I can't for the life of me, understand how or why so many people are stumped buy this that they had to go this far to prove it!! Just look at the scenario and it's self explanatory.

They changed the definition of the problem. People don't argue about this modified question, they argue about the original question.

I honestly don’t get it; do these people think it would take off faster if the runway was going forward? There’s nothing too difficult about flying a plane but, they should put any male pilot on a reduced payroll if he thought any of this stuff was true. It’s equivalent to girl math.

Stupid demonstration. There is no way the speed of the tarp matched the airplane wheel speed. FAIL!

If the plane is moving forward, the conveyor is not matching it's speed.

What if the plane is moving backwards on the conveyor belt at take of speed and then it starts to accelerate ??

They would have done better to test a RC jet or model rocket engine on their test vehicle to see if their assertion about different forces holds up. In short, from 0:16 onwards, their logic is incorrect.

Their video quality isn't the best, but I'm pretty sure that 0:14 shows that the plane staying stationary until they upped the throttle. This disproves their claims.

The answer is, the question cannot be answered. The plane will move forward because rolling friction and slipping friction has a feature, that they are limited, not increasing after a certain speed of the wheel. So the force pulling the plane back will not increase limitlessly. Not because plane propeling itself by air. So if we say it cannot take off, we break physical rules. If we say it can, we break the rules of the question.

No flames please, but I would have liked to have seen some stripes painted on the tarp so that we could really see it moving backwards. Who cares about the traffic cones.

Mark landed very flat.

Without air resistance contacting the wings, lift and flight would not be possible in this scenario.

Shouldnt it Make the wheels theoreticaly Spin up to immense Speed until the friction basically matches the engines power output? So as soon as the wheels start moving forward the conveyer would instantly compensate and thus the plane theoretically would never really start moving forward.

the plane is moving forward on this video. I don't know why they laugh as if it's successful

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Flawed as fuck 😂

wheels can not move forward on a conveyor belt unless they are rolling faster than the belt.. end of story

😅😅😅

To everyone that thinks that the planes wheels spinning on a runway makes it move forward to take off, how bumpy was your last flight? I'll wait...

Damn. The idea that a pilot could not understand this is pretty wild. I understand the confusion but that's something that is hammered into you at the beginning of learning to fly any airplane. Ground speed is just a junbdr that helps indicate your travel over the ground which gives you a realistic track of how you are moving distance wise. While airspeed is what will allow your plane to fly. When it is windy near our local airport it is common practice to get up to about 5k feet agl, point the plane into the wind and make the ground speed read 0 while the airspeed could be reading 60kt... the plane will be standing still and, in effect, hovering.

Sramota!

but... the whole premise of the experiment is that the plane is supposed to have no forward momentum because the speed of the conveyer belt is supposed to match the velocity of the airplane. Like it's very clearly moving forward before take off.

Sramota

Ne znaju ni da nameste meč,tuga ....

I want to say that some maybe-not-immediately-obvious issues with the conventional, well-understood, and correct answer, is the ability for any given's plane's wheels to spin at high rates. I'd have to imagine that the wheels, especially on very light, single-prop, puller or pusher prop planes, aren't really designed to move at extremely high speeds, as it's only really utilized for taxiing and landing, which should happen well under 100 mph. If the conveyor is fast and ruthless enough in operation, it may very well rapidly damage the wheels, at which point, should they be made immobile or in such a fashion as they do not roll with ease, that friction could be enough to seriously hinder the plane's ability to lift off. Moreover, landing gear for light aircraft are not remarkably sturdy, and if the gear somehow gets critically broken or basically removed, it could make takeoff very problematic. The friction of a larger part of a fuselage dragging on tarmac might be enough that it could not take off from a complete standstill, even at full power.

Ovo je smešno 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

The control test should have been a small car on the conveyer belt

wait..... something inst right here .... i guess i need to understand how much distance the plane traveled on the belt vs how much distance it would usually travel without the belt ... like I don't get the miraculous like mind melt of it all.... i assumed the plane would stay stationary then just lift off... it was just a shorter take off ?? Woop dee doo ..there are videos off planes taking off and landing from and to a stand still..... up in the mountains ... just due tp strong winds

ahahahahha of course it will fly

The whole thing was that the plane was not stationary, it was moving therefore wind was moving over the wing and thus there was lift. If on the otherhand the conveyor belt movement was matched by the plane in the opposite direction there would be little to no air movement over the wing(other than that caused by the propeller) and no lift and no takeoff!

What is the point of it?

Very interesting

In a simple explanation. All you've done is double the wheel speed. The wheels can only brake not push. Please pull his pilots license.

If a plane can accelerate forward while flying, which it obviously can, then it can accelerate with a conveyor belt rolling underneath it. But gosh, it’s fun to hear all the counter-arguments, isn’t it?

Totally inaccurate, the plane took off because it reached its take off speed

The plane is CLEARLY moving in relation to the ground! Look at it pass the cones!!!

Fail. Not only did the plane “use” the runway (it travelled down the runway), but movement of the tarp also affected the ground effect under the wings of the ultralight/sports plane. Personally, my understanding of the question was if the plane remained in the same place on the ground, but the tarp “mimicked” the movement down the runway, would the plane lift off the ground. That’s not at all what this experiment showed. The plane’s prop overcame the speed of the tarp, gained speed along the runway with the additional (but minimal) ground effect lift, and then took off. Sorry, that was a horrible experiment. Fail.

Are people still debating this?! A plane gets its locomotion from propulsion (i.e. using its propeller), not from traction (i.e. driven wheels - those only have brakes, nothing more). In other words: the plane gets it’s locomotion from pushing against the surrounding air - the wheels will be unpowered, just freewheeling: how fast they are spinning doesn’t make any difference.

There would be no way that this would work as if the plane is not in a forward motion then there would be no lift under the wings. How did they even decide that this was a viable thing to test??????

what a waste of time

So why do we need runways? Why not just make conveyor belt airports? This is a ridiculously flawed experiment.

Could we take the wheels off the plane? And the plane off the conveyor belt?

The myth is the conveyor belt is supposed to match the speed of the plane keeping the plane sitting in place. The conveyor belt needs to be pulled faster and faster to an almost infinite speed. The truck was not a good method of pulling the conveyor belt. There isn't any way to adequately pull a conveyor belt to infinite speed.

Did they really bust it though? The plane moved forward independent of the conveyer belt. They basically just took off from on top of a tarp.

The plane was clearly moving forward. They showed it rolling past the cones so it wasn't, in fact, stationary. Lift is based off air passing over the wings. A stationary plane would get no lift. The plane's air speed is relative to the ground, not to the tarp.

Can a stationary plane become airborne? Yes. We can make a brick that's sitting firmly on stationary ground airborne? Yes. With enough air flow 😂

If the plane didnt drive forward it wouldnt take off. Its not maching its speed it going faster

All the conveyer belt did was double the rolling resistance. And that is a very small part of the overall take-off drag.

Kad naši hoće da glume američki mma to ovako izgleda

The plane was moving faster than the conveyor belt so there was lift created by the air moving over the wings.