no please don't let me trouble you.

...aww nuts

I guess everybody needs a hobby but I don't know why yours needs to be backpedaling on an internet forum.

You went from claiming that the landing gear will give way (because obviously if a Formula 1 car can't drive 500 kph that means a plane can't either rite?) to saying that if the landing gear did give way it couldn't take off anymore.

Well no kidding. And if you break a leg you aren't going to be running any marathons. :saddowns:

The simple fact of the matter is that the plane is going to take off, even if the landing gear is spinning at 500 kph. Or faster. In fact, they can spin so fast that the wheel base becomes red hot, because they are designed to do that too. (Do you know how much heat is generated when a jumbo jet uses its landing gear brakes? Hoo boy)

get out

for starters will people please just realize that this is clearly just a hypothetical question and whether or not the planes wheels, landing gear or whatever will be able to withstand the extra forces on them is totally irrelevant, for christ's sake just imagine it can, like we are imagining a treadmill strong enough to hold a plane...

as for the actual question, does take a little understanding and it caught me out till I thought about it.

a good example is given in the link and I don't know why other people haven't mentioned it already, imagine you are a person on a treadmill wearing rollerblades/skates and with a rope attached to a wall 20 metres in front of you. The treadmill is designed to run at whatever speed you are trying to move forward, just like the plane example. So as you try to move forward by skating, you won't in theory at least, get anywhere. However if you use the rope to pull you forward you will move forward no matter how bloody fast the treadmill and the wheels on the skates spin.

The same applies for the plane.

The engines can be thought as pulling/pushing the plane forward in the same way as someone would pull on the rope. If the engines are set at the trust required to move the plane at 150 kph, the plane will move along the ground at 150 kph and most importantly, so will the air over the wings. As already stated the wheels however will be moving at twice this speed, but we don't care about that.

So...anyone not understand?

...I see that long life on the forum had taught to put words in other`s mouth well.

If you want, take a backscroll, and reread my messages. I pointed out, that conveyor will put undue strain on the chassis. I had NEVER claimed, that chassis will instantly give away, OR imminently give away at all.
My POINT is, that conveyor was clearly NOT accounted for, when those chassis were designed. I`m pretty sure, that you are able to provide me with more resources and links, which show, how planes careen through the air-strips on lame struts, but this is a proof in MY side. If chassis do give out just like that, without additional stress, then what will happen, if we`ll intentionally put them through strainous conditions?
And my LAST point. Considering, that you HIGHTEN the risk of chassis malfunction by introducing conveyor, it`s entirely fair to mention, that if you will break your chassis before takeoff, you`ll stay on the ground.

If you have issue with my accessment of relative stress, which will be put upon the chassis by the convayor, you`re welcome to grab paper and pen, and corrobate your claim with calculations.
I`m saying, that it`s unconditional usage, and therefore is risky. If you think otherwise - prove, that adding a convayer is not a problem. According to what can be seen, even stray gravel is considered to be unwanted addition on the runway, let alone substitution of runway with wobbly jerking conveyer belt.

(On a side note, lay off putting words in my mouth. I WILL make an issue out of it, if you`ll claim I did, and won`t provide a quote where I doubtlessly do.)

The internet makes YOU stupid.

No.

And I said you were wrong. Hurf durf.

Yes you did.

This is the only thing you're right about.

what

Do you even know what the word 'chassis' means?

And I've been constantly saying that it doesn't work that way, and I quoted a real-life example of how you are wrong and how you don't know how airplanes work.

No, you will not 'break' an airplane chassis. You can stand it upright on its tail, you can swing it through the air like a bat (if you are superman) and you can even support it over a cliff by the tips of its wings. Airplanes are really really really really strong and you are sorta :downs:

The burden of proof is yours. I'm not doing your work for you.

:downs:

whaaaaaaa, internet person makes me feel bad. I am going to make an ISSUE out of it

my answer is... nobody puts airplanes on conveyer belts

Heh. So you wanna fight, hon?

Well, first of all, I claim you are a blatant liar. Prove me wrong, if you want.

This quote is a potent lie, and could be easily corrobated, as all my posts are available.


Moving back to chassis. I`m pretty sure, that I can chop the firewood on your head. It`s definitely hard and flat enough for me to balance the stump, and hit it with axe before it falls off.
However, you will be livid at the mere mention - just because I might actually miss, and split your noggin instead.

Thus, even though chassis is strong, cool and supermanish, there is still no accounting for HOW it will behave on our hypotetical conveyor, for which it was never designed.

Therefore, taking off on the plane from the conveyor is like chopping firewood on your gourd - it might go well for a while, and then just... screw up, one day. Just because your block is not intended to be used for chopping firewood.

THEMS FIGHTIN WORDS!

OH ITS ON


RAAAAAAAAAACE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAR

Words as weapons, sharper than knives,
Makes you wonder, how the other half die...
(c) INXS

P.S. Tomorrow, though. It`s 3.30AM, and I have to get up for work at 8AM sharp.

I hate race war. I always get Terrans.

I'm sorry I only hit girls

yaaaay!

you make my language cry.

what does that have to
do with chassis?

I imagine it will behave exactly the same as it does in every other situation ever and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. You have yet to provide such proof, so I am going to continue saying you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you'd like I can direct you to some very helpful tutorials on tensor fields and materials engineering which should help you in your stress analysis.

you suck at the internet.

seriously.

How about I just provide you with one scene of plane crash, and say - "Chassis gave out.", hmm?

You can prove all you want, how they are durable, afterwards.

well that's just super, another internet person who can't tell the difference between television and reality.

Also because that would be a lie and you wouldn't want to be a liar like me would you?

get out

10 bucks says this will blow out to 10 pages.

Oh, so your links are "veritable sources" and mine are "TV lies", is that so?

Get real, man. Either you gonk like crazy about how cool the planes are, and all your materials cost less then bandwith you spent on posting them.. Either, I have just as much of relevant sources, as you do.

So, which will it be? Will you announce me a liar - and accept the same title for yourself, or will you cool down, and think a bit before spouting white noise?


P.S.


No bet. If Jon`C has good stamina and thick skull, it can go in 20 too. I`m not giving in on that.

You just said you were going to post a "plane crash scene" and use that as a blanket explanation for how airplanes are made out of prayer and tissue paper. Not that you even posted the latest FOX NEWS airplane fearmongering (or any other proof of what you're saying at all, ever).

My proof is an actual reference to an actual real life event. Which I didn't actually need to post, because (once again) it is your responsibility to prove what you are saying. I am the skeptic, I don't need to prove that you are wrong.

No you don't because my sources actually exist and yours don't

You need to lurk more. Stop posting. Get out of this forum.

Hint 1: I never ever get tired of telling dumb people that they are dumb.
Hint 2: I am not the dumb person with the thick skull.

Why so gang-ho on trying to get me out, eh, Jon`C?

Urgently need a new paint layer of awesome?

Regarding your points... WHAT a DRIVEL.

So you post anecdotal evidence - and that is all that you need to prove your point, but when I offer LINK, which is not even written by me, and could be corrobated, it`s suddenly not enough?

Double standards, man. (Did you voted for Bush, per any chance?)

And seriously... Learn to argue. And say thanks noone had ever sued you yet. Lawyer would have you talk yourself out of your pants, by now.



P.S. In fact, WHAT the hell I even need link for? We`ve got Jon`C here - unquestionable authority on airplane landing systems.



Well, by golly! Chassis did give away! Sparks and screeches and all the jazz! Now, just how awful it would be, if it happened at the Stupido Experimentation Airport, where we`ll be taking off from the conveyor, no? What if it snags on the belt, or anything? And all just cause we didn`t read safety manual for plane, and didn`t freaking learned, that it is not intended to take off from conveyor.

But the conveyor belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed as the plane would be according to the original problem. So, if the plane is going 150 mph, the conveyor belt would be going 150 mph in the opposite direction. The two velocities cancel each other out. Without any actual forward motion, there is no lift.

Only if the plane is going faster than the belt would the plane be able to move forward and move air over the wings, which you said. The plane would have to be going the same speed as the conveyor belt (in the opposite direction) plus what ever the take off speed is to actually take off.

you need to stop posting here.

No, I am Canadian.

Oh look you are also an internet lawyer.

Nothing I have ever said is grounds for a lawsuit. What I am posting is my honest opinion (which I am legally entitled to express) and it is neither maliciously fallacious nor is it intended to bring undue harm to the person I am talking about. It is neither slander nor libel. If you would like to file a lawsuit against me I would be happy to surrender my contact information as soon as you can find a lawyer who would accept the case. You won't, though, because unlike you lawyers actually understand things like the "law" and "not taking cases from daft people".

And when I say that you need to stop posting here I am being honest. You do. You really, really do. The only reason you're even here is because you have some sort of inferiority complex bug up your butt and you just couldn't stand being called out for having poor punctuation on another internet forum. You are only here because you want to prove yourself right, but you're too stupid to realize that nobody here (or anywhere else) actually cares what you have to say. If you want to fit in you need to lurk more, but I know for a fact that you don't want to fit in so you should just do everybody a favor and leave. Now.


Here is a helpful diagram for you because you don't know what the word "chassis" means:



On an airplane the "chassis" (as you car people call it) is actually called the "fuselage". In that particular incident the fuselage was left completely intact. The sparks and flames came from the malfunctioning landing gear - no more.

Stop posting.

Like... Whoa, man.

FREAKING LEARN NOT TO PUT YOUR WORDS IN SOMEONE`S MOUTH!

And think with your gourd, for crying out loud. Internet, anonymous forums, two people posting their personal opinions under pseudonyms, one in Canada, other in Ukraine. Does that SOUNDS like a lawsuit to you?

No? Me too. Thankfully, we`re together on one thing, at least.

Now, let me calmly address the points.

I don`t know, how it is over in Canada, but HERE, lawyers argue good. Therefore, notion "If you`d be talking to lawyer, you`d be out of your pants now." is half-joking, half-tired "You argue badly."

If you see a lawsuit threat in THAT, you need to apply to psychiatrist for paranoia treatment.

I post my opinions, just as well as you. I like to argue, and that`s main reason, why I join various forums. I also stay civil as much as possible, and frankly, I started arguing specifically with you, only because you initially behaved yourself very obnoxiously. I don`t take kindly to being talked down to.
If you have issues with me arguing - don`t. You have ignore function here, you can use it, if you think I am THAT insufferable.

Your suggestion of being daft I`ll pass over, because frankly, I think you are profoundly daft, at the moment. Not to mention, having severe persecution problems and teenage crisis. Probably, that`s just aggravation talking at the last suggestion, though. Phh.

P.S. Chassis, at least as I know, is primarily landing system. Chassis as fuselage was used secondary. As a side note, Chassis in russian is used almost exclusively towards landing system.

only if you learn not to put yours on our forum

Mine is not a pseudonym. I do not post anonymously on the internet. Coincidentally enough, I'm not particularly afraid of any neckbeards (or neckbeardesses) who visit this forum. Speaking of which, you seem to be forgetting not to post here.

You just said you were surprised that nobody has sued me. I simply stated the fact that nothing I have ever posted is grounds for a lawsuit and I challenge you to find something that is.

Good job consistently avoiding my arguments BTW. Oh and FYI when I make an ad hominem it's not actually an ad hominem because this isn't a debate, because you are actually wrong and I'm telling you that you are wrong. BBQ.

The wheels of the airplane do not propel it forward, the thrust of the jet or propeller moves the airplane forward. Think of a giant hand pushing the airplane off the conveyor belt.

I'm actually quite eloquent when I mean to be and just about everybody on this forum can attest to that fact. In this particular situation, bringing the full extent of my wits to bear on you would be equivalent to smashing a cockroach with an anvil.

I doubt you would be able to appreciate my diction anyway.

Might I suggest posting on forums populated by your intellectual peers, then?

You're absolutely right, I'm an angsty teenager. I listen to System of a Down and I cut myself.

Wait, that's SAJN_Master. Nevermind.

That sounds to me like it's more your problem than it is mine. I suggest using an English dictionary. I also suggest not posting here ever again.

Also, the last time I checked they spoke Ukrainian in the Ukraine.

Edit: FYI I have a soft spot for Ukrainian ladies which is why I'm being uncharacteristically nice to you

When I clicked on this thread I was really hoping for a youtube link.

Let's make this simple and use a common private aircraft for the sake of argument.

Cessna 172 rotation speed - 55 knots, or 63.4mph.

This means that you can be flying before you hit 65mph. Unless someone can show how an aircraft's wheel bearings are going to suffer a catastrophic failure at 130mph, this thread is done.

This is awesome. An ignorant fool is arguing with Jon`C. The best part is, the only thing he's right about is Jon`C being hard headed. I agree, this will probably see 10 pages.

110 posts, in one day, should, be bannable. That`s like, crazy:|

u

Well, it's true, the only reason this thread will reach a huge page count is because you'll continue to tell him he's wrong/stupid until he gives up.

I think it's a she or at least an internet she which means 40 year old male

Now, Jon`C, stupidity does not mean it HAS to be a woman...

Actually I forgot about the whole "hon" post.

I know the wheels have nothing to do with the forward movement. If there is no thrust from the engines to counteract the conveyor belt though, the plane would move backwards without the wheels moving at all. With the engines on, the wheels would be spinning, but the plane would stay in the same relative location with the conveyor belt moving underneath it.

Now, prop vs. jet engine makes a difference because a prop plane, with the prop at the front of the plane would move air over the wing, creating lift, but as soon as the plane lifted off, if it could, the conveyor, it would probably stall out.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Why would the air be moving at all? Unless you're coming up with something like the air is being moved along by the conveyor belt, which completely defeats the point of the problem, the air isn't moving at all.

This is where you're all going wrong. Lift is generated by the speed of an object in relation to the atmosphere the object is in, not in relation to the ground. I think we all agree, because of people pointing out it doesn't matter how fast the wheels move, etc.

So if the plane is moving with velocity X, and the conveyor belt is moving with velocity -X, the plane is not moving from the perspective of someone outside the system. Again, we all agree.

So what makes the atmosphere around the object, the air around the plane in this case, move? Because that is what is needed for lift.

Example proof case:

Aircraft carriers often turn into the wind when launching aircraft, because if a fighter jet needs to go 150mph in order to generate enough lift to fly, and there is a 30mph wind moving against them, they only need to move 120mph, in order for the atmosphere around them to be moving 150, which generates the lift for them to fly.

So the speed the object is moving can be variable. It is all in relation to the speed of the object compared to the speed of the air around it.

In order for this scenario to work, there would have to be a huge amount of wind moving towards the plane, and that is what would cause it to fly. Not the thrust it is generating (because the thrust it is generating is canceled out by the conveyor belt.)

I don't understand how so many people do not understand this. Please, go ahead and try to refute me. I have real science on my side, confirmed by multiple real physics majors. If I have swayed your opinion, state such, so the unlearned and ignorant may bask in the glory of knowledge.

Don't kill me, but don't engines move the air?

Please, if that isn't the case, enlighten me.

I think he means that engines generate thrust and not lift, which is what makes the plane fly.

That said, I know nothing about anything with physics involved...

I was just going to edit my post with this after reading the whole thread, but I'll just post it here.

Engines move air, yes. But differently than everyone is thinking. Jet engines do not move air over the wings, which is what causes lift. Jet engines move the air back, pushing the plane forward, pushing different air over the wings, causing lift.

I don't claim to know exactly how jet engines work, but I do know that the jet engines do not directly cause air to move over the wings, but move the plane forward, which causes air to move over the wings, which is when lift is created.

Well, air is still moving around the wing. The craft can't tell the "difference" between being stationary or moving.

Tracer hit it on the head.

A propeller plane would move air over the wings however, right?

Hey, in a jet, the air moves under the wing. And would thus generate lift; see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Airfoil.svg