setting is different in these two scenarios. NASA's formula 'VAirspeed = VGroundspeed - VWindspeed' is misleading (to you anyway), airspeed is not a result of groundspeed and windspeed, it's the other way around, groundspeed is a result of airspeed and windspeed.
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed (100mph) would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 25 2006, 04:24 PM)
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 25 2006, 04:24 PM)
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
perhaps it us 'flyers' who are mistaken. we have forgotten to take into effect the quantum entanglement between the belt and the air.
quotient is patiently trying to make us see the light of the FACT that when the belt moves, the air is in perfect sync with it.
a little known FACT:
the very first conveyor belt had to be destroyed because the things were just getting stuck to it. this was the first clue that the science community had that conveyor belts have very unique and interesting quantum properties(it is believed this led tesla to many of his zero point discoveries).
it is only by passing through a gamma ray burst filter that things can be removed from a conveyor belt.
of course, with a tailwind, the formulas get QUITE chaotic. luckily, the new wing mounted tiny black hole generators can be used to syphon off this undesirable wind.
quotient is patiently trying to make us see the light of the FACT that when the belt moves, the air is in perfect sync with it.
a little known FACT:
the very first conveyor belt had to be destroyed because the things were just getting stuck to it. this was the first clue that the science community had that conveyor belts have very unique and interesting quantum properties(it is believed this led tesla to many of his zero point discoveries).
it is only by passing through a gamma ray burst filter that things can be removed from a conveyor belt.
of course, with a tailwind, the formulas get QUITE chaotic. luckily, the new wing mounted tiny black hole generators can be used to syphon off this undesirable wind.
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 25 2006, 05:27 PM)
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 25 2006, 04:24 PM)
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
remember guys...this is the dude that thinks that a sailboat is not affected by currents...but as soon as you turn on the engine, the currents have you!!!
I wonder what Christopher Columbus would say to that?
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
remember guys...this is the dude that thinks that a sailboat is not affected by currents...but as soon as you turn on the engine, the currents have you!!!
I wonder what Christopher Columbus would say to that?
QUOTE (Guest_atl5p+Feb 25 2006, 03:21 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 25 2006, 05:27 PM)
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 25 2006, 04:24 PM)
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
remember guys...this is the dude that thinks that a sailboat is not affected by currents...but as soon as you turn on the engine, the currents have you!!!
I wonder what Christopher Columbus would say to that?
ATL5p,
Why don't you quote my post that you have an issue with and annotate it listing the issues that you feel are incorrect. Then supply counter arguments that you feel are the correct interpretation!
(this would be good 
)
It's that simple!...
I know you won't... for two reasons:
1] Because all you really want it to do is sling insults at me for helping to expose to the world your level of total ignorance on this subject.
2] You have neither the brain power or knowledge to argue this subject based solely on merit as has been shown numerous times by many many people!
(ed: actually you are your own worst enemy as the crap you have put out has done more to expose your ignorance then anyone else)
So produce your best! or leave!
Krreagan
If the aircraft is rolling at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind the airspeed = 30 – (– 10) = 40 knots. If it was rolling at 30 knots with a 10 knot following wind (a tailwind) the airspeed = 30 – (+10) = 20 knots.
An aircraft traveling along the ground at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind has a constant airspeed of 40 knots.
An aircraft traveling along the ground at 30 knots with a 10 knot tailwind has a constant airspeed of 20 knots.
You are defying all known logic by refusing to accept this!
You are ignoring the fact that the plane is still capable of takeoff speed.
The plane in the first example (headwind) is moving at 40 knots.
It will accelerate another 30 knots to take off and still be below its 90 knot capability.
The plane in the second example (tailwind) is moving at 20 knots
It will accelerate another 50 knots to take off and still be below its 90 knot capability.
All the above speeds are in air speed.
Quotion...Since you have admitted that airspeed is what makes the plane fly..
Please try to pick this apart!!!
Yes, I know that I TOTALLY ignore ground speed in all this.
My airspeed formulas:
40 + 30=70 (take off speed) Headwind formula
20 +50 =70 (takeoff speed) Tailwind formula
Your version with corrections:
(30 - (-10)) +30 =70 headwind formula
(30 - (+10)) + 50 =70 tailwind formula
Yes, I know that I TOTALLY ignored ground speed in all this.
The only time ground speed is figured in is when it is equal to initial airspeed of 30 knots. 30 = 30!
So lets figure it in!!
Head wind formula!!
30 knot (ground speed) + 30 knots (added by acceleration)= 60 knots ground speed
30 + 30 = 60
Looks like the ground speed is still equal to the air speed...got it so far?
Add your air speed variable...10 knot head wind.
60 -(-10) = 70 air speed looks kinda familiar!
Tailwind time...
30 knot (ground speed) + 50 knots (added by acceleration) = 80 knots ground speed.
Ground speed still equals airspeed.
Add your air speed variable...10 knot tail wind.
80 -(+10) = 70.....Should have seen that coming!!
Are you saying that a plane that is capable of 90 knots airspeed is not capable of accelerating from 20 knots to 70 knots or are you saying it can't accelerate from
40 knots to 70 knots?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Bruce
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
remember guys...this is the dude that thinks that a sailboat is not affected by currents...but as soon as you turn on the engine, the currents have you!!!
I wonder what Christopher Columbus would say to that?
ATL5p,
Why don't you quote my post that you have an issue with and annotate it listing the issues that you feel are incorrect. Then supply counter arguments that you feel are the correct interpretation!
(this would be good )It's that simple!...
I know you won't... for two reasons:
1] Because all you really want it to do is sling insults at me for helping to expose to the world your level of total ignorance on this subject.
2] You have neither the brain power or knowledge to argue this subject based solely on merit as has been shown numerous times by many many people!
(ed: actually you are your own worst enemy as the crap you have put out has done more to expose your ignorance then anyone else)So produce your best! or leave!
Krreagan
Hehe The Thread That Wouldn't Die!!!
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
QUOTE (grendle+Feb 25 2006, 04:27 PM)
Hehe The Thread That Wouldn't Die!!!
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
That depends on who you talk to!
Atl5p... The instant the plane touches the belt the speed of the plane jumps to become 90-mph so the belt speed increases to 90-mph to match the speed of the plane, but then the plane is going 120-mph so the belt increases it's speed to...
Quotient... This is an impossibility! The planes maximum speed is 30-mph and at touch down the speed would be 90-mph which is impossible due to the planes maximum speed restriction!
Krreagan
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
That depends on who you talk to!
Atl5p... The instant the plane touches the belt the speed of the plane jumps to become 90-mph so the belt speed increases to 90-mph to match the speed of the plane, but then the plane is going 120-mph so the belt increases it's speed to...
Quotient... This is an impossibility! The planes maximum speed is 30-mph and at touch down the speed would be 90-mph which is impossible due to the planes maximum speed restriction!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 10:55 AM)
You still don't get it do you!
If a plane is traveling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens:
1) It's ground speed remains at 90mph.
2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph.
So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly.
Nearly everything in this post is absolutely correct!
If the conditions do not change..and the plane is at max throttle...
It has an air speed of 60 mph...it is capable of a max airspeed of 90 mph airspeed.
(Here comes the part where you are not correct)
It can and will accelerate up to 90 mph airspeed
Then it will take off!
If 90 mph is its take off speed!
Bruce
If a plane is traveling at full throttle across tarmac at 90mph, and you give it a 30mph tailwind the following happens:
1) It's ground speed remains at 90mph.
2) It's airspeed is reduced to 60mph.
So if the aircraft continues across the tarmac in these conditions, how will it ever take off? The plane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly.
Nearly everything in this post is absolutely correct!
If the conditions do not change..and the plane is at max throttle...
It has an air speed of 60 mph...it is capable of a max airspeed of 90 mph airspeed.
(Here comes the part where you are not correct)
It can and will accelerate up to 90 mph airspeed
Then it will take off!
If 90 mph is its take off speed!
Bruce
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 04:02 PM)
If the aircraft is rolling at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind the airspeed = 30 – (– 10) = 40 knots. If it was rolling at 30 knots with a 10 knot following wind (a tailwind) the airspeed = 30 – (+10) = 20 knots.
An aircraft traveling along the ground at 30 knots into a 10 knot headwind has a constant airspeed of 40 knots.
An aircraft traveling along the ground at 30 knots with a 10 knot tailwind has a constant airspeed of 20 knots.
You are defying all known logic by refusing to accept this!
You are ignoring the fact that the plane is still capable of takeoff speed.
The plane in the first example (headwind) is moving at 40 knots.
It will accelerate another 30 knots to take off and still be below its 90 knot capability.
The plane in the second example (tailwind) is moving at 20 knots
It will accelerate another 50 knots to take off and still be below its 90 knot capability.
All the above speeds are in air speed.
Quotion...Since you have admitted that airspeed is what makes the plane fly..
Please try to pick this apart!!!
Yes, I know that I TOTALLY ignore ground speed in all this.
My airspeed formulas:
40 + 30=70 (take off speed) Headwind formula
20 +50 =70 (takeoff speed) Tailwind formula
Your version with corrections:
(30 - (-10)) +30 =70 headwind formula
(30 - (+10)) + 50 =70 tailwind formula
Yes, I know that I TOTALLY ignored ground speed in all this.
The only time ground speed is figured in is when it is equal to initial airspeed of 30 knots. 30 = 30!
So lets figure it in!!
Head wind formula!!
30 knot (ground speed) + 30 knots (added by acceleration)= 60 knots ground speed
30 + 30 = 60
Looks like the ground speed is still equal to the air speed...got it so far?
Add your air speed variable...10 knot head wind.
60 -(-10) = 70 air speed looks kinda familiar!
Tailwind time...
30 knot (ground speed) + 50 knots (added by acceleration) = 80 knots ground speed.
Ground speed still equals airspeed.
Add your air speed variable...10 knot tail wind.
80 -(+10) = 70.....Should have seen that coming!!
Are you saying that a plane that is capable of 90 knots airspeed is not capable of accelerating from 20 knots to 70 knots or are you saying it can't accelerate from
40 knots to 70 knots?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Bruce
QUOTE (Guest+Jul 19 2005, 08:22 PM)
Imaging a rope attached to the plane, that pulls him forward. Whatever belt is beneath it, the plane will still move forward. Jet engine thrust is just like the rope.
LOL.
Definitely a repeat posting there. And true too.
The theoretical plane on the conveyor will be able to achieve lift off speed.
The latest 747s have around 60,000 lbs of thrust available from each of 4 engines.
That equals, quite a lot.
Given the fact that the tires and wheel bearings won't disintegrate at twice their normal speed requirement, the plane will move relative to the rest of world, ans thus, through the air in a normal-ish fashion. Only slightly restricted by the conveyor whizzing by under the wheels.
240,000lbs forward thrust.
0.5 (approx, I looked it up) drag coefficient of a 747.
0.2 my over guesstimate for drag from 36 highest quality wheel bearings.
If the wind veers to a tailwind, the control tower change the take off direction for all aircraft.
The third law of motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
(you ought to be sick of seeing that said on here )
So, with 240,00lbs thrusting the plane forward, where is the opposite 'thrust' to keep it motionless?
There is not enough to stop the theoretical plane from taking off.
Still, I guess if you can't see it, you can't see it.
See it.
LOL.
Definitely a repeat posting there. And true too.
The theoretical plane on the conveyor will be able to achieve lift off speed.
The latest 747s have around 60,000 lbs of thrust available from each of 4 engines.
That equals, quite a lot.
Given the fact that the tires and wheel bearings won't disintegrate at twice their normal speed requirement, the plane will move relative to the rest of world, ans thus, through the air in a normal-ish fashion. Only slightly restricted by the conveyor whizzing by under the wheels.
240,000lbs forward thrust.
0.5 (approx, I looked it up) drag coefficient of a 747.
0.2 my over guesstimate for drag from 36 highest quality wheel bearings.
If the wind veers to a tailwind, the control tower change the take off direction for all aircraft.
The third law of motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
(you ought to be sick of seeing that said on here
)So, with 240,00lbs thrusting the plane forward, where is the opposite 'thrust' to keep it motionless?
There is not enough to stop the theoretical plane from taking off.
Still, I guess if you can't see it, you can't see it.
See it.
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 25 2006, 04:24 PM)
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
Here is what you need to do. Next timw the wind is blowing straight down the runway at your local airport at 10mph or soGo down and have them taxi yoiu around the runway upwind and down wind and see how the plane reacts!!!!!
Ground speed will change but airspeed will not!!
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
Here is what you need to do. Next timw the wind is blowing straight down the runway at your local airport at 10mph or soGo down and have them taxi yoiu around the runway upwind and down wind and see how the plane reacts!!!!!
Ground speed will change but airspeed will not!!
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 05:08 PM)
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Here we go again with the "A plane is not a plane when it's on the ground" argument.
Here we go again with the "A plane is not a plane when it's on the ground" argument.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 25 2006, 06:09 PM)
perhaps it us 'flyers' who are mistaken. we have forgotten to take into effect the quantum entanglement between the belt and the air.
quotient is patiently trying to make us see the light of the FACT that when the belt moves, the air is in perfect sync with it.
a little known FACT:
the very first conveyor belt had to be destroyed because the things were just getting stuck to it. this was the first clue that the science community had that conveyor belts have very unique and interesting quantum properties(it is believed this led tesla to many of his zero point discoveries).
it is only by passing through a gamma ray burst filter that things can be removed from a conveyor belt.
of course, with a tailwind, the formulas get QUITE chaotic. luckily, the new wing mounted tiny black hole generators can be used to syphon off this undesirable wind.
Ah ! Now I get it! That's why it always takes so long to pick up your luggage at the airport.
quotient is patiently trying to make us see the light of the FACT that when the belt moves, the air is in perfect sync with it.
a little known FACT:
the very first conveyor belt had to be destroyed because the things were just getting stuck to it. this was the first clue that the science community had that conveyor belts have very unique and interesting quantum properties(it is believed this led tesla to many of his zero point discoveries).
it is only by passing through a gamma ray burst filter that things can be removed from a conveyor belt.
of course, with a tailwind, the formulas get QUITE chaotic. luckily, the new wing mounted tiny black hole generators can be used to syphon off this undesirable wind.
Ah ! Now I get it! That's why it always takes so long to pick up your luggage at the airport.
QUOTE (grendle+Feb 25 2006, 06:27 PM)
Hehe The Thread That Wouldn't Die!!!
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
Did it awhile back...
Imagine the treadbelt has a centerline dotted on the tredbelt, like a real runway.
If the pilot looks at one dash he's closing in on, his 30mph and the treadbelt's 60mph will create a closing speed of 90mph...with me so far?
So when the plane lands, the landing gear thinks it has a 90mph groundspeed....If the plane keeps the same power, it will slow down to the 30mph groundspeed over the treadbelt;
It slows down as gradually as it would on a static runway landing at 90mph ground speed, (tailwind 60mph, IAS 30mph), and decelerating to 30mph groundspeed (same power after landing)...
When we stand to the side, and see this occur on the treadbelt, the plane looks like it's going 30mph...then it hits the treadbelt at which point it gradually slows down to 0mph (our perspective)...then it condinues the same rate of deceleration (plane's perspective) or acceleration backwards (our perspective), until it's gradually moves -10, -20. -30mph....from our perspective...
You could have the same perspecive at a real airport under the following conditions:
60mph tailwind, 30mph IAS, 90mph Ground Speed.
You are observing from a train moving with the wind at 60mph...your window is open and there is 0mph reletive wind on your train)
After the plane lands, slows down and maintains 30mph groundspeed, you are passing it at a reletive speed of 30mph, because your train is going exactly with the wind, 60mph....
From your perspective on the train, the plane went past you at 30mph, then it landed, slowed down, and then seemed to go backwards at 30mph...because you were passing it in your 60mph train...you are traveling exactly with the wind at the same speed as the wind, thus your reletive wind speed is 0mph.
Same on the treadbelt, reletive wind is 0mph..plane comes left to right at 30mph...lands on 60mph treadbelt, slows down.. hovers for a second, the gets carried backwards, faster and faster until it's moving 30mph right to left, on top of a 60mph treadbelt.
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
Did it awhile back...
Imagine the treadbelt has a centerline dotted on the tredbelt, like a real runway.
If the pilot looks at one dash he's closing in on, his 30mph and the treadbelt's 60mph will create a closing speed of 90mph...with me so far?
So when the plane lands, the landing gear thinks it has a 90mph groundspeed....If the plane keeps the same power, it will slow down to the 30mph groundspeed over the treadbelt;
It slows down as gradually as it would on a static runway landing at 90mph ground speed, (tailwind 60mph, IAS 30mph), and decelerating to 30mph groundspeed (same power after landing)...
When we stand to the side, and see this occur on the treadbelt, the plane looks like it's going 30mph...then it hits the treadbelt at which point it gradually slows down to 0mph (our perspective)...then it condinues the same rate of deceleration (plane's perspective) or acceleration backwards (our perspective), until it's gradually moves -10, -20. -30mph....from our perspective...
You could have the same perspecive at a real airport under the following conditions:
60mph tailwind, 30mph IAS, 90mph Ground Speed.
You are observing from a train moving with the wind at 60mph...your window is open and there is 0mph reletive wind on your train)
After the plane lands, slows down and maintains 30mph groundspeed, you are passing it at a reletive speed of 30mph, because your train is going exactly with the wind, 60mph....
From your perspective on the train, the plane went past you at 30mph, then it landed, slowed down, and then seemed to go backwards at 30mph...because you were passing it in your 60mph train...you are traveling exactly with the wind at the same speed as the wind, thus your reletive wind speed is 0mph.
Same on the treadbelt, reletive wind is 0mph..plane comes left to right at 30mph...lands on 60mph treadbelt, slows down.. hovers for a second, the gets carried backwards, faster and faster until it's moving 30mph right to left, on top of a 60mph treadbelt.
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 02:47 AM)
QUOTE (grendle+Feb 25 2006, 06:27 PM)
Hehe The Thread That Wouldn't Die!!!
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
Did it awhile back...
Imagine the treadbelt has a centerline dotted on the tredbelt, like a real runway.
If the pilot looks at one dash he's closing in on, his 30mph and the treadbelt's 60mph will create a closing speed of 90mph...with me so far?
So when the plane lands, the landing gear thinks it has a 90mph groundspeed....If the plane keeps the same power, it will slow down to the 30mph groundspeed over the treadbelt;
It slows down as gradually as it would on a static runway landing at 90mph ground speed, (tailwind 60mph, IAS 30mph), and decelerating to 30mph groundspeed (same power after landing)...
When we stand to the side, and see this occur on the treadbelt, the plane looks like it's going 30mph...then it hits the treadbelt at which point it gradually slows down to 0mph (our perspective)...then it condinues the same rate of deceleration (plane's perspective) or acceleration backwards (our perspective), until it's gradually moves -10, -20. -30mph....from our perspective...
You could have the same perspecive at a real airport under the following conditions:
60mph tailwind, 30mph IAS, 90mph Ground Speed.
You are observing from a train moving with the wind at 60mph...your window is open and there is 0mph reletive wind on your train)
After the plane lands, slows down and maintains 30mph groundspeed, you are passing it at a reletive speed of 30mph, because your train is going exactly with the wind, 60mph....
From your perspective on the train, the plane went past you at 30mph, then it landed, slowed down, and then seemed to go backwards at 30mph...because you were passing it in your 60mph train...you are traveling exactly with the wind at the same speed as the wind, thus your reletive wind speed is 0mph.
Same on the treadbelt, reletive wind is 0mph..plane comes left to right at 30mph...lands on 60mph treadbelt, slows down.. hovers for a second, the gets carried backwards, faster and faster until it's moving 30mph right to left, on top of a 60mph treadbelt.
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
??
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
Did it awhile back...
Imagine the treadbelt has a centerline dotted on the tredbelt, like a real runway.
If the pilot looks at one dash he's closing in on, his 30mph and the treadbelt's 60mph will create a closing speed of 90mph...with me so far?
So when the plane lands, the landing gear thinks it has a 90mph groundspeed....If the plane keeps the same power, it will slow down to the 30mph groundspeed over the treadbelt;
It slows down as gradually as it would on a static runway landing at 90mph ground speed, (tailwind 60mph, IAS 30mph), and decelerating to 30mph groundspeed (same power after landing)...
When we stand to the side, and see this occur on the treadbelt, the plane looks like it's going 30mph...then it hits the treadbelt at which point it gradually slows down to 0mph (our perspective)...then it condinues the same rate of deceleration (plane's perspective) or acceleration backwards (our perspective), until it's gradually moves -10, -20. -30mph....from our perspective...
You could have the same perspecive at a real airport under the following conditions:
60mph tailwind, 30mph IAS, 90mph Ground Speed.
You are observing from a train moving with the wind at 60mph...your window is open and there is 0mph reletive wind on your train)
After the plane lands, slows down and maintains 30mph groundspeed, you are passing it at a reletive speed of 30mph, because your train is going exactly with the wind, 60mph....
From your perspective on the train, the plane went past you at 30mph, then it landed, slowed down, and then seemed to go backwards at 30mph...because you were passing it in your 60mph train...you are traveling exactly with the wind at the same speed as the wind, thus your reletive wind speed is 0mph.
Same on the treadbelt, reletive wind is 0mph..plane comes left to right at 30mph...lands on 60mph treadbelt, slows down.. hovers for a second, the gets carried backwards, faster and faster until it's moving 30mph right to left, on top of a 60mph treadbelt.
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
??
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 26 2006, 07:47 PM)
QUOTE (grendle+Feb 25 2006, 06:27 PM)
Hehe The Thread That Wouldn't Die!!!
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
Did it awhile back...
Imagine the treadbelt has a centerline dotted on the tredbelt, like a real runway.
If the pilot looks at one dash he's closing in on, his 30mph and the treadbelt's 60mph will create a closing speed of 90mph...with me so far?
So when the plane lands, the landing gear thinks it has a 90mph groundspeed....If the plane keeps the same power, it will slow down to the 30mph groundspeed over the treadbelt;
It slows down as gradually as it would on a static runway landing at 90mph ground speed, (tailwind 60mph, IAS 30mph), and decelerating to 30mph groundspeed (same power after landing)...
When we stand to the side, and see this occur on the treadbelt, the plane looks like it's going 30mph...then it hits the treadbelt at which point it gradually slows down to 0mph (our perspective)...then it condinues the same rate of deceleration (plane's perspective) or acceleration backwards (our perspective), until it's gradually moves -10, -20. -30mph....from our perspective...
You could have the same perspecive at a real airport under the following conditions:
60mph tailwind, 30mph IAS, 90mph Ground Speed.
You are observing from a train moving with the wind at 60mph...your window is open and there is 0mph reletive wind on your train)
After the plane lands, slows down and maintains 30mph groundspeed, you are passing it at a reletive speed of 30mph, because your train is going exactly with the wind, 60mph....
From your perspective on the train, the plane went past you at 30mph, then it landed, slowed down, and then seemed to go backwards at 30mph...because you were passing it in your 60mph train...you are traveling exactly with the wind at the same speed as the wind, thus your reletive wind speed is 0mph.
Same on the treadbelt, reletive wind is 0mph..plane comes left to right at 30mph...lands on 60mph treadbelt, slows down.. hovers for a second, the gets carried backwards, faster and faster until it's moving 30mph right to left, on top of a 60mph treadbelt.
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
BUAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I rest my case!
Krreagan
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
Of course it will! We do need to subtract the slight friction from the wheels.
But if the plane maintains 30 mph IAS the ground won't slow it down at all.
Until we apply the brakes.
This is not even a good try !
I expect better obfuscation next time!!!
Bruce
A plane with 30MPH indicated airspeed on a windless day lands on a conveyor moving in the opposite direction at 60 MPH, will the plane suddenly, as soon as rubber touches conveyor be moving backwards at 60MPH?
If you say the plane can't take off, you have to explain how it can land.
Did it awhile back...
Imagine the treadbelt has a centerline dotted on the tredbelt, like a real runway.
If the pilot looks at one dash he's closing in on, his 30mph and the treadbelt's 60mph will create a closing speed of 90mph...with me so far?
So when the plane lands, the landing gear thinks it has a 90mph groundspeed....If the plane keeps the same power, it will slow down to the 30mph groundspeed over the treadbelt;
It slows down as gradually as it would on a static runway landing at 90mph ground speed, (tailwind 60mph, IAS 30mph), and decelerating to 30mph groundspeed (same power after landing)...
When we stand to the side, and see this occur on the treadbelt, the plane looks like it's going 30mph...then it hits the treadbelt at which point it gradually slows down to 0mph (our perspective)...then it condinues the same rate of deceleration (plane's perspective) or acceleration backwards (our perspective), until it's gradually moves -10, -20. -30mph....from our perspective...
You could have the same perspecive at a real airport under the following conditions:
60mph tailwind, 30mph IAS, 90mph Ground Speed.
You are observing from a train moving with the wind at 60mph...your window is open and there is 0mph reletive wind on your train)
After the plane lands, slows down and maintains 30mph groundspeed, you are passing it at a reletive speed of 30mph, because your train is going exactly with the wind, 60mph....
From your perspective on the train, the plane went past you at 30mph, then it landed, slowed down, and then seemed to go backwards at 30mph...because you were passing it in your 60mph train...you are traveling exactly with the wind at the same speed as the wind, thus your reletive wind speed is 0mph.
Same on the treadbelt, reletive wind is 0mph..plane comes left to right at 30mph...lands on 60mph treadbelt, slows down.. hovers for a second, the gets carried backwards, faster and faster until it's moving 30mph right to left, on top of a 60mph treadbelt.
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
BUAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I rest my case!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 02:47 AM)
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
Of course it will! We do need to subtract the slight friction from the wheels.
But if the plane maintains 30 mph IAS the ground won't slow it down at all.
Until we apply the brakes.
This is not even a good try !
I expect better obfuscation next time!!!
Bruce
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 25 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_atl5p+Feb 25 2006, 03:21 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 25 2006, 05:27 PM)
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 25 2006, 04:24 PM)
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
remember guys...this is the dude that thinks that a sailboat is not affected by currents...but as soon as you turn on the engine, the currents have you!!!
I wonder what Christopher Columbus would say to that?
ATL5p,
Why don't you quote my post that you have an issue with and annotate it listing the issues that you feel are incorrect. Then supply counter arguments that you feel are the correct interpretation! (this would be good )
It's that simple!...
I know you won't... for two reasons:
1] Because all you really want it to do is sling insults at me for helping to expose to the world your level of total ignorance on this subject.
2] You have neither the brain power or knowledge to argue this subject based solely on merit as has been shown numerous times by many many people! (ed: actually you are your own worst enemy as the crap you have put out has done more to expose your ignorance then anyone else)
So produce your best! or leave!
Krreagan
Both of those above are complete crapola...
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I havn't forgoten...he's called out folks
...wait and see what he says before responding....
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
Of course it will! We do need to subtract the slight friction from the wheels.
But if the plane maintains 30 mph IAS the ground won't slow it down at all.
Until we apply the brakes.
This is not even a good try !
I expect better obfuscation next time!!!
Bruce
Just can't believe you think that's true...have you event thout it out fully?
Say a Cesna is just sitting on a runway with 0 power and a 20mph tailwind. You come along and push it...it moves a few feet, then what? keeps moving up to 20mph? No, it rolls to a stop!
Now set engine power to 20mph...with a 20mph tailwind that totals 40mph GS and 20mph IAS, right? That's what you guys say, right?
Now cut engine power to 10mph.
You say the plane slows to 10mph IAS, and 30mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 5mph. 5mph IAS, and 25mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 4mph. 4mph IAS, and 24mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 3mph. 3mph IAS, and 23mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 2mph. 2mph IAS, and 22mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 1mph. 1mph IAS, and 21mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 0mph. 0mph IAS, and 20mph GS, right?
WAIT!!! YOU JUST SAID 0Power would go 20mph ground speed with 0mph of power?? Just because of the 20mph tail wind?? And the tires dont slow the plane down?
Come again?? Anyone want to sign their name to the above scenerio?? That's be helpful in figuring this whole thing out for me! thanks!
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
remember guys...this is the dude that thinks that a sailboat is not affected by currents...but as soon as you turn on the engine, the currents have you!!!
I wonder what Christopher Columbus would say to that?
ATL5p,
Why don't you quote my post that you have an issue with and annotate it listing the issues that you feel are incorrect. Then supply counter arguments that you feel are the correct interpretation!
(this would be good )It's that simple!...
I know you won't... for two reasons:
1] Because all you really want it to do is sling insults at me for helping to expose to the world your level of total ignorance on this subject.
2] You have neither the brain power or knowledge to argue this subject based solely on merit as has been shown numerous times by many many people!
(ed: actually you are your own worst enemy as the crap you have put out has done more to expose your ignorance then anyone else)So produce your best! or leave!
Krreagan
QUOTE
Atl5p,
If your moving it horizontal (like the plane in our example) then the only effect gravity has is a small added friction on the wheels since the plane is not flying yet. So yes, it also takes the same force in space as on the moon and on the earth to accelerate a given mass a specified amount (neglecting friction of course). If we are moving with any vertical (vertical means up or down BTW) component, then yes gravity either helps or hinders!
The bouncing astronaut is moving vertically as well as horizontally!
As I tried to explain many hundreds of pages ago... If the motion is horizontal to the gravitional field vector, you are not changing your gravitational potential so you are not fighting gravity when ignoring friction!
This is basic physics 101! If you are so sure I'm wrong, PROVE IT! You have been trying for 250 pages with out any luck! (and yes it will take luck as you have little or no knowledge of physics).
Where is the gravity component in F=MA?? If mass is constant (as it is) and force is constant (as it is) then the acceleration is also constant! D'oh!
Krreagan
If your moving it horizontal (like the plane in our example) then the only effect gravity has is a small added friction on the wheels since the plane is not flying yet. So yes, it also takes the same force in space as on the moon and on the earth to accelerate a given mass a specified amount (neglecting friction of course). If we are moving with any vertical (vertical means up or down BTW) component, then yes gravity either helps or hinders!
The bouncing astronaut is moving vertically as well as horizontally!
As I tried to explain many hundreds of pages ago... If the motion is horizontal to the gravitional field vector, you are not changing your gravitational potential so you are not fighting gravity when ignoring friction!
This is basic physics 101! If you are so sure I'm wrong, PROVE IT! You have been trying for 250 pages with out any luck! (and yes it will take luck as you have little or no knowledge of physics).
Where is the gravity component in F=MA?? If mass is constant (as it is) and force is constant (as it is) then the acceleration is also constant! D'oh!
Krreagan
Both of those above are complete crapola...
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I havn't forgoten...he's called out folks
...wait and see what he says before responding....
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 03:38 AM)
Both of those above are complete crapola...
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a constant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relatively little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I haven't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I haven't forgotten...he's called out folks ...wait and see what he says before responding....
All the questions you asked are answered correctly in the post you have listed as "crapola".
Take a moment and read them.
I was beginning to be impressed by your skill at deflection and confusion.
This is not up to your previous standards. Try again.
Bruce
P.S. Spellcheck is your friend
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a constant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relatively little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I haven't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I haven't forgotten...he's called out folks
...wait and see what he says before responding.... All the questions you asked are answered correctly in the post you have listed as "crapola".
Take a moment and read them.
I was beginning to be impressed by your skill at deflection and confusion.
This is not up to your previous standards. Try again.
Bruce
P.S. Spellcheck is your friend
QUOTE (egnorant+Feb 26 2006, 10:35 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 02:47 AM)
Do you think a real plane landing with 30mph IAS, a 60mph tail wind, thius 90mph ground speed....do you really think it would continue to go 90mph once it landed, with the power still set to 30mph IAS?...do you think the ground would slow it down at all?
Of course it will! We do need to subtract the slight friction from the wheels.
But if the plane maintains 30 mph IAS the ground won't slow it down at all.
Until we apply the brakes.
This is not even a good try !
I expect better obfuscation next time!!!
Bruce
Just can't believe you think that's true...have you event thout it out fully?
Say a Cesna is just sitting on a runway with 0 power and a 20mph tailwind. You come along and push it...it moves a few feet, then what? keeps moving up to 20mph? No, it rolls to a stop!
Now set engine power to 20mph...with a 20mph tailwind that totals 40mph GS and 20mph IAS, right? That's what you guys say, right?
Now cut engine power to 10mph.
You say the plane slows to 10mph IAS, and 30mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 5mph. 5mph IAS, and 25mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 4mph. 4mph IAS, and 24mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 3mph. 3mph IAS, and 23mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 2mph. 2mph IAS, and 22mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 1mph. 1mph IAS, and 21mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 0mph. 0mph IAS, and 20mph GS, right?
WAIT!!! YOU JUST SAID 0Power would go 20mph ground speed with 0mph of power?? Just because of the 20mph tail wind?? And the tires dont slow the plane down?
Come again?? Anyone want to sign their name to the above scenerio?? That's be helpful in figuring this whole thing out for me! thanks!
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 03:50 AM)
Just can't believe you think that's true...have you event thought it out fully?
Say a Cessna is just sitting on a runway with 0 power and a 20mph tailwind. You come along and push it...it moves a few feet, then what? keeps moving up to 20mph? No, it rolls to a stop!
Now set engine power to 20mph...with a 20mph tailwind that totals 40mph GS and 20mph IAS, right? That's what you guys say, right?
Now cut engine power to 10mph.
You say the plane slows to 10mph IAS, and 30mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 5mph. 5mph IAS, and 25mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 4mph. 4mph IAS, and 24mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 3mph. 3mph IAS, and 23mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 2mph. 2mph IAS, and 22mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 1mph. 1mph IAS, and 21mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 0mph. 0mph IAS, and 20mph GS, right?
WAIT!!! YOU JUST SAID 0Power would go 20mph ground speed with 0mph of power?? Just because of the 20mph tail wind?? And the tires don't slow the plane down?
Come again?? Anyone want to sign their name to the above scenario?? That's be helpful in figuring this whole thing out for me! thanks!
Sign me up! You can even cut the power so that it is moving at -1 mph airspeed and have it moving at 19 Mph over the ground. Really difficult to balance at this point, but it is possible!
From a standing start with a tail wind it actually does all the minus speeds from -20
to -1 before it has positive air speed.
Try again!
Bruce
P.S. SPELLCHECK!
Say a Cessna is just sitting on a runway with 0 power and a 20mph tailwind. You come along and push it...it moves a few feet, then what? keeps moving up to 20mph? No, it rolls to a stop!
Now set engine power to 20mph...with a 20mph tailwind that totals 40mph GS and 20mph IAS, right? That's what you guys say, right?
Now cut engine power to 10mph.
You say the plane slows to 10mph IAS, and 30mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 5mph. 5mph IAS, and 25mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 4mph. 4mph IAS, and 24mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 3mph. 3mph IAS, and 23mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 2mph. 2mph IAS, and 22mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 1mph. 1mph IAS, and 21mph GS, right?
Now cut power to 0mph. 0mph IAS, and 20mph GS, right?
WAIT!!! YOU JUST SAID 0Power would go 20mph ground speed with 0mph of power?? Just because of the 20mph tail wind?? And the tires don't slow the plane down?
Come again?? Anyone want to sign their name to the above scenario?? That's be helpful in figuring this whole thing out for me! thanks!
Sign me up! You can even cut the power so that it is moving at -1 mph airspeed and have it moving at 19 Mph over the ground. Really difficult to balance at this point, but it is possible!
From a standing start with a tail wind it actually does all the minus speeds from -20
to -1 before it has positive air speed.
Try again!
Bruce
P.S. SPELLCHECK!
QUOTE (egnorant+Feb 26 2006, 09:08 PM)
From a standing start with a tail wind it actually does all the minus speeds from -20
to -1 before it has positive air speed.
Try again!
Good point, so if a plane is flying against say the jet stream it can have twice the airspeed as its ground speed, or even more. If it is flying with the jet stream it could have 0 airspeed an say 150 mph ground speed; The plane would of course be impssible to control in this situation...
to -1 before it has positive air speed.
Try again!
Good point, so if a plane is flying against say the jet stream it can have twice the airspeed as its ground speed, or even more. If it is flying with the jet stream it could have 0 airspeed an say 150 mph ground speed; The plane would of course be impssible to control in this situation...
Makes dove hunting fun too!
Just before Hurricane Rita we were hunting in south Texas and had a strong crossing wind...from left to right the little buggers were moving like jets!!
Then they would turn into the wind and appear to land backwards at a very low speed. I'm sure airspeed was comparable in both directions, ground speed was vastly different.
I actually got 2 birds with one shot...one was nearly finished with his turn when another went by with the wind and happened to cross my shot! I had to walk about 40 yards between birds.
Bruce
Just before Hurricane Rita we were hunting in south Texas and had a strong crossing wind...from left to right the little buggers were moving like jets!!
Then they would turn into the wind and appear to land backwards at a very low speed. I'm sure airspeed was comparable in both directions, ground speed was vastly different.
I actually got 2 birds with one shot...one was nearly finished with his turn when another went by with the wind and happened to cross my shot! I had to walk about 40 yards between birds.
Bruce
Love dove hunting! Not very good in colorado, but I used to live in Ohio and it was great there... 
I flew a plane backwards (relative to the ground). But I purposely slowed to plane down just to do so, it's depressing when you are at normal cruise speed trying to get somewhere and you look down at the highway and see the cars passing you.
Get a better plane then... 
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 26 2006, 08:38 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 25 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_atl5p+Feb 25 2006, 03:21 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 25 2006, 05:27 PM)
QUOTE (Quotient+Feb 25 2006, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 25 2006, 04:24 PM)
If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. And this fact does not change just because the wheels happen to be touching a surface.
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
remember guys...this is the dude that thinks that a sailboat is not affected by currents...but as soon as you turn on the engine, the currents have you!!!
I wonder what Christopher Columbus would say to that?
ATL5p,
Why don't you quote my post that you have an issue with and annotate it listing the issues that you feel are incorrect. Then supply counter arguments that you feel are the correct interpretation! (this would be good )
It's that simple!...
I know you won't... for two reasons:
1] Because all you really want it to do is sling insults at me for helping to expose to the world your level of total ignorance on this subject.
2] You have neither the brain power or knowledge to argue this subject based solely on merit as has been shown numerous times by many many people! (ed: actually you are your own worst enemy as the crap you have put out has done more to expose your ignorance then anyone else)
So produce your best! or leave!
Krreagan
Both of those above are complete crapola...
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I havn't forgoten...he's called out folks ...wait and see what he says before responding....
Atl5p,
You keep making this sooooooo easy.
Both of those above are complete crapola...
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I havn't forgoten...he's called out folks ...wait and see what he says before responding....
Atl5p,
You keep making this sooooooo easy.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
The gravity changes on the moon ?
Everything in my post is correct! If it is not, PROVE IT! get out a physics book find the formulas governing what you think I have wrong and prove me wrong!! This goes for anyone that thinks something I have said is incorrect! After all I am human and do make mistakes and will admit so when it happens! (Unlike Atl5p).
Just saying I'm wrong does not make it so!
BUAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! God, this stuff is good! You couldn't write this as fiction!
Our motion is perpendicular to the gravitational acceleration so the gravity in our example is constant and therefore not relevant as I explained in the post.
The Saturn V is so big because it IS changing the gravitational potential of a LARGE MASS much more then the lunar ascent stage. Another reason is it has to fight air resistance... remember that air resistance increases with the square of the velocity! (double the velocity and square the resistance) Thats why rockets go up before the nose over and accelerate horizontally, to get above the thick atmosphere as soon as they can! And why planes that fly fast, fly high as well. AND the Saturn V lifts a great deal of mass to orbit... while the lunar ascent stage only liftes the astronauts and the top half of the LEM and does not fight an atmosphere.
Your ignorance of physics is truly comprehensive.
Krreagan
Pr1moC, Nice weather we've been having!
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I havn't forgoten...he's called out folks ...wait and see what he says before responding....
Seriously, ATL5P! What was it you said you QA?
We gotta know - someone's life could depend on it!
I'm going in for surgery for an old motorbike accident injury tomorrow and the last I want is to think is you doing the QA on the air masks or tubing or oxygen cylinders or anything important really.
Go on please tell us what you QA?
Wrong! And this is exactly where the confusion is. Until the plane becomes airborne and becomes 'part of the air' the way the windspeed affects it really is different.
Take your example again. "If a plane was flying along in steady flight at 100mph in calm air and then the wind gradually and steadily increased (regardless of direction) the plane's airspeed would not change. " Exactly right. If the tailwind were to steadily increase to 10mph, the plane's airspeed would remain at 100mph, but it's groundspeed would increase to 110mph. Yes? Now do the same thing with a plane sitting on the ground on a calm day. Steadily increase the tailwind to 10mph. Does the planes airspeed increase? Yes. It now becomes a negative 10mph airspeed for the plane. Does it's groundspeed increase? No.
Simlarly, if a plane is taxiing along at 20mph, and a headwind picks up at 10mph, the plane's airspeed now increases to a constant 30mph. The plane's groundspeed remains the same. Flying along in the air, the opposite would happen. It's airspeed would remain at 20mph, but it's groundspeed would reduce by 10mph.
Like I said a while ago, if you work out why there is such a difference between the two, suddenly a lot of things will drop into place!
Until the plane takes off and becomes part of the air the wind affects it the same as any other landbased object. It can give that object positive or negative airspeed. Once the object becomes airborne, this is no longer true!
Quotient,
I've tried! you are a freak'n idiot of the first degree!
You have holes in your basic knowledge of physics and cannot draw a straight line from "A" to "B" to correct these holes. Even when you supply the correct references you cannot see the light.
The people on this forum (with a few exceptions, see Atl5p) are well versed in physics and even when they make initial mistakes are willing to admit their wrong!
YOU ARE NOT! you are confused, and refuse to admit it. You will go to your grave with your skewed view of the universe!
This guy is just stupid!
Krreagan
remember guys...this is the dude that thinks that a sailboat is not affected by currents...but as soon as you turn on the engine, the currents have you!!!
I wonder what Christopher Columbus would say to that?
ATL5p,
Why don't you quote my post that you have an issue with and annotate it listing the issues that you feel are incorrect. Then supply counter arguments that you feel are the correct interpretation!
(this would be good )It's that simple!...
I know you won't... for two reasons:
1] Because all you really want it to do is sling insults at me for helping to expose to the world your level of total ignorance on this subject.
2] You have neither the brain power or knowledge to argue this subject based solely on merit as has been shown numerous times by many many people!
(ed: actually you are your own worst enemy as the crap you have put out has done more to expose your ignorance then anyone else)So produce your best! or leave!
Krreagan
QUOTE
Atl5p,
If your moving it horizontal (like the plane in our example) then the only effect gravity has is a small added friction on the wheels since the plane is not flying yet. So yes, it also takes the same force in space as on the moon and on the earth to accelerate a given mass a specified amount (neglecting friction of course). If we are moving with any vertical (vertical means up or down BTW) component, then yes gravity either helps or hinders!
The bouncing astronaut is moving vertically as well as horizontally!
As I tried to explain many hundreds of pages ago... If the motion is horizontal to the gravitional field vector, you are not changing your gravitational potential so you are not fighting gravity when ignoring friction!
This is basic physics 101! If you are so sure I'm wrong, PROVE IT! You have been trying for 250 pages with out any luck! (and yes it will take luck as you have little or no knowledge of physics).
Where is the gravity component in F=MA?? If mass is constant (as it is) and force is constant (as it is) then the acceleration is also constant! D'oh!
Krreagan
If your moving it horizontal (like the plane in our example) then the only effect gravity has is a small added friction on the wheels since the plane is not flying yet. So yes, it also takes the same force in space as on the moon and on the earth to accelerate a given mass a specified amount (neglecting friction of course). If we are moving with any vertical (vertical means up or down BTW) component, then yes gravity either helps or hinders!
The bouncing astronaut is moving vertically as well as horizontally!
As I tried to explain many hundreds of pages ago... If the motion is horizontal to the gravitional field vector, you are not changing your gravitational potential so you are not fighting gravity when ignoring friction!
This is basic physics 101! If you are so sure I'm wrong, PROVE IT! You have been trying for 250 pages with out any luck! (and yes it will take luck as you have little or no knowledge of physics).
Where is the gravity component in F=MA?? If mass is constant (as it is) and force is constant (as it is) then the acceleration is also constant! D'oh!
Krreagan
Both of those above are complete crapola...
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I havn't forgoten...he's called out folks
...wait and see what he says before responding....Atl5p,
You keep making this sooooooo easy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Atl5p, If your moving it horizontal (like the plane in our example) then the only effect gravity has is a small added friction on the wheels since the plane is not flying yet. So yes, it also takes the same force in space as on the moon and on the earth to accelerate a given mass a specified amount (neglecting friction of course). If we are moving with any vertical (vertical means up or down BTW) component, then yes gravity either helps or hinders! The bouncing astronaut is moving vertically as well as horizontally! As I tried to explain many hundreds of pages ago... If the motion is horizontal to the gravitional field vector, you are not changing your gravitational potential so you are not fighting gravity when ignoring friction! This is basic physics 101! If you are so sure I'm wrong, PROVE IT! You have been trying for 250 pages with out any luck! (and yes it will take luck as you have little or no knowledge of physics). Where is the gravity component in F=MA?? If mass is constant (as it is) and force is constant (as it is) then the acceleration is also constant! D'oh! Krreagan |
Both of those above are complete crapola...
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I havn't forgoten...he's called out folks
...wait and see what he says before responding....Atl5p,
You keep making this sooooooo easy.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
The gravity changes on the moon ?
Everything in my post is correct! If it is not, PROVE IT! get out a physics book find the formulas governing what you think I have wrong and prove me wrong!! This goes for anyone that thinks something I have said is incorrect! After all I am human and do make mistakes and will admit so when it happens! (Unlike Atl5p).
Just saying I'm wrong does not make it so!
QUOTE
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
BUAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! God, this stuff is good! You couldn't write this as fiction!
Our motion is perpendicular to the gravitational acceleration so the gravity in our example is constant and therefore not relevant as I explained in the post.
The Saturn V is so big because it IS changing the gravitational potential of a LARGE MASS much more then the lunar ascent stage. Another reason is it has to fight air resistance... remember that air resistance increases with the square of the velocity! (double the velocity and square the resistance) Thats why rockets go up before the nose over and accelerate horizontally, to get above the thick atmosphere as soon as they can! And why planes that fly fast, fly high as well. AND the Saturn V lifts a great deal of mass to orbit... while the lunar ascent stage only liftes the astronauts and the top half of the LEM and does not fight an atmosphere.
Your ignorance of physics is truly comprehensive.
Krreagan
Pr1moC, Nice weather we've been having!
Yeah the weather is pretty nice, I really really hate cold... 
I wondering if anyone would tell me the horsepower and torque of a regular cesna and a stunt plane like say the Extra 300. Also the weight of the engine on those planes. I'm sure there is a lot of pilots on here! Thanks
I wondering if anyone would tell me the horsepower and torque of a regular cesna and a stunt plane like say the Extra 300. Also the weight of the engine on those planes. I'm sure there is a lot of pilots on here! Thanks
QUOTE (Pr1moCL+Feb 27 2006, 02:57 PM)
Get a better plane then...
Hmmph
Either that or don't fly in such a strong headwind
Hmmph
Either that or don't fly in such a strong headwind
QUOTE (Pr1moCL+Feb 27 2006, 03:05 PM)
Yeah the weather is pretty nice, I really really hate cold...
I wondering if anyone would tell me the horsepower and torque of a regular cesna and a stunt plane like say the Extra 300. Also the weight of the engine on those planes. I'm sure there is a lot of pilots on here! Thanks
Off the top of my head I think a Cessna 152 (2 seater) is 110 hp
I wondering if anyone would tell me the horsepower and torque of a regular cesna and a stunt plane like say the Extra 300. Also the weight of the engine on those planes. I'm sure there is a lot of pilots on here! Thanks
Off the top of my head I think a Cessna 152 (2 seater) is 110 hp
QUOTE (Pr1moCL+Feb 27 2006, 03:05 PM)
Yeah the weather is pretty nice, I really really hate cold...
I wondering if anyone would tell me the horsepower and torque of a regular cesna and a stunt plane like say the Extra 300. Also the weight of the engine on those planes. I'm sure there is a lot of pilots on here! Thanks
Extra 330 has 330 HP (Hence the name)
Lycoming
Model Number: AE10-540-L1B5
Modified by Barrett Performance Aircraft
http://www.pattywagstaff.com/planespecs.html
Obviously Patty's planes specs.
Couldn't tell you torque or engine weight.
New Cessna 172R :
Lycoming IO-360-L2A Engine
160 HP @ 2400 RPM
Again dont know the engine weight or torque
Aeronca Champ runs a whopping 65 horse flat 4.
I wondering if anyone would tell me the horsepower and torque of a regular cesna and a stunt plane like say the Extra 300. Also the weight of the engine on those planes. I'm sure there is a lot of pilots on here! Thanks
Extra 330 has 330 HP (Hence the name)
Lycoming
Model Number: AE10-540-L1B5
Modified by Barrett Performance Aircraft
http://www.pattywagstaff.com/planespecs.html
Obviously Patty's planes specs.
Couldn't tell you torque or engine weight.
New Cessna 172R :
Lycoming IO-360-L2A Engine
160 HP @ 2400 RPM
Again dont know the engine weight or torque
Aeronca Champ runs a whopping 65 horse flat 4.
I can't believe the idiots are still trying. Especially this ATL moron. Keep it up though, its always good for a laugh when I get really bored!
Just because I was wondering about something I want to do when I get older, and have enough money. Get a stunt plane kit, something similar to say the Extra, but modify the engine compartment to fit say a Big Block with a few more hundred horsepower than the engine you are 'supposed' to use. Im wondering how much heavier this engine is. Im guessing its within a hundred pounds of the 'stock' motor, and I think this would just be fun to try...lol There are probably reasons this can't work (with the exception of safety) that I don't know about, but it seems like a cool idea...
There are probably reasons this can't work (with the exception of safety) that I don't know about, but it seems like a cool idea...
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 03:38 AM)
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!!
If gravity had the same effect horizontally as it did vertically then why can I easily push a plane but come nowhere close to lifting it?
If gravity had the same effect horizontally as it did vertically then why can I easily push a plane but come nowhere close to lifting it?
QUOTE (Pr1moCL+Feb 27 2006, 05:36 PM)
Just because I was wondering about something I want to do when I get older, and have enough money. Get a stunt plane kit, something similar to say the Extra, but modify the engine compartment to fit say a Big Block with a few more hundred horsepower than the engine you are 'supposed' to use. Im wondering how much heavier this engine is. Im guessing its within a hundred pounds of the 'stock' motor, and I think this would just be fun to try...lol There are probably reasons this can't work (with the exception of safety) that I don't know about, but it seems like a cool idea...
A Lycoming-10-540-X from BPA Engines weighs 385lbs and produces 300hp at sea level.
If you can get a big block to match the power to weight ratio you can make lots of money.
Remeber to make it work as an aerobatic aricraft engine you will need to remove the water cooling.
Make up an oil system to work inverted. (Normal gravity return engines will not work) Add an oil cooler too!!
Machine all the extra metal off (gotta save weight)
Make up some gear reduction unit (3000 is close to top for most aviation engines.)
Add a complete seperate 2nd ignition system (aircraft engines use 2 plugs per cylinder)
and a host of other things I don't know about!!!!!
There are probably reasons this can't work (with the exception of safety) that I don't know about, but it seems like a cool idea... A Lycoming-10-540-X from BPA Engines weighs 385lbs and produces 300hp at sea level.
If you can get a big block to match the power to weight ratio you can make lots of money.
Remeber to make it work as an aerobatic aricraft engine you will need to remove the water cooling.
Make up an oil system to work inverted. (Normal gravity return engines will not work) Add an oil cooler too!!
Machine all the extra metal off (gotta save weight)
Make up some gear reduction unit (3000 is close to top for most aviation engines.)
Add a complete seperate 2nd ignition system (aircraft engines use 2 plugs per cylinder)
and a host of other things I don't know about!!!!!
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 27 2006, 06:34 PM)
Add a complete seperate 2nd ignition system (aircraft engines use 2 plugs per cylinder)
Plus they are mechanical, not electrical
Plus they are mechanical, not electrical
Does anyone else find id simply stunning that ATL can manage to dissapear whenever hes posed a tough question. But magiaclly come back to the board when he finally thinks he has something to chime in about???
Not to mention its quite amazing that he think the plane can somehow manage to move forward when its landing and "slow down gradually" but it cant when its taking off.... yet at both moments the belt is INSTANTLY matching the plane speed. Something doesnt seem right there
Not to mention its quite amazing that he think the plane can somehow manage to move forward when its landing and "slow down gradually" but it cant when its taking off.... yet at both moments the belt is INSTANTLY matching the plane speed. Something doesnt seem right there
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 07:46 PM)
Something doesnt seem right there
You can say that again
You can say that again
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 03:38 AM)
Power accelerates weight...you can only say it accelerates MASS when Gravity is a Constant.
When gravity is NOT a contstant, like on the moon, then you must factor gravity into any power/acceleration problem.
I mean, I guess you could prove yourself by trying to explain why it takes a big rocket to get from earth to the moon, but a relativly little rocket to get from the moon back to earth?! Because when there is little gravity, it takes less force to move a given mass....due to the decreased weight. Why in the universe would it be ANY different vertically vs horizontally? I havn't seen ANYONE back you up on this yet!!! And no I havn't forgoten...he's called out folks
...wait and see what he says before responding....Seriously, ATL5P! What was it you said you QA?
We gotta know - someone's life could depend on it!
I'm going in for surgery for an old motorbike accident injury tomorrow and the last I want is to think is you doing the QA on the air masks or tubing or oxygen cylinders or anything important really.
Go on please tell us what you QA?
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 02:46 PM)
Does anyone else find id simply stunning that ATL can manage to dissapear whenever hes posed a tough question. But magiaclly come back to the board when he finally thinks he has something to chime in about???
Not to mention its quite amazing that he think the plane can somehow manage to move forward when its landing and "slow down gradually" but it cant when its taking off.... yet at both moments the belt is INSTANTLY matching the plane speed. Something doesnt seem right there
when the plane landed on the 60mph treadbelt, with an IAS of 30mph (closing speed of 90mph)...I assume you are reffering to this, as you have quoted NOthing of mine...
That was not a question of 'matching speed', it was a different 'what if' that was posed by another poster...the treadbelt never altered it's speed from 60mph...that's the neat thing about message boards, you can always go back and re-read...
so, we never heard from you on your theories about that plane landing on a 60mph treadbelt (see above)...but of course we'll never hear sooks respond to one of 'those' questions, now will we...he'll only post some incoherent jibberish response to a half read thread...ladies and gentlemen...introducing SOOKS!!!!
Not to mention its quite amazing that he think the plane can somehow manage to move forward when its landing and "slow down gradually" but it cant when its taking off.... yet at both moments the belt is INSTANTLY matching the plane speed. Something doesnt seem right there
when the plane landed on the 60mph treadbelt, with an IAS of 30mph (closing speed of 90mph)...I assume you are reffering to this, as you have quoted NOthing of mine...
That was not a question of 'matching speed', it was a different 'what if' that was posed by another poster...the treadbelt never altered it's speed from 60mph...that's the neat thing about message boards, you can always go back and re-read...
so, we never heard from you on your theories about that plane landing on a 60mph treadbelt (see above)...but of course we'll never hear sooks respond to one of 'those' questions, now will we...he'll only post some incoherent jibberish response to a half read thread...ladies and gentlemen...introducing SOOKS!!!!
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 28 2006, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
Again.....
If gravity had the same effect horizontally as it did vertically then why can I easily push a plane but come nowhere close to lifting it?
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
Again.....
If gravity had the same effect horizontally as it did vertically then why can I easily push a plane but come nowhere close to lifting it?
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
ATL,
Actually, i dont think that was what the person had posed as a question. I was under the impression that he said that the plane would come in with an IAS of 60 (or 30) or whatever onto the belt which MATCHES the speed of the plane. Regardless, this is the question you should be answering cause this is what applies. Yet, its actually not the question i want you to answer. The question i want you to answer ive asked about 5 differnt times that youve ignored. ill post it again for you.
You want to convince any flyer... show the errors in this. or show where friction equals thrust.
for 747.
thrust = 50,000 lbs/ engine * 4 engines = 200,000 lbs thrust.
Friction--
crf = .005 (5 times greater than you originally said to give you the benefit of the doubt)
weight = 847,000 lbs
rolling friction = crf * w
rolling friction = .005 * 847,000 = ~4200
even double crf to .01 and its 8000 lbs friction.
make it an even 10,000 with bearing friction....
Which one is bigger.. thrust clearly wins out and it acclerates.
p.s. i think it will land pretty much like normal, wheels will be going faster and will have a bit more friction and slow down prob quicker but not by much.
Actually, i dont think that was what the person had posed as a question. I was under the impression that he said that the plane would come in with an IAS of 60 (or 30) or whatever onto the belt which MATCHES the speed of the plane. Regardless, this is the question you should be answering cause this is what applies. Yet, its actually not the question i want you to answer. The question i want you to answer ive asked about 5 differnt times that youve ignored. ill post it again for you.
You want to convince any flyer... show the errors in this. or show where friction equals thrust.
for 747.
thrust = 50,000 lbs/ engine * 4 engines = 200,000 lbs thrust.
Friction--
crf = .005 (5 times greater than you originally said to give you the benefit of the doubt)
weight = 847,000 lbs
rolling friction = crf * w
rolling friction = .005 * 847,000 = ~4200
even double crf to .01 and its 8000 lbs friction.
make it an even 10,000 with bearing friction....
Which one is bigger.. thrust clearly wins out and it acclerates.
p.s. i think it will land pretty much like normal, wheels will be going faster and will have a bit more friction and slow down prob quicker but not by much.
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 28 2006, 02:31 AM)
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Good to see you back!
Ready to tangle again I see.
Gravity is a vertical force (actually perpendicular to the surface of a sphere around a gravity source such as the surface of the Earth or Moon....round you know).
Force vertical is whatever it is on Earth and 1/6th as much on the Moon.
Forces horizontal to achieve identical acceleration will be identical.
Of course there will be wind drag and wheel drag to deal with on Earth.
By making all the horizontal forces equal you get equal horizontal acceleration with equal mass and force. Nice and tidy!!
Vertical forces like gravity are matched by the plane sitting on the surface of these two gravity making bodies.
Vertical forces matter if you move.......vertically!!
Good thing we are talking about a plane moving horizontally or you could get really confused.
Bruce
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Good to see you back!
Ready to tangle again I see.
Gravity is a vertical force (actually perpendicular to the surface of a sphere around a gravity source such as the surface of the Earth or Moon....round you know).
Force vertical is whatever it is on Earth and 1/6th as much on the Moon.
Forces horizontal to achieve identical acceleration will be identical.
Of course there will be wind drag and wheel drag to deal with on Earth.
By making all the horizontal forces equal you get equal horizontal acceleration with equal mass and force. Nice and tidy!!
Vertical forces like gravity are matched by the plane sitting on the surface of these two gravity making bodies.
Vertical forces matter if you move.......vertically!!
Good thing we are talking about a plane moving horizontally or you could get really confused.
Bruce
well, atl5p(you related to r2d2 or c3po?), i didn't attempt 'intelligent' conversation, because it's obviously a lost cause. the solution to the problem is simple, and you keep bringing in inappropiate analogy that has little to nothing to do with the problem.
the moon!? there's no air on the moon, and the gravity is (a constant).6 of earth's. if there was air on the moon, it would make virtually NO DIFFERENCE to the experiment.
a plane's ability to fly is a based on the ratio of the weight of the plane vs. the wing's surface area. the ratios will change for 'moon planes', but the principles will remain the same. friction will still be friction, lift will still be lift, air pressure will still be air pressure, and gravity will still be gravity.
you're just trying to make this thread last 300 pages, aren't you?
anyway, everytime i read the 'tailwind' joke, i crack up, and jokes require the greatest intelligence of all(name another animal that gets jokes), so i disagree that i'm not trying to be intelligent. i'm just trying to point out how wrong you are in a funny way for the entertainment of the flyer troops.
when there is no wind, the groundspeed and the airspeed only differ by the amount of drag the wheels/bearings add while they are touching the ground. that drag is relatively TINY and INSIGNIFIGANT.
the moon!? there's no air on the moon, and the gravity is (a constant).6 of earth's. if there was air on the moon, it would make virtually NO DIFFERENCE to the experiment.
a plane's ability to fly is a based on the ratio of the weight of the plane vs. the wing's surface area. the ratios will change for 'moon planes', but the principles will remain the same. friction will still be friction, lift will still be lift, air pressure will still be air pressure, and gravity will still be gravity.
you're just trying to make this thread last 300 pages, aren't you?
anyway, everytime i read the 'tailwind' joke, i crack up, and jokes require the greatest intelligence of all(name another animal that gets jokes), so i disagree that i'm not trying to be intelligent. i'm just trying to point out how wrong you are in a funny way for the entertainment of the flyer troops.
when there is no wind, the groundspeed and the airspeed only differ by the amount of drag the wheels/bearings add while they are touching the ground. that drag is relatively TINY and INSIGNIFIGANT.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 08:27 PM)
the moon!? there's no air on the moon, and the gravity is (a constant).6 of earth's. if there was air on the moon, it would make virtually NO DIFFERENCE to the experiment.
I hate to correct someone with a name like newton but...
I think you mean 1/6 (0.167) not .6
Krreagan
I hate to correct someone with a name like newton but...
I think you mean 1/6 (0.167) not .6
Krreagan
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 27 2006, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
Can you read? I never said 'Acceleration' did I? I said 'Move'..as in 'Move at a constant speed'...this occurs after the acceleration takes place...as usual, you're a little behind Kreegan.
Now, using my example, once acceleration has taken place, YES, in deepest darkest space, an object in motion will remain in motion, until another 'force' acts upon that object. The plane will require No Force to 'Move' in relation to any object in space (except those which are on the same trajectory). The answer to your question Kreegan is YES. The plane requires NO FORCE to MOVE when it's in deepest space, with no other forces acting on it.
If you want to talk 'Acceleration', then 'Yes' it takes a specific 'Force' to accelerate the object's mass in deep space. Enter a 'heavier' object in the same gravity (thus more mass), it would take more force to accelerate it.
But the 1st object, suddenly caught within the moon's gravitational pull, would have to exert " more force" to maintain it's original trajectory....Am I loosing you, oh teacher of men?
The closer to the moon it got, the more force would be required to keep it pointed at a specific point in space (say Orion's Belt).
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpedicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity dosn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpedicular to the gravitaional pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect someting moving perpedicuar to it, then could you please explain sattelites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpedicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Kreegan, why don't you 'Think' in one hand, and 'Poop' in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster!!!
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
Can you read? I never said 'Acceleration' did I? I said 'Move'..as in 'Move at a constant speed'...this occurs after the acceleration takes place...as usual, you're a little behind Kreegan.
Now, using my example, once acceleration has taken place, YES, in deepest darkest space, an object in motion will remain in motion, until another 'force' acts upon that object. The plane will require No Force to 'Move' in relation to any object in space (except those which are on the same trajectory). The answer to your question Kreegan is YES. The plane requires NO FORCE to MOVE when it's in deepest space, with no other forces acting on it.
If you want to talk 'Acceleration', then 'Yes' it takes a specific 'Force' to accelerate the object's mass in deep space. Enter a 'heavier' object in the same gravity (thus more mass), it would take more force to accelerate it.
But the 1st object, suddenly caught within the moon's gravitational pull, would have to exert " more force" to maintain it's original trajectory....Am I loosing you, oh teacher of men?
The closer to the moon it got, the more force would be required to keep it pointed at a specific point in space (say Orion's Belt).
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpedicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity dosn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpedicular to the gravitaional pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect someting moving perpedicuar to it, then could you please explain sattelites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpedicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Kreegan, why don't you 'Think' in one hand, and 'Poop' in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster!!!
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 10:26 PM)
ATL,
Actually, i dont think that was what the person had posed as a question. I was under the impression that he said that the plane would come in with an IAS of 60 (or 30) or whatever onto the belt which MATCHES the speed of the plane. Regardless, this is the question you should be answering cause this is what applies. Yet, its actually not the question i want you to answer. The question i want you to answer ive asked about 5 differnt times that youve ignored. ill post it again for you.
You want to convince any flyer... show the errors in this. or show where friction equals thrust.
for 747.
thrust = 50,000 lbs/ engine * 4 engines = 200,000 lbs thrust.
Friction--
crf = .005 (5 times greater than you originally said to give you the benefit of the doubt)
weight = 847,000 lbs
rolling friction = crf * w
rolling friction = .005 * 847,000 = ~4200
even double crf to .01 and its 8000 lbs friction.
make it an even 10,000 with bearing friction....
Which one is bigger.. thrust clearly wins out and it acclerates.
p.s. i think it will land pretty much like normal, wheels will be going faster and will have a bit more friction and slow down prob quicker but not by much.
Simple, man.
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
I'll further answer your question, but first bring it down to size.
The Cesna. Easy to push forward by hand, right?
Just as easy to push backwards, right?
That's how easy it is for the treadbelt to move it backwards (well, hold it 'stationary' for our purposes).
If the treadbelt is matching the speed of the plane, then the force is the same too....that's because the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt, which makes the treadbelt's motors whine, but they can take it!
Two opposing forces, say 1000lbs each.
CRF is 0.005, from your example. Since treadbelt is made of rubber, I've made it's CRF 0.005 as well. (depending on your perspective, the treadbelt could be rolling under the tire, so it too has a CRF...it 'bends' as the weight of the plane moves over it.)
So both the tires and treadbelt are subtracting 1lb of force from their respective powerplants.
Gross Force
1000lbs vs 1000lbs
CRF
1lb vs 1lb
Net Force
999lbs vs 999lbs
Equals
No Movement. Forces cancel each other out.
Otherwise, please tell me this...if a plane is making 1000lbs of force to maintain a constant speed, and the treadbelt is matching that speed, then how much force is the treadbelt pushing out? (remember, the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt)
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
Actually, i dont think that was what the person had posed as a question. I was under the impression that he said that the plane would come in with an IAS of 60 (or 30) or whatever onto the belt which MATCHES the speed of the plane. Regardless, this is the question you should be answering cause this is what applies. Yet, its actually not the question i want you to answer. The question i want you to answer ive asked about 5 differnt times that youve ignored. ill post it again for you.
You want to convince any flyer... show the errors in this. or show where friction equals thrust.
for 747.
thrust = 50,000 lbs/ engine * 4 engines = 200,000 lbs thrust.
Friction--
crf = .005 (5 times greater than you originally said to give you the benefit of the doubt)
weight = 847,000 lbs
rolling friction = crf * w
rolling friction = .005 * 847,000 = ~4200
even double crf to .01 and its 8000 lbs friction.
make it an even 10,000 with bearing friction....
Which one is bigger.. thrust clearly wins out and it acclerates.
p.s. i think it will land pretty much like normal, wheels will be going faster and will have a bit more friction and slow down prob quicker but not by much.
Simple, man.
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
I'll further answer your question, but first bring it down to size.
The Cesna. Easy to push forward by hand, right?
Just as easy to push backwards, right?
That's how easy it is for the treadbelt to move it backwards (well, hold it 'stationary' for our purposes).
If the treadbelt is matching the speed of the plane, then the force is the same too....that's because the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt, which makes the treadbelt's motors whine, but they can take it!
Two opposing forces, say 1000lbs each.
CRF is 0.005, from your example. Since treadbelt is made of rubber, I've made it's CRF 0.005 as well. (depending on your perspective, the treadbelt could be rolling under the tire, so it too has a CRF...it 'bends' as the weight of the plane moves over it.)
So both the tires and treadbelt are subtracting 1lb of force from their respective powerplants.
Gross Force
1000lbs vs 1000lbs
CRF
1lb vs 1lb
Net Force
999lbs vs 999lbs
Equals
No Movement. Forces cancel each other out.
Otherwise, please tell me this...if a plane is making 1000lbs of force to maintain a constant speed, and the treadbelt is matching that speed, then how much force is the treadbelt pushing out? (remember, the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt)
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Whenever Atl5p attempts to answer a question of substance with something (he thinks is) intelligent, he makes statements like the ones quoted above!
How someone who is lacking in such basic concepts of physics, can come to a physics forum and argue the same concepts that he is deficient in for this long and hard, is beyond me! He has to know his knowledge in this area is deficient, yet here he is makeing a bloody fool out of himself for all to witness...amazing!?
There is however the amusment value of watching him make a complete fool out of himself that is satisfying some primitive need!
Krreagan
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Whenever Atl5p attempts to answer a question of substance with something (he thinks is) intelligent, he makes statements like the ones quoted above!
How someone who is lacking in such basic concepts of physics, can come to a physics forum and argue the same concepts that he is deficient in for this long and hard, is beyond me! He has to know his knowledge in this area is deficient, yet here he is makeing a bloody fool out of himself for all to witness...amazing!?
There is however the amusment value of watching him make a complete fool out of himself that is satisfying some primitive need!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 08:42 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 27 2006, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
Can you read? I never said 'Acceleration' did I? I said 'Move'..as in 'Move at a constant speed'...this occurs after the acceleration takes place...as usual, you're a little behind Kreegan.
Now, using my example, once acceleration has taken place, YES, in deepest darkest space, an object in motion will remain in motion, until another 'force' acts upon that object. The plane will require No Force to 'Move' in relation to any object in space (except those which are on the same trajectory). The answer to your question Kreegan is YES. The plane requires NO FORCE to MOVE when it's in deepest space, with no other forces acting on it.
If you want to talk 'Acceleration', then 'Yes' it takes a specific 'Force' to accelerate the object's mass in deep space. Enter a 'heavier' object in the same gravity (thus more mass), it would take more force to accelerate it.
But the 1st object, suddenly caught within the moon's gravitational pull, would have to exert " more force" to maintain it's original trajectory....Am I loosing you, oh teacher of men?
The closer to the moon it got, the more force would be required to keep it pointed at a specific point in space (say Orion's Belt).
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpedicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity dosn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpedicular to the gravitaional pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect someting moving perpedicuar to it, then could you please explain sattelites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpedicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Kreegan, why don't you 'Think' in one hand, and 'Poop' in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster!!!
Keep going Atl5p... Keep going...
Lay out your ignorance for all to see...
Krreagan
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
Can you read? I never said 'Acceleration' did I? I said 'Move'..as in 'Move at a constant speed'...this occurs after the acceleration takes place...as usual, you're a little behind Kreegan.
Now, using my example, once acceleration has taken place, YES, in deepest darkest space, an object in motion will remain in motion, until another 'force' acts upon that object. The plane will require No Force to 'Move' in relation to any object in space (except those which are on the same trajectory). The answer to your question Kreegan is YES. The plane requires NO FORCE to MOVE when it's in deepest space, with no other forces acting on it.
If you want to talk 'Acceleration', then 'Yes' it takes a specific 'Force' to accelerate the object's mass in deep space. Enter a 'heavier' object in the same gravity (thus more mass), it would take more force to accelerate it.
But the 1st object, suddenly caught within the moon's gravitational pull, would have to exert " more force" to maintain it's original trajectory....Am I loosing you, oh teacher of men?
The closer to the moon it got, the more force would be required to keep it pointed at a specific point in space (say Orion's Belt).
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpedicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity dosn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpedicular to the gravitaional pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect someting moving perpedicuar to it, then could you please explain sattelites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpedicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Kreegan, why don't you 'Think' in one hand, and 'Poop' in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster!!!
Keep going Atl5p... Keep going...
Lay out your ignorance for all to see...
Krreagan
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 27 2006, 09:40 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 28 2006, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
Again.....
If gravity had the same effect horizontally as it did vertically then why can I easily push a plane but come nowhere close to lifting it?
When you are on Earth, and gravity is constant in the equations:
When you push the heavy object, you are, at that moment in time, pushing perpendicularly to earth's gravity.
Now, add 9 'ramps'. Ramp #1 has an incline of 10degrees. Ramp #2 is 20degrees...and so on until 'Ramp' #9 is 90 degrees. (straight UP)
So we say the following on earth:
Force to move object:
0 degrees = X
Ramp 1 = X:1
Ramp 2 = X:2
Ramp 3 = X:3
Ramp 4 = X:4
Ramp 5 = X:5
Ramp 6 = X:6
Ramp 7 = X:7
Ramp 8 = X:8
Ramp 9 = X:9
Now we move to the Moon, were gravity is 1/6 that of earth. We'll start Vertical and work our way down:
Ramp 9 = 1/6 X:9
Ramp 8 = 1/6 X:8
Ramp 7 = 1/6 X:7
Ramp 6 = 1/6 X:6
Ramp 5 = 1/6 X:5
Ramp 4 = 1/6 X:4
Ramp 3 = 1/6 X:3
Ramp 2 = 1/6 X:2
Ramp 1 = 1/6 X:1
0 degrees = 1/6 X
Do you disagree with this???
To accelerate a given mass, on earth it is 'X', and on the moon it is '1/6 X'....YES...PERPENDICULAR!
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
Again.....
If gravity had the same effect horizontally as it did vertically then why can I easily push a plane but come nowhere close to lifting it?
When you are on Earth, and gravity is constant in the equations:
When you push the heavy object, you are, at that moment in time, pushing perpendicularly to earth's gravity.
Now, add 9 'ramps'. Ramp #1 has an incline of 10degrees. Ramp #2 is 20degrees...and so on until 'Ramp' #9 is 90 degrees. (straight UP)
So we say the following on earth:
Force to move object:
0 degrees = X
Ramp 1 = X:1
Ramp 2 = X:2
Ramp 3 = X:3
Ramp 4 = X:4
Ramp 5 = X:5
Ramp 6 = X:6
Ramp 7 = X:7
Ramp 8 = X:8
Ramp 9 = X:9
Now we move to the Moon, were gravity is 1/6 that of earth. We'll start Vertical and work our way down:
Ramp 9 = 1/6 X:9
Ramp 8 = 1/6 X:8
Ramp 7 = 1/6 X:7
Ramp 6 = 1/6 X:6
Ramp 5 = 1/6 X:5
Ramp 4 = 1/6 X:4
Ramp 3 = 1/6 X:3
Ramp 2 = 1/6 X:2
Ramp 1 = 1/6 X:1
0 degrees = 1/6 X
Do you disagree with this???
To accelerate a given mass, on earth it is 'X', and on the moon it is '1/6 X'....YES...PERPENDICULAR!
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 27 2006, 11:03 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 08:42 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 27 2006, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
Can you read? I never said 'Acceleration' did I? I said 'Move'..as in 'Move at a constant speed'...this occurs after the acceleration takes place...as usual, you're a little behind Kreegan.
Now, using my example, once acceleration has taken place, YES, in deepest darkest space, an object in motion will remain in motion, until another 'force' acts upon that object. The plane will require No Force to 'Move' in relation to any object in space (except those which are on the same trajectory). The answer to your question Kreegan is YES. The plane requires NO FORCE to MOVE when it's in deepest space, with no other forces acting on it.
If you want to talk 'Acceleration', then 'Yes' it takes a specific 'Force' to accelerate the object's mass in deep space. Enter a 'heavier' object in the same gravity (thus more mass), it would take more force to accelerate it.
But the 1st object, suddenly caught within the moon's gravitational pull, would have to exert " more force" to maintain it's original trajectory....Am I loosing you, oh teacher of men?
The closer to the moon it got, the more force would be required to keep it pointed at a specific point in space (say Orion's Belt).
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpedicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity dosn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpedicular to the gravitaional pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect someting moving perpedicuar to it, then could you please explain sattelites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpedicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Kreegan, why don't you 'Think' in one hand, and 'Poop' in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster!!!
Keep going Atl5p... Keep going...
Lay out your ignorance for all to see...
Krreagan
I've made a fool of him, and you can tell, because he resorts to his usual name calling, etc...
Just like Kreegan always says: "Show me direct proof! Disect it point by point! I'll show you where to start too, Kreegan....shoot through space, and explain how to maintain course when you start getting sucked into a planet...how for example, are you going to pass by the moon, without your course getting deflected?
I'm calling you out, pussy....you're chickenshit, dipshit!
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpendicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity doesn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpendicular to the gravitational pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect so meting moving perpendicular to it, then could you please explain satellites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpendicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Cool!!! Lets do vectors!!!
ATL, you do realize that the gravity acting on the plane is counteracted by Earth itself holding a plane up don't you.
Kinda like if you are carrying a 100 pound toolbox....are you providing 100 of lift or is the Earth providing 100 pound of gravity?
Actually it is both and cancel each other out! Opposing forces and all that. I know you are reading my posts because suddenly you got a new word...perpendicular!
But back to your problem.
Same plane moving through space in a straight line is acted on by a perpendicular force will deflect...but not lose any speed along its original axis unless some force is applied to the plane along this axis.
Bruce
P.S. Please try the spellcheck button...it's fun!
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
Can you read? I never said 'Acceleration' did I? I said 'Move'..as in 'Move at a constant speed'...this occurs after the acceleration takes place...as usual, you're a little behind Kreegan.
Now, using my example, once acceleration has taken place, YES, in deepest darkest space, an object in motion will remain in motion, until another 'force' acts upon that object. The plane will require No Force to 'Move' in relation to any object in space (except those which are on the same trajectory). The answer to your question Kreegan is YES. The plane requires NO FORCE to MOVE when it's in deepest space, with no other forces acting on it.
If you want to talk 'Acceleration', then 'Yes' it takes a specific 'Force' to accelerate the object's mass in deep space. Enter a 'heavier' object in the same gravity (thus more mass), it would take more force to accelerate it.
But the 1st object, suddenly caught within the moon's gravitational pull, would have to exert " more force" to maintain it's original trajectory....Am I loosing you, oh teacher of men?
The closer to the moon it got, the more force would be required to keep it pointed at a specific point in space (say Orion's Belt).
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpedicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity dosn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpedicular to the gravitaional pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect someting moving perpedicuar to it, then could you please explain sattelites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpedicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Kreegan, why don't you 'Think' in one hand, and 'Poop' in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster!!!
Keep going Atl5p... Keep going...
Lay out your ignorance for all to see...
Krreagan
I've made a fool of him, and you can tell, because he resorts to his usual name calling, etc...
Just like Kreegan always says: "Show me direct proof! Disect it point by point! I'll show you where to start too, Kreegan....shoot through space, and explain how to maintain course when you start getting sucked into a planet...how for example, are you going to pass by the moon, without your course getting deflected?
I'm calling you out, pussy....you're chickenshit, dipshit!
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 28 2006, 03:42 AM)
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpendicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity doesn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpendicular to the gravitational pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect so meting moving perpendicular to it, then could you please explain satellites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpendicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Cool!!! Lets do vectors!!!
ATL, you do realize that the gravity acting on the plane is counteracted by Earth itself holding a plane up don't you.
Kinda like if you are carrying a 100 pound toolbox....are you providing 100 of lift or is the Earth providing 100 pound of gravity?
Actually it is both and cancel each other out! Opposing forces and all that. I know you are reading my posts because suddenly you got a new word...perpendicular!
But back to your problem.
Same plane moving through space in a straight line is acted on by a perpendicular force will deflect...but not lose any speed along its original axis unless some force is applied to the plane along this axis.
Bruce
P.S. Please try the spellcheck button...it's fun!
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 10:26 PM)
ATL,
Actually, i dont think that was what the person had posed as a question. I was under the impression that he said that the plane would come in with an IAS of 60 (or 30) or whatever onto the belt which MATCHES the speed of the plane. Regardless, this is the question you should be answering cause this is what applies. Yet, its actually not the question i want you to answer. The question i want you to answer ive asked about 5 differnt times that youve ignored. ill post it again for you.
You want to convince any flyer... show the errors in this. or show where friction equals thrust.
for 747.
thrust = 50,000 lbs/ engine * 4 engines = 200,000 lbs thrust.
Friction--
crf = .005 (5 times greater than you originally said to give you the benefit of the doubt)
weight = 847,000 lbs
rolling friction = crf * w
rolling friction = .005 * 847,000 = ~4200
even double crf to .01 and its 8000 lbs friction.
make it an even 10,000 with bearing friction....
Which one is bigger.. thrust clearly wins out and it acclerates.
p.s. i think it will land pretty much like normal, wheels will be going faster and will have a bit more friction and slow down prob quicker but not by much.
Simple, man.
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
I'll further answer your question, but first bring it down to size.
The Cesna. Easy to push forward by hand, right?
Just as easy to push backwards, right?
That's how easy it is for the treadbelt to move it backwards (well, hold it 'stationary' for our purposes).
If the treadbelt is matching the speed of the plane, then the force is the same too....that's because the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt, which makes the treadbelt's motors whine, but they can take it!
Two opposing forces, say 1000lbs each.
CRF is 0.005, from your example. Since treadbelt is made of rubber, I've made it's CRF 0.005 as well. (depending on your perspective, the treadbelt could be rolling under the tire, so it too has a CRF...it 'bends' as the weight of the plane moves over it.)
So both the tires and treadbelt are subtracting 1lb of force from their respective powerplants.
Gross Force
1000lbs vs 1000lbs
CRF
1lb vs 1lb
Net Force
999lbs vs 999lbs
Equals
No Movement. Forces cancel each other out.
Otherwise, please tell me this...if a plane is making 1000lbs of force to maintain a constant speed, and the treadbelt is matching that speed, then how much force is the treadbelt pushing out? (remember, the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt)
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
Buaaaaahahahahahahhaha... oh stop please stop!!! buaaaaahahahahahaahhahahaha
Bring out the numbers! Let see..
Bring out the numbers! Let see..
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
You cannot answer illogical brain dead mish-mash!
As I said every time you open your mouth (or keyboard as the case may be) you keep demonstrating you ignorance on this subject. You couldn't pay for this much entertainment!
Krreagan
Actually, i dont think that was what the person had posed as a question. I was under the impression that he said that the plane would come in with an IAS of 60 (or 30) or whatever onto the belt which MATCHES the speed of the plane. Regardless, this is the question you should be answering cause this is what applies. Yet, its actually not the question i want you to answer. The question i want you to answer ive asked about 5 differnt times that youve ignored. ill post it again for you.
You want to convince any flyer... show the errors in this. or show where friction equals thrust.
for 747.
thrust = 50,000 lbs/ engine * 4 engines = 200,000 lbs thrust.
Friction--
crf = .005 (5 times greater than you originally said to give you the benefit of the doubt)
weight = 847,000 lbs
rolling friction = crf * w
rolling friction = .005 * 847,000 = ~4200
even double crf to .01 and its 8000 lbs friction.
make it an even 10,000 with bearing friction....
Which one is bigger.. thrust clearly wins out and it acclerates.
p.s. i think it will land pretty much like normal, wheels will be going faster and will have a bit more friction and slow down prob quicker but not by much.
Simple, man.
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
I'll further answer your question, but first bring it down to size.
The Cesna. Easy to push forward by hand, right?
Just as easy to push backwards, right?
That's how easy it is for the treadbelt to move it backwards (well, hold it 'stationary' for our purposes).
If the treadbelt is matching the speed of the plane, then the force is the same too....that's because the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt, which makes the treadbelt's motors whine, but they can take it!
Two opposing forces, say 1000lbs each.
CRF is 0.005, from your example. Since treadbelt is made of rubber, I've made it's CRF 0.005 as well. (depending on your perspective, the treadbelt could be rolling under the tire, so it too has a CRF...it 'bends' as the weight of the plane moves over it.)
So both the tires and treadbelt are subtracting 1lb of force from their respective powerplants.
Gross Force
1000lbs vs 1000lbs
CRF
1lb vs 1lb
Net Force
999lbs vs 999lbs
Equals
No Movement. Forces cancel each other out.
Otherwise, please tell me this...if a plane is making 1000lbs of force to maintain a constant speed, and the treadbelt is matching that speed, then how much force is the treadbelt pushing out? (remember, the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt)
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
Buaaaaahahahahahahhaha... oh stop please stop!!! buaaaaahahahahahaahhahahaha
QUOTE
it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
Bring out the numbers! Let see..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it would accelerate MUCH more quickly. |
Bring out the numbers! Let see..
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
You cannot answer illogical brain dead mish-mash!
As I said every time you open your mouth (or keyboard as the case may be) you keep demonstrating you ignorance on this subject. You couldn't pay for this much entertainment!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 09:12 PM)
I'm calling you out, pussy....you're chicken ***, dipshit!
So I was pretty close, 14 years old?
From you, I'll take this as a compliment!
No one is arguing my points except you!
You keep missing the windmill... keep trying
Krreagan
So I was pretty close, 14 years old?
From you, I'll take this as a compliment!
No one is arguing my points except you!
You keep missing the windmill... keep trying
Krreagan
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 27 2006, 09:40 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 28 2006, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
Again.....
If gravity had the same effect horizontally as it did vertically then why can I easily push a plane but come nowhere close to lifting it?
When you are on Earth, and gravity is constant in the equations:
When you push the heavy object, you are, at that moment in time, pushing perpendicularly to earth's gravity.
Now, add 9 'ramps'. Ramp #1 has an incline of 10degrees. Ramp #2 is 20degrees...and so on until 'Ramp' #9 is 90 degrees. (straight UP)
So we say the following on earth:
Force to move object:
0 degrees = X
Ramp 1 = X:1
Ramp 2 = X:2
Ramp 3 = X:3
Ramp 4 = X:4
Ramp 5 = X:5
Ramp 6 = X:6
Ramp 7 = X:7
Ramp 8 = X:8
Ramp 9 = X:9
Now we move to the Moon, were gravity is 1/6 that of earth. We'll start Vertical and work our way down:
Ramp 9 = 1/6 X:9
Ramp 8 = 1/6 X:8
Ramp 7 = 1/6 X:7
Ramp 6 = 1/6 X:6
Ramp 5 = 1/6 X:5
Ramp 4 = 1/6 X:4
Ramp 3 = 1/6 X:3
Ramp 2 = 1/6 X:2
Ramp 1 = 1/6 X:1
0 degrees = 1/6 X
Do you disagree with this???
To accelerate a given mass, on earth it is 'X', and on the moon it is '1/6 X'....YES...PERPENDICULAR!
Buaaaaahahahahahahahah Not again hahahahah
I thought you said "move" not "accelerate"?
You havn't a clue about vectors either I gather?
Where do you get this stuff?
Krreagan
Simple, man.
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
The Cessna. Easy to push forward by hand, right?
Just as easy to push backwards, right?
That's how easy it is for the tread belt to move it backwards (well, hold it 'stationary' for our purposes).
If the tread belt is matching the speed of the plane, then the force is the same too....that's because the plane's weight is on top of the tread belt, which makes the tread belt's motors whine, but they can take it!
Two opposing forces, say 1000lbs each.
CRF is 0.005, from your example. Since tread belt is made of rubber, I've made it's CRF 0.005 as well. (depending on your perspective, the tread belt could be rolling under the tire, so it too has a CRF...it 'bends' as the weight of the plane moves over it.)
So both the tires and tread belt are subtracting 1lb of force from their respective power-plants.
Gross Force
1000lbs vs 1000lbs
CRF
1lb vs 1lb
Net Force
999lbs vs 999lbs
Equals
No Movement. Forces cancel each other out.
Otherwise, please tell me this...if a plane is making 1000lbs of force to maintain a constant speed, and the tread belt is matching that speed, then how much force is the tread belt pushing out? (remember, the plane's weight is on top of the tread belt)
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
Shear forces too!! I'm in heaven!!
You stated that the wheels were applying a force.
And that this force was 1 pound opposing the plane and 1 pound opposing the belt, leaving 999 pounds for the plane (pushing against thin air) and 999 pounds for the belt (pushing against the good Earth).
I was thinking that a 1000 pound force in one direction needs a 1000 pound force in the opposite direction to have 0 movement?
You have 1000 one direction and 1000 in another direction with only 1 pound of opposing force each.
Sounds like they are boltin' in opposite directions.
Bruce
P.S. I have been using this thread to teach a 14 year old about force and motion so a lot of the explanation are in her words.
We have at actually built a small treadmill with an erector set and test things.
Her favorite is the catapult on the hot-wheels car. She loves it when we launch something big and it goes about 1 foot but the car goes backwards about 5 feet!!!
I am also banned from using Estes rocket motors in the house now!
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
Again.....
If gravity had the same effect horizontally as it did vertically then why can I easily push a plane but come nowhere close to lifting it?
When you are on Earth, and gravity is constant in the equations:
When you push the heavy object, you are, at that moment in time, pushing perpendicularly to earth's gravity.
Now, add 9 'ramps'. Ramp #1 has an incline of 10degrees. Ramp #2 is 20degrees...and so on until 'Ramp' #9 is 90 degrees. (straight UP)
So we say the following on earth:
Force to move object:
0 degrees = X
Ramp 1 = X:1
Ramp 2 = X:2
Ramp 3 = X:3
Ramp 4 = X:4
Ramp 5 = X:5
Ramp 6 = X:6
Ramp 7 = X:7
Ramp 8 = X:8
Ramp 9 = X:9
Now we move to the Moon, were gravity is 1/6 that of earth. We'll start Vertical and work our way down:
Ramp 9 = 1/6 X:9
Ramp 8 = 1/6 X:8
Ramp 7 = 1/6 X:7
Ramp 6 = 1/6 X:6
Ramp 5 = 1/6 X:5
Ramp 4 = 1/6 X:4
Ramp 3 = 1/6 X:3
Ramp 2 = 1/6 X:2
Ramp 1 = 1/6 X:1
0 degrees = 1/6 X
Do you disagree with this???
To accelerate a given mass, on earth it is 'X', and on the moon it is '1/6 X'....YES...PERPENDICULAR!
Buaaaaahahahahahahahah Not again hahahahah
I thought you said "move" not "accelerate"?
You havn't a clue about vectors either I gather?
Where do you get this stuff?
Krreagan
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 28 2006, 03:55 AM)
Simple, man.
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
The Cessna. Easy to push forward by hand, right?
Just as easy to push backwards, right?
That's how easy it is for the tread belt to move it backwards (well, hold it 'stationary' for our purposes).
If the tread belt is matching the speed of the plane, then the force is the same too....that's because the plane's weight is on top of the tread belt, which makes the tread belt's motors whine, but they can take it!
Two opposing forces, say 1000lbs each.
CRF is 0.005, from your example. Since tread belt is made of rubber, I've made it's CRF 0.005 as well. (depending on your perspective, the tread belt could be rolling under the tire, so it too has a CRF...it 'bends' as the weight of the plane moves over it.)
So both the tires and tread belt are subtracting 1lb of force from their respective power-plants.
Gross Force
1000lbs vs 1000lbs
CRF
1lb vs 1lb
Net Force
999lbs vs 999lbs
Equals
No Movement. Forces cancel each other out.
Otherwise, please tell me this...if a plane is making 1000lbs of force to maintain a constant speed, and the tread belt is matching that speed, then how much force is the tread belt pushing out? (remember, the plane's weight is on top of the tread belt)
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
Shear forces too!! I'm in heaven!!
You stated that the wheels were applying a force.
And that this force was 1 pound opposing the plane and 1 pound opposing the belt, leaving 999 pounds for the plane (pushing against thin air) and 999 pounds for the belt (pushing against the good Earth).
I was thinking that a 1000 pound force in one direction needs a 1000 pound force in the opposite direction to have 0 movement?
You have 1000 one direction and 1000 in another direction with only 1 pound of opposing force each.
Sounds like they are boltin' in opposite directions.
Bruce
P.S. I have been using this thread to teach a 14 year old about force and motion so a lot of the explanation are in her words.
We have at actually built a small treadmill with an erector set and test things.
Her favorite is the catapult on the hot-wheels car. She loves it when we launch something big and it goes about 1 foot but the car goes backwards about 5 feet!!!
I am also banned from using Estes rocket motors in the house now!
ATL,
There was so much crap in there and i could point out so many errors in that statement, i dont think i even wnat to waste the effort!
There was so much crap in there and i could point out so many errors in that statement, i dont think i even wnat to waste the effort!
Its amazing that ATL is all here by himself... people come and then realize their errs.. admit it and step back... but he just fails to see the light,
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 08:42 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 27 2006, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 04:09 PM)
once again, we 'flyers' are missing some of the obvious facts, as pointed out by at5lr, er whatever.
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
Can you read? I never said 'Acceleration' did I? I said 'Move'..as in 'Move at a constant speed'...this occurs after the acceleration takes place...as usual, you're a little behind Kreegan.
Now, using my example, once acceleration has taken place, YES, in deepest darkest space, an object in motion will remain in motion, until another 'force' acts upon that object. The plane will require No Force to 'Move' in relation to any object in space (except those which are on the same trajectory). The answer to your question Kreegan is YES. The plane requires NO FORCE to MOVE when it's in deepest space, with no other forces acting on it.
If you want to talk 'Acceleration', then 'Yes' it takes a specific 'Force' to accelerate the object's mass in deep space. Enter a 'heavier' object in the same gravity (thus more mass), it would take more force to accelerate it.
But the 1st object, suddenly caught within the moon's gravitational pull, would have to exert " more force" to maintain it's original trajectory....Am I loosing you, oh teacher of men?
The closer to the moon it got, the more force would be required to keep it pointed at a specific point in space (say Orion's Belt).
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpedicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity dosn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpedicular to the gravitaional pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect someting moving perpedicuar to it, then could you please explain sattelites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpedicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Kreegan, why don't you 'Think' in one hand, and 'Poop' in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster!!!
Based on this post I'd like to see if you can answer a couple of simple questions... (assume a two-body problem for simplicity)
1] There are two points in an eliptical orbit (with an e value /= 0) where the orbiting object is moving perpendicular to both focal points: Where are they?
2] When an object [a], passes by another (much larger) object[b] in space, and object [a] has too much energy to be captured into orbit around [b], what is the one point called where [a] is moving perpendicular to the [b]? Extra credit, what is the shape of the flight path of [a]?
3] At what distance does object [a]'s flight path begin to be deflected by [b]?
4] What can you say about [a] and [b] if as [a] approaches [b] the flight path of [a] is not altered.
Thats enough for now...
Please, can you answer these?
Krreagan
Damn! I thought this would get me 300!
first of all, gravity is not a constant on the moon.
luckily wind speed is, as so a plane will better be able to fly off the conveyor belt on the moon.
and, also, keep in mind, that the speed of the air(headwinds/tailwinds) will change the amount of friction that the wheels can apply to the wings.
also, the thickness of the belt is an issue. if you paint a line on the belt, it will change the outcome of the experiment.
forward thinking pilots will experience more 'headwind', while a hearty course of refried beans with onions will produce a signifigant 'tailwind'.
gravity on the moon is not CONSISTANT with the gravity of the earth.
So when you calculate the amount of 'Force' to move a given 'Mass', you are taking for granted the reletive 'gravity' for the event.
So yeah, on 'Earth', it takes 'X' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass.
And on the 'Moon', it takes ' 1/6 X ' amount of Force to move 'Y' amount of Mass. This is because 'Gravity' is '1/6' that of 'Earth'.
anyway, the rest of your post isn't even an attempt at intelligent conversation
Atl5p,
So lets see, If it takes X to accelerate a mass on the surface of the earth to a specified velocity in a horizontal direction, and 1/6X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity (again in a horizontal direction) on the surface of the moon, then it will take (zero) 0X to accelerate the same mass to the same velocity in orbit because gravity is zero? Is this what you are saying?
Simple question,
Krreagan
Can you read? I never said 'Acceleration' did I? I said 'Move'..as in 'Move at a constant speed'...this occurs after the acceleration takes place...as usual, you're a little behind Kreegan.
Now, using my example, once acceleration has taken place, YES, in deepest darkest space, an object in motion will remain in motion, until another 'force' acts upon that object. The plane will require No Force to 'Move' in relation to any object in space (except those which are on the same trajectory). The answer to your question Kreegan is YES. The plane requires NO FORCE to MOVE when it's in deepest space, with no other forces acting on it.
If you want to talk 'Acceleration', then 'Yes' it takes a specific 'Force' to accelerate the object's mass in deep space. Enter a 'heavier' object in the same gravity (thus more mass), it would take more force to accelerate it.
But the 1st object, suddenly caught within the moon's gravitational pull, would have to exert " more force" to maintain it's original trajectory....Am I loosing you, oh teacher of men?
The closer to the moon it got, the more force would be required to keep it pointed at a specific point in space (say Orion's Belt).
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpedicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity dosn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpedicular to the gravitaional pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect someting moving perpedicuar to it, then could you please explain sattelites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpedicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Kreegan, why don't you 'Think' in one hand, and 'Poop' in the other hand, and see which one fills up faster!!!
Based on this post I'd like to see if you can answer a couple of simple questions... (assume a two-body problem for simplicity)
1] There are two points in an eliptical orbit (with an e value /= 0) where the orbiting object is moving perpendicular to both focal points: Where are they?
2] When an object [a], passes by another (much larger) object[b] in space, and object [a] has too much energy to be captured into orbit around [b], what is the one point called where [a] is moving perpendicular to the [b]? Extra credit, what is the shape of the flight path of [a]?
3] At what distance does object [a]'s flight path begin to be deflected by [b]?
4] What can you say about [a] and [b] if as [a] approaches [b] the flight path of [a] is not altered.
Thats enough for now...
Please, can you answer these?
Krreagan
Damn! I thought this would get me 300!
Heres your first clue ATL. An individual object doesnt have a CRF... a CRF is the interaction beteween two objects.
Page 300!!!!
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 10:27 PM)
Page 300!!!!
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Rats!
Nice job sooks you deserve it!
Krreagan
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Rats!
Nice job sooks you deserve it!
Krreagan
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 28 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 27 2006, 08:27 PM)
the moon!? there's no air on the moon, and the gravity is (a constant).6 of earth's. if there was air on the moon, it would make virtually NO DIFFERENCE to the experiment.
I hate to correct someone with a name like newton but...
I think you mean 1/6 (0.167) not .6
Krreagan
don't worry. my name's a ruse.
yeah, 1/6, LOL!!! i don't think about the moon's gravity too much. it's been a while.
I hate to correct someone with a name like newton but...
I think you mean 1/6 (0.167) not .6
Krreagan
don't worry. my name's a ruse.
yeah, 1/6, LOL!!! i don't think about the moon's gravity too much. it's been a while.
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 28 2006, 05:27 AM)
Page 300!!!!
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Hooray!!
I only arrived on page 271, but it was fun!
I kinda expect ATL to come out and say..."Oh, I see...Sorry"
Bruce
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Hooray!!
I only arrived on page 271, but it was fun!
I kinda expect ATL to come out and say..."Oh, I see...Sorry"
Bruce
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 28 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 10:26 PM)
ATL,
Actually, i dont think that was what the person had posed as a question. I was under the impression that he said that the plane would come in with an IAS of 60 (or 30) or whatever onto the belt which MATCHES the speed of the plane. Regardless, this is the question you should be answering cause this is what applies. Yet, its actually not the question i want you to answer. The question i want you to answer ive asked about 5 differnt times that youve ignored. ill post it again for you.
You want to convince any flyer... show the errors in this. or show where friction equals thrust.
for 747.
thrust = 50,000 lbs/ engine * 4 engines = 200,000 lbs thrust.
Friction--
crf = .005 (5 times greater than you originally said to give you the benefit of the doubt)
weight = 847,000 lbs
rolling friction = crf * w
rolling friction = .005 * 847,000 = ~4200
even double crf to .01 and its 8000 lbs friction.
make it an even 10,000 with bearing friction....
Which one is bigger.. thrust clearly wins out and it acclerates.
p.s. i think it will land pretty much like normal, wheels will be going faster and will have a bit more friction and slow down prob quicker but not by much.
Simple, man.
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
I'll further answer your question, but first bring it down to size.
The Cesna. Easy to push forward by hand, right?
Just as easy to push backwards, right?
That's how easy it is for the treadbelt to move it backwards (well, hold it 'stationary' for our purposes).
If the treadbelt is matching the speed of the plane, then the force is the same too....that's because the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt, which makes the treadbelt's motors whine, but they can take it!
Two opposing forces, say 1000lbs each.
CRF is 0.005, from your example. Since treadbelt is made of rubber, I've made it's CRF 0.005 as well. (depending on your perspective, the treadbelt could be rolling under the tire, so it too has a CRF...it 'bends' as the weight of the plane moves over it.)
So both the tires and treadbelt are subtracting 1lb of force from their respective powerplants.
Gross Force
1000lbs vs 1000lbs
CRF
1lb vs 1lb
Net Force
999lbs vs 999lbs
Equals
No Movement. Forces cancel each other out.
Otherwise, please tell me this...if a plane is making 1000lbs of force to maintain a constant speed, and the treadbelt is matching that speed, then how much force is the treadbelt pushing out? (remember, the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt)
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
First of all... are the engines pulling or pushing the air?? cause its either one or the other.
Secondly, your actually partially right... it only takes a little amount to push the plane back. and with the force of friction it can move the plane back..at 10000 lbs. its also its maximum its exerting.. that force hardly changes with the speed of the belt. the engines are exerting 200,000lbs thrust. its much greater..it overcomes the maximum friction. THAT is the equations. Please show me how the equations are wrong.
thirdly, Speed != Force. (!= is not equal btw) they do not correlate. force = mass * acceleration. thats the most basic equation in physics.. speed is irrelevant. net force could be 0 and you could have a speed of 100 mph and force could be 1000 lbs and have a speed of 1 mph... they dont equate each other. Understand that.. its your major flaw.
To answer your question of if a plane is making 1000lbs of thrust and is moving at a constant speed... then the belt is exerting 1000 lbs on hte plane. Now let me ask you... what was the plane exerting before to get up to that speed. It had to be exerting a greater force than the belt to accelerate.. so why did they become equal..it only happens when the plane backs off from max throttle.
WOW... look how i answered that!!
Actually, i dont think that was what the person had posed as a question. I was under the impression that he said that the plane would come in with an IAS of 60 (or 30) or whatever onto the belt which MATCHES the speed of the plane. Regardless, this is the question you should be answering cause this is what applies. Yet, its actually not the question i want you to answer. The question i want you to answer ive asked about 5 differnt times that youve ignored. ill post it again for you.
You want to convince any flyer... show the errors in this. or show where friction equals thrust.
for 747.
thrust = 50,000 lbs/ engine * 4 engines = 200,000 lbs thrust.
Friction--
crf = .005 (5 times greater than you originally said to give you the benefit of the doubt)
weight = 847,000 lbs
rolling friction = crf * w
rolling friction = .005 * 847,000 = ~4200
even double crf to .01 and its 8000 lbs friction.
make it an even 10,000 with bearing friction....
Which one is bigger.. thrust clearly wins out and it acclerates.
p.s. i think it will land pretty much like normal, wheels will be going faster and will have a bit more friction and slow down prob quicker but not by much.
Simple, man.
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
I'll further answer your question, but first bring it down to size.
The Cesna. Easy to push forward by hand, right?
Just as easy to push backwards, right?
That's how easy it is for the treadbelt to move it backwards (well, hold it 'stationary' for our purposes).
If the treadbelt is matching the speed of the plane, then the force is the same too....that's because the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt, which makes the treadbelt's motors whine, but they can take it!
Two opposing forces, say 1000lbs each.
CRF is 0.005, from your example. Since treadbelt is made of rubber, I've made it's CRF 0.005 as well. (depending on your perspective, the treadbelt could be rolling under the tire, so it too has a CRF...it 'bends' as the weight of the plane moves over it.)
So both the tires and treadbelt are subtracting 1lb of force from their respective powerplants.
Gross Force
1000lbs vs 1000lbs
CRF
1lb vs 1lb
Net Force
999lbs vs 999lbs
Equals
No Movement. Forces cancel each other out.
Otherwise, please tell me this...if a plane is making 1000lbs of force to maintain a constant speed, and the treadbelt is matching that speed, then how much force is the treadbelt pushing out? (remember, the plane's weight is on top of the treadbelt)
Can't answer that can you? Wont answer that...everyone watch him not answer it.
First of all... are the engines pulling or pushing the air?? cause its either one or the other.
Secondly, your actually partially right... it only takes a little amount to push the plane back. and with the force of friction it can move the plane back..at 10000 lbs. its also its maximum its exerting.. that force hardly changes with the speed of the belt. the engines are exerting 200,000lbs thrust. its much greater..it overcomes the maximum friction. THAT is the equations. Please show me how the equations are wrong.
thirdly, Speed != Force. (!= is not equal btw) they do not correlate. force = mass * acceleration. thats the most basic equation in physics.. speed is irrelevant. net force could be 0 and you could have a speed of 100 mph and force could be 1000 lbs and have a speed of 1 mph... they dont equate each other. Understand that.. its your major flaw.
To answer your question of if a plane is making 1000lbs of thrust and is moving at a constant speed... then the belt is exerting 1000 lbs on hte plane. Now let me ask you... what was the plane exerting before to get up to that speed. It had to be exerting a greater force than the belt to accelerate.. so why did they become equal..it only happens when the plane backs off from max throttle.
WOW... look how i answered that!!
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 28 2006, 05:30 AM)
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 10:27 PM)
Page 300!!!!
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Rats!
Nice job sooks you deserve it!
Krreagan
Haha... thanks krreagan.. it was only about 250 pages in the making... and you were there pretty much all the way with me.
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Rats!
Nice job sooks you deserve it!
Krreagan
Haha... thanks krreagan.. it was only about 250 pages in the making... and you were there pretty much all the way with me.
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 28 2006, 06:11 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 28 2006, 05:30 AM)
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 10:27 PM)
Page 300!!!!
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Rats!
Nice job sooks you deserve it!
Krreagan
Haha... thanks krreagan.. it was only about 250 pages in the making... and you were there pretty much all the way with me.
I've got about 220 pages worth of rambling
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Rats!
Nice job sooks you deserve it!
Krreagan
Haha... thanks krreagan.. it was only about 250 pages in the making... and you were there pretty much all the way with me.
I've got about 220 pages worth of rambling
QUOTE (egnorant+Feb 27 2006, 10:54 PM)
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 28 2006, 05:27 AM)
Page 300!!!!
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Hooray!!
I only arrived on page 271, but it was fun!
I kinda expect ATL to come out and say..."Oh, I see...Sorry"
Bruce
Ya me too, on page 100... then 200... who knows, maybe he's going for 1000
Krreagan
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Hooray!!
I only arrived on page 271, but it was fun!
I kinda expect ATL to come out and say..."Oh, I see...Sorry"
Bruce
Ya me too, on page 100... then 200... who knows, maybe he's going for 1000
Krreagan
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 11:11 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Feb 28 2006, 05:30 AM)
QUOTE (sooks+Feb 27 2006, 10:27 PM)
Page 300!!!!
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Rats!
Nice job sooks you deserve it!
Krreagan
Haha... thanks krreagan.. it was only about 250 pages in the making... and you were there pretty much all the way with me.
When I started (page ~34) I was amazed it was still going then... If only I had known then...
Krreagan
Yahoo!!! I got it!!
Rats!
Nice job sooks you deserve it!
Krreagan
Haha... thanks krreagan.. it was only about 250 pages in the making... and you were there pretty much all the way with me.
When I started (page ~34) I was amazed it was still going then... If only I had known then...
Krreagan
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 27 2006, 08:55 PM)
The jet producing all that 'thrust' is not pushing the plane itself...it's pushing against air. Your 200,000lbs of thrust is 'thrust pushing against air'. That thin air is all the engines have to grab onto, in order to pull the 747. Believe me, if the 747 could apply that power to the ground, it would accelerate MUCH more quickly.
Atl5p,
I reread your stuff for amusement and find all kinds of goodies (all in one paragraph no less)...
Jets DO NOT produce thrust by pushing against the air! They ingest air, compress it, add fuel and ignite the fuel which burns and forces the exhaust out the back. The thrust is created by the acceleration of the exhaust molecules out the back! an "equal but opposite reaction" kind of thing. This is NOT pushing against the air!
What 200,000lbs of thrust means is just that! The force the engine(s) put against the airframe is 200,000lbs! at sea level and some predefined standard temperature, humidity... So 200,000lbs of thrust from jet engines or turning wheels or whatever... will produce the same acceleration.
I have yet to see a jet engine "grab" the air, The air is forced into the front of the engines by two things... One as the engine starts to rotate it creates a low pressure area in front of the turbine blades that causes the normal ambient air pressure to fill the void in the front of the engine (some jets require an outside source of air pressure to get started). Two as the plane moves forward, this forces more air into the front of the engine to be ingested. So the term "grab" never really comes to mind!
You should really use knowledge to argue these points, as your intuition has left you twisting in the wind!
Krreagan
Atl5p,
I reread your stuff for amusement and find all kinds of goodies (all in one paragraph no less)...
Jets DO NOT produce thrust by pushing against the air! They ingest air, compress it, add fuel and ignite the fuel which burns and forces the exhaust out the back. The thrust is created by the acceleration of the exhaust molecules out the back! an "equal but opposite reaction" kind of thing
. This is NOT pushing against the air!What 200,000lbs of thrust means is just that! The force the engine(s) put against the airframe is 200,000lbs! at sea level and some predefined standard temperature, humidity... So 200,000lbs of thrust from jet engines or turning wheels or whatever... will produce the same acceleration.
I have yet to see a jet engine "grab" the air, The air is forced into the front of the engines by two things... One as the engine starts to rotate it creates a low pressure area in front of the turbine blades that causes the normal ambient air pressure to fill the void in the front of the engine (some jets require an outside source of air pressure to get started). Two as the plane moves forward, this forces more air into the front of the engine to be ingested. So the term "grab" never really comes to mind!
You should really use knowledge to argue these points, as your intuition has left you twisting in the wind!
Krreagan
CONGRATULATIONS! You have managed to argue for 300 pages about this topic. I'll admit, at first I had my doubts this thread would even reach 200 pages, yet here we are, still fighting, while thousands of airline passengers eagerly await the final outcome so they can board the plane. YEE HAW!!!
OK this question is going no where. Who wants to come hang gliding with me this weekend???
Flat land hang gliding wooooooooo
Flat land hang gliding wooooooooo
ill only go if your take off point is froma moving walkway...
We can stick the cart on a conveyor then see if the winch can pull it off.
Using my hang glider as an example (It stalls at 18mph). The wind is blowing 10mph to my back. I'm standing on top of Look Out Mountain. I have 6 foot betwen me and the edge of the cillf. What rate of acceleration must I achieve before I reach the edge of the cliff!!
Using my hang glider as an example (It stalls at 18mph). The wind is blowing 10mph to my back. I'm standing on top of Look Out Mountain. I have 6 foot betwen me and the edge of the cillf. What rate of acceleration must I achieve before I reach the edge of the cliff!!
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 28 2006, 04:40 PM)
OK this question is going no where. Who wants to come hang gliding with me this weekend???
Flat land hang gliding wooooooooo
I would love to hang-glide and probably would be doing so if I wasn't spending all my money on flying lessons
Flat land hang gliding wooooooooo
I would love to hang-glide and probably would be doing so if I wasn't spending all my money on flying lessons
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 28 2006, 06:18 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 28 2006, 04:40 PM)
OK this question is going no where. Who wants to come hang gliding with me this weekend???
Flat land hang gliding wooooooooo
I would love to hang-glide and probably would be doing so if I wasn't spending all my money on flying lessons
I'll tell you what. I've flown RC since I was 8. I have stick time in gliders and GA aircraft, but nothing beats a day flying the hang glider.
When you think about it, once you get your certificate what do you do with it? Unless you have the money to buy a plane and rent a hangar, then you have to spend 100 bucks and hour when you go out flying. Even if you join a club, you pay for the hours you put on the plane, plus dues, and any emergency stuff.
My wing is bought and paid for. I spend 90 bucks a year on dues. I have one local 400' ridge to fly off of (free), otherwise we tow. $5 for the scooter tow like in the video. $20 for an aerotow to 2,500'.
I've flown for an hour off of a $5 scooter tow. Over an hour jumping off the ridge, but I've not had much luck with the aerotowing so far. I think my best has been about 35-40 min.
Much cheaper than GA, and all around a much more personal experience. I'm competting in my first competition this weekend. I'll be happy if I even get recognized, let alone win (mostly I just want to fly!! )
I'm sure you have a HG school close to you and don't even know it! (by the way where are you?)
Flat land hang gliding wooooooooo
I would love to hang-glide and probably would be doing so if I wasn't spending all my money on flying lessons
I'll tell you what. I've flown RC since I was 8. I have stick time in gliders and GA aircraft, but nothing beats a day flying the hang glider.
When you think about it, once you get your certificate what do you do with it? Unless you have the money to buy a plane and rent a hangar, then you have to spend 100 bucks and hour when you go out flying. Even if you join a club, you pay for the hours you put on the plane, plus dues, and any emergency stuff.
My wing is bought and paid for. I spend 90 bucks a year on dues. I have one local 400' ridge to fly off of (free), otherwise we tow. $5 for the scooter tow like in the video. $20 for an aerotow to 2,500'.
I've flown for an hour off of a $5 scooter tow. Over an hour jumping off the ridge, but I've not had much luck with the aerotowing so far. I think my best has been about 35-40 min.
Much cheaper than GA, and all around a much more personal experience. I'm competting in my first competition this weekend. I'll be happy if I even get recognized, let alone win
(mostly I just want to fly!! )I'm sure you have a HG school close to you and don't even know it! (by the way where are you?)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 28 2006, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE (isfn+Feb 28 2006, 06:18 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 28 2006, 04:40 PM)
OK this question is going no where. Who wants to come hang gliding with me this weekend???
Flat land hang gliding wooooooooo
I would love to hang-glide and probably would be doing so if I wasn't spending all my money on flying lessons
I'll tell you what. I've flown RC since I was 8. I have stick time in gliders and GA aircraft, but nothing beats a day flying the hang glider.
When you think about it, once you get your certificate what do you do with it? Unless you have the money to buy a plane and rent a hangar, then you have to spend 100 bucks and hour when you go out flying. Even if you join a club, you pay for the hours you put on the plane, plus dues, and any emergency stuff.
My wing is bought and paid for. I spend 90 bucks a year on dues. I have one local 400' ridge to fly off of (free), otherwise we tow. $5 for the scooter tow like in the video. $20 for an aerotow to 2,500'.
I've flown for an hour off of a $5 scooter tow. Over an hour jumping off the ridge, but I've not had much luck with the aerotowing so far. I think my best has been about 35-40 min.
Much cheaper than GA, and all around a much more personal experience. I'm competting in my first competition this weekend. I'll be happy if I even get recognized, let alone win (mostly I just want to fly!! )
I'm sure you have a HG school close to you and don't even know it! (by the way where are you?)
After I get my PP cert I won't be flying nearly as much as I am now so maybe that will free up some cash to HG.
Good luck this weekend, but more importantly have fun and be safe.
I'm near Boston
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpendicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity doesn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpendicular to the gravitational pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect so meting moving perpendicular to it, then could you please explain satellites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpendicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Cool!!! Lets do vectors!!!
ATL, you do realize that the gravity acting on the plane is counteracted by Earth itself holding a plane up don't you.
Kinda like if you are carrying a 100 pound toolbox....are you providing 100 of lift or is the Earth providing 100 pound of gravity?
Actually it is both and cancel each other out! Opposing forces and all that. I know you are reading my posts because suddenly you got a new word...perpendicular!
But back to your problem.
Same plane moving through space in a straight line is acted on by a perpendicular force will deflect...but not lose any speed along its original axis unless some force is applied to the plane along this axis.
Bruce
P.S. Please try the spellcheck button...it's fun!
So, what you're saying is this: when moving perpendicular to the force of gravity of a planetary body, that gravity has an effect upon that object??
I think you've just agreed with me.
Now, would a BIGGER planetary body affect the object More , Less , or ABOUT THE SAME?
The fact is this...the Moon's gravity has less force both Vertically AND Horizontally, than the planet Earth.
That is to say, 'It takes less force to move a plane horizontally/perpendicularly; on the Moon as opposed to the Earth.'
I'm not sure how one would go about disputing that any further....
Remember, the spacecraft moving past the planet is trying to stay in a straight line...constant vector, if you will....
When the next planet is bigger than the first, will it need to use more Force to stay in a constant vector? YES! Thus, a greater force of gravity requires more Force to maintain a constant vector....it takes more 'juice' to fly on earth than it does on the moon, ignoring air resistance.
PS egnorant, it's interesting that when I press the "spellcheck" button, your spelling of 'spellcheck' gets a hit! It lists either "Spell Check" or "Spell-Check" as CORRECT spellings of the word you were trying to communicate.
"Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone"
I told you fools I was QA...you don't even know....eatshit fool
Flat land hang gliding wooooooooo
I would love to hang-glide and probably would be doing so if I wasn't spending all my money on flying lessons
I'll tell you what. I've flown RC since I was 8. I have stick time in gliders and GA aircraft, but nothing beats a day flying the hang glider.
When you think about it, once you get your certificate what do you do with it? Unless you have the money to buy a plane and rent a hangar, then you have to spend 100 bucks and hour when you go out flying. Even if you join a club, you pay for the hours you put on the plane, plus dues, and any emergency stuff.
My wing is bought and paid for. I spend 90 bucks a year on dues. I have one local 400' ridge to fly off of (free), otherwise we tow. $5 for the scooter tow like in the video. $20 for an aerotow to 2,500'.
I've flown for an hour off of a $5 scooter tow. Over an hour jumping off the ridge, but I've not had much luck with the aerotowing so far. I think my best has been about 35-40 min.
Much cheaper than GA, and all around a much more personal experience. I'm competting in my first competition this weekend. I'll be happy if I even get recognized, let alone win
(mostly I just want to fly!! )I'm sure you have a HG school close to you and don't even know it! (by the way where are you?)
After I get my PP cert I won't be flying nearly as much as I am now so maybe that will free up some cash to HG.
Good luck this weekend, but more importantly have fun and be safe.
I'm near Boston
what if it was 911?
would the bizarre physics and complete expert/incompetency scalar mind control wave(we can assume the pilot/s are expert /incompetent as well) of the day cause the plane to undergo a local collapse(of course, leading to a global collapse), from the increased heat(enough to create molten steel), from the wheel bearings?
would the bizarre physics and complete expert/incompetency scalar mind control wave(we can assume the pilot/s are expert /incompetent as well) of the day cause the plane to undergo a local collapse(of course, leading to a global collapse), from the increased heat(enough to create molten steel), from the wheel bearings?
QUOTE (egnorant+Feb 27 2006, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE (Atl5p+Feb 28 2006, 03:42 AM)
Kreegan, you're in deep space, headed 100,000mph towards earth...cruise control...no power (object in motion stays in motion and all)... You pass within the gravitational pull of a distant body. But you are traveling 'perpendicular' to that body in space. You don't think that a 'course correction' would be in order, if you wanted to stay pointed towards earth? Don't you think it would take some thrusters to achieve this 'correction'? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the distant body would 'pull' you off course? Wouldn't that 'bend' your travel-line? Wouldn't that send you hurtling past earth, if it weren't for pushing that 'thruster' button? Hey, wait! You cheated Kreegan..you used more 'Force' to maintain a specific speed, in a specific direction, didn't you. Why Kreegan, Why? Don't tell me it was because of GRAVITY! Really? Oh, I though you said gravity had no affect when moving perpendicular...
I'm REALLY not sure where you come up with this crap! "Gravity doesn't have ANY affect on motion, when that motion is perpendicular to the gravitational pull" = Kreegan.
If the gravity of earth didn't affect so meting moving perpendicular to it, then could you please explain satellites, Kreegan? Aren't THEY traveling perpendicular to earth? Isn't gravity what keeps them from flying off into space?
Cool!!! Lets do vectors!!!
ATL, you do realize that the gravity acting on the plane is counteracted by Earth itself holding a plane up don't you.
Kinda like if you are carrying a 100 pound toolbox....are you providing 100 of lift or is the Earth providing 100 pound of gravity?
Actually it is both and cancel each other out! Opposing forces and all that. I know you are reading my posts because suddenly you got a new word...perpendicular!
But back to your problem.
Same plane moving through space in a straight line is acted on by a perpendicular force will deflect...but not lose any speed along its original axis unless some force is applied to the plane along this axis.
Bruce
P.S. Please try the spellcheck button...it's fun!
QUOTE
Same plane moving through space in a straight line is acted on by a perpendicular force will deflect...but not lose any speed along its original axis unless some force is applied to the plane along this axis.
Bruce
Bruce
So, what you're saying is this: when moving perpendicular to the force of gravity of a planetary body, that gravity has an effect upon that object??
I think you've just agreed with me.
Now, would a BIGGER planetary body affect the object More , Less , or ABOUT THE SAME?
The fact is this...the Moon's gravity has less force both Vertically AND Horizontally, than the planet Earth.
That is to say, 'It takes less force to move a plane horizontally/perpendicularly; on the Moon as opposed to the Earth.'
I'm not sure how one would go about disputing that any further....
Remember, the spacecraft moving past the planet is trying to stay in a straight line...constant vector, if you will....
When the next planet is bigger than the first, will it need to use more Force to stay in a constant vector? YES! Thus, a greater force of gravity requires more Force to maintain a constant vector....it takes more 'juice' to fly on earth than it does on the moon, ignoring air resistance.
PS egnorant, it's interesting that when I press the "spellcheck" button, your spelling of 'spellcheck' gets a hit! It lists either "Spell Check" or "Spell-Check" as CORRECT spellings of the word you were trying to communicate.
"Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone"
I told you fools I was QA...you don't even know....eatshit fool
QA of what MC Donalds Toy Factory?
If I am not mistaken a plane flying along in the Earths gravitational field, straight and level, is not flying in a vector. The plane will travel in an curved path.
If I am not mistaken a plane flying along in the Earths gravitational field, straight and level, is not flying in a vector. The plane will travel in an curved path.
There is nothing stopping the plane from moving forward. If the plane travels at 200 miles an hour in one direction and the conveyor replicates it in reverse, the wheels will spin as if the plane was traveling at 400 miles an hour an hour until take off. The wheels don't have anything to do with forward movement.
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Feb 28 2006, 09:18 PM)
QA of what MC Donalds Toy Factory?
If I am not mistaken a plane flying along in the Earths gravitational field, straight and level, is not flying in a vector. The plane will travel in an curved path.
correct...it's called 'Orbit', and it takes more 'juice' to 'orbit' Earth than it does to 'orbit' the Moon!!!
Thus, the force of gravity on the moon has less both Vertically as well as Horizontally, than the force of gravity on the earth.
Therefore, a plane 'flying' on the moon requires less thrust than the same plane at the same speed 'flying' on the earth (ignoring air resistance)...
Therefore, Kreegan is wrong, and a giant dipshit and should own up to his BS, but he won't because he's a pussie!!!
If I am not mistaken a plane flying along in the Earths gravitational field, straight and level, is not flying in a vector. The plane will travel in an curved path.
correct...it's called 'Orbit', and it takes more 'juice' to 'orbit' Earth than it does to 'orbit' the Moon!!!
Thus, the force of gravity on the moon has less both Vertically as well as Horizontally, than the force of gravity on the earth.
Therefore, a plane 'flying' on the moon requires less thrust than the same plane at the same speed 'flying' on the earth (ignoring air resistance)...
Therefore, Kreegan is wrong, and a giant dipshit and should own up to his BS, but he won't because he's a pussie!!!
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 02:28 AM)
There is nothing stopping the plane from moving forward. If the plane travels at 200 miles an hour in one direction and the conveyor replicates it in reverse, the wheels will spin as if the plane was traveling at 400 miles an hour an hour until take off. The wheels don't have anything to do with forward movement.