A Conveyor Belt Take-off | MythBusters | Season 5 Episode 28 | Full Episode

#MythBusters #FactOrFiction
Can an airplane take off on a giant conveyor belt? Adam and Jamie put this to the test while the team test whether cockroaches really can survive a nuclear blast and can foam ruin a car?
Using science as a tool, Hollywood special effects experts attempt to debunk rumours, urban legends and popular myths that have captivated the minds of many individuals.
Subscribe to catch the latest clips and episodes: / @mythbusterstvshow

[@Hevetmusic]

Kari changed her hairstyle so many times in this episode

[@christianstorms3950]

please like this comment so top comment won't be insulting the pilot for believing the highly debated myth

[@QbertTehKiller]

I liked it so it would be 69 likes (at the time of making my comment)​@@christianstorms3950

[@VelikiHejter]

Well, he's a pilot, and as an airplane engineer once said to a pilot, explaining why airplane engineers are more important than pilots, "Have you seen a monkey riding a bicycle? And have you seen a monkey repairing a bicycle?"

[@rickute1458]

rest in peace grant, you are very missed

[@user-mo9zw3dp4i]

How did grant pass away ?

[@zockinatorhd3599]

iirc brain tumor

[@user-mo9zw3dp4i]

@@zockinatorhd3599 oh what a shame …what a talented young man he was 😔

[@R0B690]

@@zockinatorhd3599 thought it was aneurysm? Either way rest in peace. Gone too soon.

[@freedompodcast4518]

​@@R0B690 Yes it is. F

[@melanierhianna]

The pilot was right in so much as as long as the plane was stationary relative to the ground it would not take off because there's no air passing over the wings causing lift. However the propeller is pushing air behind the plane causing the plane to move forwards and as it IS moving forwards THROUGH the air it takes off.

[@adamrak7560]

A stationary plane to the ground can absolutely take off, if the wind speed is higher than the take off speed. (so even a parked plane can take off in the wind storm, which is quite bad)

[@ryanbuckley3314]

Well said. Planes fly in the air, spin the wheels as fast as you like.

[@motherpigeon1582]

This is scary that people need visual aids to understand basic physics.

[@bugsygoo]

@@motherpigeon1582Not at all. People need to be educated. Visual aids help in all sorts of scenarios to help educate people.

[@motherpigeon1582]

@@bugsygoo Let me put it exactly how I see it so we can avoid future misunderstandings, it is scary to see people who went through even high school to not understand BASIC physics not to mention it is REALLY SCARY that pilot with 20 years of experience doesn't understand BASIC physics which he DEPENDS on, every day.

[@timclark6439]

Im so happy that Mythbusters has come to KZbin. It was hard to watch at first because of what happened to Grant but we live in a time where the world needs science more than ever

[@gabrielswee585]

15:49 *FINALLY!!* I've been looking for this version of this episode of Mythbusters where *Tory Belleci and Kari Byron act like a pair of numbnuts zombies* hunting for their last victim, Grant, not knowing or realizing he was safe in another room.

[@atlasfeynman1039]

why?

[@dannyboi3225]

22:20 They explained that in the most convoluted way. In order for a plane to achieve lift the air under the wings needs to be moving. They established that 22mph is the minimum for take off. The butcher paper treadmill moved backwards at 22 mph, at the same speed that the plane moved forward, but the planes free spinning wheels were travelling at 44 mph

[@PseudoNo]

If conveyor speed mattered at all, then aircrafts would need no wings to take off, just wheels.

[@justandy333]

I thought the whole point of the conveyer belt test was getting the plane to take off whilst stationary but with the belt whipping under it at the planes take off speed. Of course the plane is going to take off if it is travelling fast enough through the air for the wings to generate enough lift. The belt isn't affecting anything, except spinning the wheels. I feel like I've missed something.... Its blindingly obvious isn't it? All they've done here is to see an Aircraft take off. (whilst pointlessly dragging some canvas under the wheels)

[@xavtek]

They completely missed the point in my opinion too. The initial myth is based on the fact that conveyor belt and plane go the exact same speed and asks if somehow the plane could take off (because of ground speed) or not. But in all their tests, the plane obviously goes faster than the belt thus creating lift with air speed. If you stick to the hypotheses, the wing cannot built any lift when there is no airspeed (wing not moving forward in the air). A slight objection could come from the fact that wind from propeller builds some kind of lift on the center of the wing (some model planes can fly stationary with their wings and control surfaces blown by the propeller) but this probably is not enough to have a full size plane take off and have it stable enough/ non stalling. I think they failed to match the plane speed with the treadmill accurately and changed the rules of the myth.

[@asadabdulqaabir4006]

@@xavtek Dude. You totally get the point. This experiment wasn't by any mean designed correctly in order to prove (or disprove) the proposed myth. They only prove that wheels has nothing to do with lift (what many of us already know).

[@nikytamayo]

They basically illustrated why the question is ridiculous with a practical demonstration of why the conveyor can't match wheel speeds. Because even if you match conveyor speed to wheel speed, the wheels will simply go twice as fast. If you spin the conveyor twice as fast, the wheels will move four times as fast. Ad infinitum. In a perfectly responsive system, the conveyor will spin up to infinite speeds instantly and explode. If you want to run this experiment in the real world, the plane will take off, every single time.

[@felipeyoshino6951]

No matter how fast the vehicle pulls the belt backwards, if the rated take off speed is 100mph, the vehicle will run -100mph, the plane will get +100mph and the wheels will run free spinning at 200mph equivalent (if it was measured as a car).

[@UkDave3856]

No you’re not missing anything, you’ve pretty much nailed it. Personally I find it worrying that most people with a basic high school level of education can’t work this out for themselves. Even more worrying to me was the fact that the actual pilot bought into this stupid myth

[@MrMarinus18]

Cockroaches though are actually vulnerable to the cold. They can actually only live in tropical and sub-tropical regions. The only reason they can survive in temperate and artic regions is because of artificial heating from humans. However if there was a nuclear war where humans were wiped out they would no longer have that artificial heat and would die in all non-tropical areas.

[@timthompson7205]

Germany gets down to -15 Celsius, well below freezing. So that’s obviously not true. They must hibernate or something.

[@brk932]

​@@timthompson7205 they live in buildings with artificial heating ... you won't find them in nature they are living EXCLUSIVELY in residential homes. Sustained temperatures below freezing are deadly.

[@timthompson7205]

@@brk932 really? Cockroaches only live indoors? Do explain. They’ve been around for 300 million years, through global ice ages and before the invention of infrastructure. If you’re going to try to correct someone, maybe at least do a google search before commenting.

[@MrMarinus18]

@@timthompson7205 "Ice age" is a relative statement. The equator remained tropical throughout it. It was colder than it is now but the ice age likely did push back their range to the strictly tropical zones rather than sub-tropic as well. The tropics is also why cold blooded animals like crocodiles survived the ice age. There also are no crocodiles in Russia or Denmark either. In New York they can only survive in the sewers cause the outside is too cold for them.

[@MrMarinus18]

@@timthompson7205 In sub-tropical areas cockroaches search out the warmth of trees and rotting material. This habit is why they adopted very well to humans as they searched out human created heating. The abundance of food in human dwellings also meant they could live there full time.

[@paulodeoliveira3368]

The reason the plane took off isn't that the wheels spinned up faster because of the faster ground as that has no effect on the speed of air over the body and more importantly the wings. That was as a result of the motor driven propeller the body and wings pulling it through the air.

[@eljaibas16]

YES!! even if the tarp was moving the other way (so the tires wouldn't rotate) the plane would have taken off, because the only thing the plane cares about is the speed of the air interacting with the wings

[@DjDolHaus86]

Conversely, if your plane can take off with 85mph air speed over the wings and you point it into an 85mph headwind you can take off with no forward velocity relative to the ground

[@peterhallbus1114]

To qoute the Hyneman "This myth is so stupid it is embarrassing", anyone with grade school physics should understand this.

[@demonicravergaming.4766]

​@eljaibas16 I knew this from the start of the clip. Only watched this for grant.

[@fabienl4979]

@@peterhallbus1114 exactly, that's why I'm a little astonished the pilote was surprised the plane has taken off normally (as he tought the plane would have stay like a brick in place) Strange for a pilote for not understanding the principle of air speed on the wing, etc...

[@jiajianhou426]

Ground speed doesn’t matter. It’s the air speed that matters. The belt could be going forwards (since the wheels are free spinning) for all we care and it will still take off.

[@funkyjbass7762]

Yeah, it is not making the relative ground speed to be 0, it is making the relative airspeed 0. So if you moved the plane along at say, 100km/hour with 100km/hour tail wind. The relative airspeed is 0 and it won't take off - which everyone knows (its why they take off into the wind, not with it).

[@dgthe3]

@@funkyjbass7762 They should have done a scale test in a small wind tunnel, to show the difference between ground speed and air speed.

[@bighairycat]

I thought the whole point of the experiment was the plane would be stationary on the belt but because it was moving forward on the belt it was getting air over the wings to provide lift.

[@i3bigc3i]

You're almost there. The reason the plane wasn't stationary on the conveyor was because the wheels can spin freely, so the wheel speed has no effect on the air speed. You could pull the belt 100x as fast and the plane would still move forwards because of the thrust generated by the propeller. I initially thought the same as you, but when you imagine pulling the belt faster, it can never hold the plane stationary, slow it down, or pull it backwards: All it does is spin the wheels faster

[@jameshendrickx9322]

@@i3bigc3i how can the plane move forward using the propellers ? Isn't the conveyor belt constantly matching the wheel speed ?

[@Sun-Tzu-]

​@@i3bigc3ithe plane can't move forward if it's being pulled back.

[@metalinvalidmatt]

@@jameshendrickx9322 the point is the wheels are practically irrelevant here. the conveyor belt could be going any speed at all*, but as soon as the aircraft produces thrust it will simply take off. the wheels are just bearings, they roll, there's no driving factor AT ALL. (*this is assuming the wheel bearings are theoretically perfect, obviously real world physics would dictate a theoretical maximum wheel speed that couldn't be overcome due to friction in the bearings etc)

[@jameshendrickx9322]

how does the plane go forward from thrust ? there is no air that passes the wings if the conveyor belt matches the increased speed caused by the engines@@metalinvalidmatt

[@savagegaming2258]

I dont believe that a pilot that knows how a plane works would believe that myth

[@josegomez95]

That really blew me away hahaha

[@Vaginaninja]

The pilot mentioned air going over the wings before the test, so he wasn't wrong

[@savagegaming2258]

@@josegomez95 yes but he also did not think that he would get air born. Pilots know or at least should know that planes wheel speed does not affect the flight as the propulsion is delivered by a prop or jet engine producing thrust therefore the runway moving does not affect it. Physics

[@samik83]

The pilot said: "if I match my speed exactly the same speed forward as it's going backwards and there's no air over the wings I should just sit there like a brick" If you look at the video you can clearly see the pilot does not match the conveyer speed but is going faster. I felt like the myth itself was badly explained. In the animations explaining the myth they show the plane staying still, and then they test it and it's clearly moving forward relative to the ground so it's gaining airspeed and lift.

[@Robbedem]

The difficult part of the myth is the plane matching the speed of the conveyor belt. That's almost not going to happen in real life since the only thing holding the plane back would be the wheel friction, which is very low. So as soon as the plane starts it's engine, it's gonig to move, regardless (within reason) of how fast the conveyor is going.@@samik83

[@maxmouse3]

The intro already gets me hahaha love it

[@solarisveritatis1086]

7:30 Perhaps one of the earliest introduction of German roach to the US

[@anderssorenson9998]

Do they not sterilize terminal insects before shipping them out to labs etc.?

[@Valfaun]

yep, i did not at all think about the fact that airplanes don't have powered wheels, lol

[@ddt6003]

you can actually stop a plane from taking off on a conveyor belt if the conveyor belt is running fast enough that the fiction on the wheels are so great that they would not move any faster and thus keeping the plane stationary, although by that point the wheels will probably fall off or break very quickly😂

[@rickardbergh5431]

The prop's thrust alone won't cut it for ”stationary takeoff” unless the plane is launched from a catapult or theoretically if facing strong headwinds.

[@512TheWolf512]

who'd thought 15 - 20 years ago that an RC plane would one day be the scariest weapon in the history or the world?

[@24934637]

Epic fail! The plane was accelerating along the ground. The fact that the sheet was being pulled out from under it has no relevence, it was still moving forward relative to the ground, and the surrounding air.

[@andrewince8824]

The plane one is actually really simple. Provided the aircraft has sufficient thrust to reach take off speed and overcome the increased friction caused by what is in essence higher ground speed relative to air speed acting on the wheel bearings then it shall fly. The wheels are only there to reduce friction and to preserve the airframe. They are in all honesty a superfluous component once the aircraft has reached sufficient lift. We saw this in the Messerschmitt me-163 Komet and the famous Douglas DC-3. The former dropped its wheels upon takeoff, the latter often flies with skis in place of the wheels. As the thrust is determined by the engines via the airscrew(s) (not propellers, at least in "correct" terminology) or through Turbo-fans or indeed jet exhaust, the unpowered wheels have next to no effect on performance. During the opening of this episode the airframe shown is a glorious example of a Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) bush aircraft, for an aircraft of its size and mass it has thrust coming out out its ears, makes supercars look a bit anaemic. The runway could be going 4x the take off speed and she'll nose up without much fuss.

[@jage1559]

I've never heard it said that airscrew would be preferred over propeller. Can you find me some material where this is expressed? My search on google and ddg found nothing

[@Fredriken]

Don't really get the thing with the plane on the conveyor belt. All the belt does is rotate the wheels. Everything else is as in a normal take off. Meaning it will require as long runway as normal to launch. (plus whatever the added friction from the higher-than-normal rotation of the wheels.

[@Fredriken]

Might be the most unnecessary myth ever tried on the show.

[@a64738]

@@Fredriken Well there is lot of people that believe it is impossible for a airplane to take of like that so I would say it was diffidently a myth that had to be addressed to prove it to all those idiots...

[@emperorfaiz]

@@Fredriken It is necessary to some people who still believe it's impossible even to this day. Before this episode, it's all theoretical and I glad someone like Mythbusters put the that theory into a practical experiement so we can get a more concrete conclusion. Unfortunately, the comment section still refuse the truth.

[@moscuadelendaest]

@@emperorfaiz although it isn't really a myth, just people being dumb

[@PJ-oe6eu]

​Myth: a widely held but false belief or idea.

[@11darklight11]

I think the controversy with airplane and conveyer belt lies in the fact that people who think that it wont take off because wheels rotate with same speed as conveyer belt might assume it works the same way as if the wheels are stationary and dont move at all. It is a trap of thinking that conveyer cancels out wheels rotatio and hence the airplane must stay in place without taking off. In the video airplane takes off because wheels simply rotate faster than they would on stationary ground, making the predetermined conveyrr belt speed useless. In case if wheels couldnt rotate any faster before they try to make plane take off, it would be the same as a plane on a stationary ground with brakes. Can a plane take off when brakes are on? I dunno, but thats probably what people expect from a conveyer belt having same speed as plane speed.

[@11darklight11]

So basically because wheels dont provide any resistance against the thrust of the plane, plane can take off normally from conveyer. If wheels couldnt rotate faster or had brakes, it would provide resitance against ground that would reduce the thrust of plane up to a point of making take off impossible. Or so i understand.

[@charisanna4914]

I honestly don't understand how people can be so uneducated (stupid seems a bit mean) as to debate the aeroplane thing. I only have high school physics and it's really bloody obvious

[@markjohnson7887]

Seriously. It's not hard to figure out the plane would take off.

[@charisanna4914]

@@markjohnson7887 I know right?!

[@martinkuliza]

you need to consider a lot of people don't have high school physics

[@Chris_1024_]

Poor pilot. He will probably have to live with that for his whole life and nothng can be done thhat millions know that he didn't understand it. They should have cut it out.

[@sm0ki]

Now I get it. The speed of the conveyor belt doesn't really matter. Without friction (and engine off), the plane would just sit on the conveyor belt and remain stationary. Doesn't matter if the conveyor belt moves at 1 mph or 1000 mph. In reality, friction causes the plane to move in the same direction as the conveyor belt. I think that's where most of the confusion comes from. Most people know how planes work.

[@juankfuentesr]

Thanks for the uploads, greetings from Colombia

[@flaspank9467]

😂😂😂😂

[@gabrieltan7924]

Anyone got reminded of a Pokemon returning to it's ball when you hear the sound effects of their cutaways? XD

[@matthiashartge5520]

The US and their strange reluctance to use internationally recognized units... The International Committee for Weights and Measures have promoted the use of Grey instead of Rads already in the 70s ^^

[@markjohnson7887]

At least half of the people do. All scientists use metric, including engineers, etc.. It's the stupid government that's the problem.

[@PJ-oe6eu]

​@@markjohnson7887 Not really. The US government promoted the metric system under Jimmy Carter for example. It's the people who resisted the change.

[@WKfpv]

It's amazing that the pilot does not understand how a plane works

[@nightw4tchman]

It shouldn't be but then I've met a few pilots and... well let's just say I'm amazed there aren't more screw ups.

[@Sareth94]

pilot lincense costs money. Plenty of private people who have nothing but cash & time can complete the course for getting a small plane license. Not every pilot is military or commercial airlines.

[@harikishore2514]

He’s right, execution of the experiment is totally wrong

[@snithfferx]

I insist, tested in stationary and fan blowing winds to the plain, the principal idea for the plain to lift off running forwards is take air under their wings so, a fan blowing "lift-off winds" to the plain will do the trick.

[@duck9155]

The only thing you need to realise for this is if you can’t move, the wings can’t create lift

[@jagheterbanan]

You also have to realize that a conveyor belt can’t stop an airplane from moving.

[@TecSanento]

They should have tried putting the foam filled car in the car crusher at the scrapyard!

[@nevalelapena]

Is there an episode where they test the resilience of tardigrades? That would have been a epic, they can survive 600'000 rad... And many other crazy things

[@UkDave3856]

An aeroplane’s wings don’t care what the wheels are doing. You could pull that belt at 200 miles per hour and the plane’s wheels would simply turn at a speed equivalent to that 200 mph plus it’s take off air speed (in calm air in this case) of 25 mph, and the plane lifts as normal. If anything the aircraft will take off a little earlier as it won’t have to overcome the inertia of starting the rotation of its own landing gear wheels. For all intents and purposes, the aeroplane will figuratively think that it’s taking off from a frictionless surface. The fact that the actual pilot himself bought into the myth and didn’t have the scientific reasoning to have already worked this all out for himself, busts a personal myth that I have, that all pilots are smart

[@jameshendrickx9322]

isnt the conveyor belt supposed to match the weel speed ? so if you increase the plane speed above 200mph the belt also increases to keep the plane stationary ? then it woulsnt be possible to take off right ?

[@jagheterbanan]

⁠@@jameshendrickx9322It can’t match the wheel speed since wheel speed will always be plane speed + conveyor speed and the conveyor can’t stop the plane from moving forward.

[@ondrameciar5860]

But that wasn't the point of the myth. That was that if the airplane was not moving relative to its surroundings while travelling same speed as the belt it can't take off and that's true, bc the takeoff speed doesn't care about how fast are the wheels spinning, it cares about speed of the air around wings. They've failed this myth because the plane was travelling faster than the belt thus taking off

[@jagheterbanan]

@@ondrameciar5860 No listen to Adam presenting the myth, what they’re testing is if a conveyor belt can stop the airplane from moving forward and taking off. What kind of myth is “can a stationary airplane fly?” Of course not and nobody claims it can.

[@themakerstoolbox9688]

​@@jagheterbanan If you are constantly matching the speed there is no plane speed + conveyor speed. If the plane can never get above the conveyor speed than they will be matched and eventually there will be a cap to that speed (otherwise we have found an unlimited source of power)

[@russellmunro]

a sea plane can take off without wheels. for the love of God I don't understand how this is even a thing.

[@tofton1977]

Because you're stupid...

[@themakerstoolbox9688]

Yes but it has to be moving compared to what surface it is on. The seaplane glides along the surface if the water before ot takes off. The point of this myth was what if you match the speed so that the airplane stays still. Its not about the wheels it is about keeping the airplane stationary while it is producing takeoff thrust.

[@KrumovBobby]

​@@themakerstoolbox9688 the flaw there being that the propeller (or the jet on bigger planes) is what pushes the entire body of the vehicle forward (getting air under the wings) be it on water or land. I think the confusion just comes from mistaking planes and cars. Wheels on a plane are support not a means to propulsion. Doesn't matter how fast the conveyor is or even what direction it's going in. Take off speed and take off distance does not change.

[@Colin_Holloway]

@@themakerstoolbox9688 What mechanism can make the airplane remain stationary? With the friction of the wheel bearings being almost zero there is nothing to stop the airplane moving forward! How would you re-design their full size experiment to test your hypothesis?

[@Robbedem]

You could try to make the plane lift off while applying the wheel brakes. If the brakes can provide the same force (different direction) compared to the propellor it should remain stationary and shouldn't be able to lift off. (unless there is a lot of headwind)@@Colin_Holloway

[@pedroqueiroz2735]

That one time mythbusters gave bugs cancer

[@UcranianoUKR]

Air speed vs ground speed

[@ridefree4076]

The problem with this myth, and I'm sure the reason for the argument, is that there are two different and unrelated speeds at play. Depending on how you read the myth, you will believe it or not; you don't have to be dumb to believe it. The only speed that matters for flight is AIRspeed. So to the question "can a plane take off on a conveyor belt" the answer was always going to be "yes". The only speed that matters to the conveyor belt (and the truck pulling it in this case (and at that speed wind resistance is not a problem) is GROUND speed. What a lot of people understand is "if the plane's WHEELS are moving as fast as the conveyor, will it take off? (Note: I mean speed of the wheels' circumference relative to the conveyor, ignoring the ground beneath in the MB test.) Here the answer is clearly "no", because the plane will have 0 air speed. But they didn't test that; it was pretty superfluous TBH

[@jagheterbanan]

The only time the wheels of the airplane will be moving as fast as the conveyor is when they are both zero i.e. when the airplane is standing still and not applying any thrust which makes it a weird question, a plane standing still and not applying any thrust obviously can’t take off and there’s no need for a conveyor.

[@ridefree4076]

right @jagheterbanan , again I think I've not explained myself well in terms of which speed I was referring to! I'll clarify my comment... I meant the speed of the wheel (circumference) relative to the conveyor, i.e. relative to the ground underneath, the wheel (axle) forward speed would be 0

[@jagheterbanan]

@@ridefree4076 Only if the conveyor is going in the same direction as the airplane but that again won’t affect the plane’s ability to takeoff. A moving conveyor going against the airplane can only increase the wheel speed never make it zero.

[@balkrushnakadam7082]

They experimented this myth wrong way, the plane should be stationary on backward moving conveyor belt and then take off like helicopter with just help of propeller air rotating at high speed possible. But plane's propellers can't propel enough air backward around its wings to make it take off that's why plane needs to move through air to take off.

[@docthebiker]

A plane takes off because air moving over the wings causes a lower pressure above the wings, and higher beneath that cause the wing to be pushed up. The ground speed is irrelevant, even to "Ground Affect". Line the wing with props to force enough air over them and it will get lift even if it was stationary. Admittedly it's minus the forward air speed so would require moving more air, but it would have vertical take off.

[@ShadowManceri]

The cockroach thing was so misleading. No insect in this planet would survive a nuclear *blast.* Nuclear blast produces so much heat that it would *vaporize* any living thing into a gas. And THEN you have the shockwave to deal with, and in fact two shockwaves. It is unsurvivable. If you are far enough from the blast, the fallout isn't that dangerous even to humans. Those weapons are not designed to produce ionizing radiation to cause the damage. The payload is very small so there isn't much ionizing radiation in the first place. It's primary methods are the heat and the shockwave. What they are testing instead of nuclear blast is direct source of ionizing radiation, such as x-ray machine. I feel like most people think of something like Chernobyl, but it is absolutely totally different thing. (Also remember that heat and light are radiation as well, so yes it does produce a lot of radiation. But ionizing radiation is the danger they tested, and nuclear blast doesn't produce much of ionizing radiation.) The airplane myth was maybe explained kind of poorly. An airplane can not take off if the belt matches the plane speed, it would be practically same as being in a dynamometer standing still. But can airplane overcome the static movement of the belt - yes it can. Unless the belt is moving faster than the engine can handle. The plane needs more relative speed to lift off. If there is no difference there is no lift either unless there is like really strong wind. After all the point is to get AIR to move towards the wings, the tire makes no difference. It makes no difference if air moves towards wings or wings move towards air, same result, but that movement has to be there. Generally the wind just isn't strong enough, so the plane needs to move faster against the air to produce that "wind". So if you put airplane into a very powerful wind tunnel, it could fly without moving at all. Tho it would be very dangerous, the moment the wind stops the plane would drop like a stone as it can not glide at all. That is why planes generally won't want to take off against strong wind even if it would be much easier, because they can't get speed to keep it flying in case the wind stops. Extremely dangerous. And third the shaving cream. It was rather poor test, not that it would result much a difference. But the reason why it foams so much out of can is because it gets mixed with gas as it enters. If you just freeze it and let it go, it won't foam that much, because it doesn't trap gas inside it. Would not have made much of a difference, but the result would have been much greater if they would have made it come out of a can normally or make a hole into the side.

[@calumhughes2778]

I feel like they never actually clarify what the airplane myth is EXACTLY and that’s why there’s controversy. Can a plane take off from a “conveyor belt”? Yes. Can a plane take off while not moving through air take off? No.

[@jagheterbanan]

The question of the myth is basically “can a conveyor belt stop an airplane from moving forward?”

[@cgefkens4065]

Why would anyone with more than 1 brain cell think the aircraft thing would work 😂

[@martinkuliza]

that's an over exaggeration because a person with less than a few hundred brain cells wouldn't even be alive

[@anderssorenson9998]

@@martinkuliza They could have a cybernetic brain, And just keep a single biological neuron out of nostalgia, you know how sentimental cyborgs can be.

[@martinkuliza]

@@anderssorenson9998 Mate... Now that you mention it... You're correct, Poor Cyborgs always get ragged on for being cold and heartless and blood thirsty killers when really at their core.... THEY HAVE A HEART and in truth, they just wanna be hugged and yes they can be sentimental , i mean they are from the 80s so it makes sense that they would want to keep a single biological neuron out of sentiment You know what.. I'M GONNA PAY THAT COMMENT :P

[@felipeyoshino6951]

The only way I see it would make sense for the myth to be proved, is applying the plane's brakes proportionaly to the ground speed, in order to obtain a stacionary plane. Airspeed will be zero and there'll be no lift force then.

[@MB-yk1qk]

Planes dont take of when you apply the brakes on solid ground too, what would that proffe?

[@HPPalmtopTube]

The problem with the airplane on conveyor belt is that they did'nt articulate the myth properly. It should have been called "Can an airplane take off on a conveyor belt, if the belt is the length of the take-off distance the plane requires to take off". If it's just an airplane sitting on a small conveyor belt the size of the airplane, it won't take off (eg it won't magically rise into the air as there is no air moving over the wings to generate lift)...

[@PJ-oe6eu]

Yea you really need to be very specific with what you mean with this myth. Because yes while the plane won't magically start rising it can still move forward if the engine has enough thrust to overcome the friction of the wheels. If the thrust is great enough it can move fast enough off the treadmill that it will take off while still on the treadmill. But if you balance the thrust of the plane so that it moves the same amount forwards that it's being pushed backwards by the treadmill then yes it will just sit there. But that force isn't that great since it's only the friction of the wheels that is pushing the plane backwards. If the plane had frictionless wheels it would not even need to turn on the engine to balance itself still on the treadmill.

[@DevilMaster]

If an airplane is on a small conveyor belt, it will taxi PAST the conveyor belt and take off, because it's not being pushed forward by the wheels.

[@JcGross93]

How are you so dense? Did you not watch the episode? It has nothing to do with the length of the conveyor. The plane WILL move forward, if it's a short conveyor, the only difference is that the plane will move off of it.

[@PJ-oe6eu]

@@JcGross93 Christ, can you relax?

[@HPPalmtopTube]

@@JcGross93 The myth was can a plane take off from a conveyor belt, not Can the plane take off from a conveyor belt and a longer distance of area next to the conveyor belt... So my argument still stands, Imagine it as if the plane is being held in place on the conveyor belt, similar to the very first scale test they did with the RC plane, while holding the tail of the plane so it stays in place on the small conveyor belt. It did not take off, as normal, but did take off once they released the tail and the plane rolled off the belt, and another distance later, off the belt, took off.

[@napierpaxman]

Yes but the conveyer belt had a jumbo in it - you need a bigger plane! :D :D :D

[@DarcyWhyte]

I'm amazed that there are conveyortards at all. The plane flies in the air.

[@Avg22]

So it was basically a normal take off?? Plane didn’t stay “stationary” so it doesn’t count right? I don’t really get it 😓😓😓

[@ParumPirum]

One of my favourite episodes, totally fascinating, and the one I tell people about the most. Very counter-intuitive but once you understand it then it makes perfect sense!

[@Vaginaninja]

They make it seem as if the plane won't move forwards along the runway. They completely brush over this point. It still moves forward the normal 85 feet before take-off

[@DanielCrist]

If this works, why don't aircraft carriers have conveyor belt systems on them? Between that, and the hook that catches landing plane, they would be able to get away with using much smaller ships to launch aircraft that way then.

[@MB-yk1qk]

THe conveyor belt dose not reduce the needed runway lenght. You need X length to take of ether on stady ground or the belt

[@jaquigreenlees]

To bad they didn't have the worlds longest conveyor belt. The bagger 288 bucket wheel excavator has one over 3 miles long.

[@spacejihadist4246]

He was always an accident waiting to happen. No wonder why.

[@steadfasttherenowned2460]

Remember when kari did the hot nurse photoshoot?

[@cammos]

Shouldve done bed bugs aswell theres so many myths around them and they r very resilient creatures all be it though they are a major pain also!!

[@bolttanker9190]

if the plane would pull its own belt it would not take off ever

[@alphaomega4968]

I haven't gotten more than a second into this video and I just want to say I have long thought one of the planes tyres would pop, causing the plane to slide and crash off the back of the treadmill. I hope this video proves me wrong.

[@cactus_cuber1589]

For the airplane myth it is technically possible to take of from a moving conveyer because the belt has a boundary layer of air moving with it witch could get large enough to reach the wings and generate lift (Edit: I realized I answered the wrong myth lol)

[@_ramar]

rest in peace grant. sucks you're not around anymore

[@gabrielv.4358]

42:42 what the heck lol

[@irenedebbi5401]

I love your canel

[@3fast5you]

24:40 that's fucking rad

[@whiterottenrabbit]

Because of all the filler I had to resort to reading comments in order to learn if the fucking plane would take off or not.

[@TobaisEnstromDJ]

Pilot sounds like zoidberg

[@dennysunny716]

Thay from Germany Lol greetingz from Germany ^^ xDD love Mysbasters i am looking thoes guys since 20 Years like :D

[@MarkBachman-oc7zk]

Wish they would have measured the airplane wheels rpm/speed on a normal takeoff Vs the conveyor take off. :(

[@MrShadow-qz9xj]

Wheel speed means nothing, wouldn't matter how fast you moved that conveyor belt. The plans forward by air trust.

[@Wanton110]

There is a Nuclear Power Plant not a great distance from me and someone wrote on a sign that since the Plant opened the background radiation had increased by 15,000 rads..

[@anderssorenson9998]

At what distance?

[@Wanton110]

@@anderssorenson9998 The sign in about 200ft outside the security fence of the Plant, the sign is actually about coastal ferns

[@anderssorenson9998]

@@Wanton110 Is it Sellafield? If yes it's much worse than that.

[@Wanton110]

@@anderssorenson9998 Nah it's Sizewell, there is a Cafe just outside the fences which is at the start of this nature walk thing with signs for the local flora and fauna.. That cafe is probably making bank with the new Reactor going up come to think of it

[@TehBIGrat]

How does mythbusters adam look both younger and older than tested adam

[@AtomicChoice]

Isn't this season 4?

[@TomtomTM1]

I dont quite understand the myths testing. The myth was specifically asking for "same speed", yet we continously overpower the ground in every "proven" case. For me, it was like the portion of "matching speed" was ignored? Or am I missing something crucial?

[@jagheterbanan]

They matched the takeoff speed since matching it at every moment during acceleration is extremely hard/impossible.

[@supernus8684]

So disappointing, of course the plane can take off if it moves forward. The whole idea is that the plane does NOT move forward because it is on a conveyor belt but then again a stationary plane wont take off.

[@jagheterbanan]

The entire point of the myth is that the conveyor belt will stop the plane from moving forward, as is clearly shown it doesn’t so the plane can take off and the myth is busted.

[@supernus8684]

@@jagheterbanan No you don't get it, you could stop the plane from moving forward if the belt moved fast enough in the other direction. Obviously you could. It's the same as when you run on a treadmill...

[@jagheterbanan]

@@supernus8684 That analogy tells me you didn’t understand anything of what was said, maybe try watching the episode again and pay more attention, especially @21:26. The wheels of an airplane are free to move independent of the airplane, I sure hope your legs aren’t free to move independent of your body!..

[@supernus8684]

@@jagheterbanan I submit. So no matter how fast you run the conveyor belt the plane will still move forward?

[@jagheterbanan]

@@supernus8684 that’s correct, unless of course it spins so fast that the wheels explode or something.

[@danproposkanovovski]

17:20 this is almost peak research facility: "we got a special grant to pay for the irradiation equipment but the institution's base funding had to pay for the security measures and it only got us a line of tape".

[@Antagon666]

Umm wings moving through air generate lift

[@alsternerd]

1000 Rad = 10 Sievert

[@OldZean]

There are enough planes without wheels. Water planes, ice planes.....it confuses me that this is such a discussion. The plane to ground contact is simply irrelevant

[@nehabkeinyoutubesry]

NICHT SO TIEF RÜDIGER, NICHT SO TIEF!

[@mountain.sledder]

Surprised they never used elephant toothpaste for the car prank

[@josefernandomejiaivarra6696]

These guys were something else😂😂

[@ZER0--]

Were?

[@MrTValleyguy]

Aren't aircraft carriers a form of conveyor belt?

[@jagheterbanan]

No

[@desel8737]

radroaches

[@HeathLedgersChemist]

The 'biggest conveyor belt in history' is not even close to the world's largest. Here's a couple from near my old home town. -32.881485°, 151.755450° (4140 feet) and -32.334593°, 150.892923° (10,600 feet). That's just in the port. The real deal is at Mt Saddleback mine which is 31km long. (-33.048570°, 116.196060° Western Australia) . That's about 101,706 third world feet, more than an order of magnitude longer. Typical seppo hyperbole.

[@ErCoBa2712]

Meanwhile aerodynamists laughing at the corner🤣🤣🤣FSI

[@kutilsima5584]

Once you understand how planes work, you can't guess wrong.

[@markjohnson7887]

When this first came out, my first thought was "How can someone be stupid enough to think it wouldn't take off". And sure enough, I was right. Honestly, it's a really simple thing to figure out just in your head.

[@jagheterbanan]

It’s quite amazing how many people are struggling with such a simple concept.

[@OscarLT321]

I think many assumed the plane would be stationary

[@albr4]

yeah I think people just rephrase the question in order to make themselves right by coming up with an impossible and silly scenario. The way I see the question to be; could a plane on a treadmill which is moving in the opposite direction at the same speed as the plane take off? - so if the plane goes 100mph forward, the treadmill will go 100mph backwards. Of course the plane will take off as long as the wheels aren't creating more friction drag than the thrust of the engines, the treadmill could be going backwards way faster than the plane and it will still go forward and take off. I think the people that get confused start to think of the plane like a car where the forward momentum comes from the wheels, which would definitely stay stationary if you matched the speeds since it relies on the wheels contacting the ground to push it forward.

[@MrLarsgren]

RIP volvo

[@gabrielv.4358]

f

[@flaspank9467]

bro got spinners on his segway

[@dariodalcin5177]

Was this plane thing an april fools or what 😂?

[@ccx842]

Nicht so tief Rüdiger!

[@Mr8it]

That 'Pilot' they hired should not have a license if he thinks the wheels make the plane go up. What a bloody idiot but obviously they are out there.

[@jagheterbanan]

How can people still not get it after watching this?! The belt could have been going twice as fast and the plane would still be able to takeoff unless the wheel bearings shatters first that is..

[@Sun-Tzu-]

The plane was going faster than the belt here, it completely invalidates the experiment.

[@jagheterbanan]

@@Sun-Tzu- No it proves the airplane doesn’t care what the belt is doing and can move forward and takeoff just like normal. The “myth” was that it can’t move forward and this is shown as false in several different ways.

[@Sun-Tzu-]

@@jagheterbanan I never heard that to be the myth. The idea is an airoplane can take off from a stationary point if it was being propelled backwards at the same speed as it was moving forwards. The experiments is about the physics of velocity and air pressure, not the engineering quality of the wheels.

[@jagheterbanan]

@@Sun-Tzu- No, nobody is claiming that a stationary airplane can takeoff. Listen to Adam @02:00. The conveyor is supposed to match the speed of the airplane but in the opposite direction. I know there’s an other version of this where the conveyor “exactly matches the speed of the wheels”. That version has two answers depending on how you interpret it. This is what causes the never ending arguing, people argue their interpretation with someone who interprets it differently, not realizing they’re talking about two different things they both think the other guy is an idiot.

[@Sun-Tzu-]

@@jagheterbanan Yeah fair enough... can't argue there. That's why I prefer the more practical and realistic telling of the story. Could a seaplane take off on a river of it moved against the current at exactly the same speed.

[@sensen9900]

All the Prove here is A) American Pilots dont understand the Basics of how their Planes work. B) A lot of People on the Internet dont Understand basic Physics aswell.

[@abrahamcasanova9901]

But the airplane was clearly moving forward therefore generating lift. That was not the point they were trying to prove. In order for this experiment to be valid , the airplane would have to remain stationary over the conveyor belt. Under this circumstances, the only way for the wings to produce enough lift for takeoff would be if there is enough headwind.

[@i3bigc3i]

That is the point though: You could pull the belt 100x faster, and the plane would still move forwards and take off. This is because the wheels can spin freely, so the speed they turn doesn't affect the air speed of the plane. The propellor still generates the forwards thrust that moves the plane through the air (not along the ground)

[@Sun-Tzu-]

​@@i3bigc3iit's not moving at all through the air if it's still on the ground.

[@mrheisenberg83]

@@Sun-Tzu- They explained it in little kid terms in the episode. With visual aides and everything. And you still did not understand it? Wow.

[@martinbgiles7065]

Physique dont lie

[@marcusd4366]

A pilot that doesn't know how flying and wings work? That was scripted for him to say that. Shame.

[@possessedllama]

I don't think this answers the question in the form that I've usually seen it: "Imagine a plane is sitting on a conveyor belt, as wide and long as a runway. The conveyor belt is designed to *exactly match* the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?" as it misses the "exactly match" part. If the conveyor belt perfectly matched the rotation of the plane's wheels at all times, I would expect that the plane wouldn't move from its position, and the propeller(s) by themselves wouldn't be able to generate enough airflow under the wings to lift the plane off the ground vertically. The reason why it worked in the MythBusters' experiment is that the plane was able to overcome the speed of the treadmill, therefore moving along the runway and generating lift.

[@jagheterbanan]

The problem with that version is that the conveyor can never match the speed of the wheels, it’s mathematically impossible unless of course the plane is stationary and not applying t/o power.

[@possessedllama]

@@jagheterbanan Indeed, it seems a very unlikely situation for that reason.

[@HaibaneKuu]

The problem is that the question is very badly worded to begin with - what does it mean to "exactly match the speed of the wheels"? Speed is already matched because conveyor is in contact with wheels, so the condition is fulfilled even if it's not moving, so that's probably not what they intended. If it means that speed of the conveyor is equal to plane's groundspeed (relative to the ground, not conveyor) that just increases the friction, then plane will still probably will be able to take off if it can overcome the increased friction. If it means "the conveyor moves in such a way that plane's speed relative to the ground (or air)" is zero, then it's kind of a stupid way to try to do so first and foremost, but I guess it might be possible due to increased friction, although that probably will disintegrate the wheels first. But yes, if plane isn't moving relative to the air then it can't take off, that's obvious.

[@AncientWisdom222]

Given the laws of friction we think that the whole weight of the plane causes friction between the wheels and the conveyor belt. But as the air lift is generated , this friction becomes less and less and the wheels move at lesser and lesser speed and then the aircraft lifts us. Now I got it !

[@hexlart8481]

The best way to think about the plane is that it isn't trying to move relative to the ground, it is trying to move relative to the ambient air around it. It doesn't matter how fast you move the conveyer belt, the props and engines only care about ambient airspeed and as such it will move. Thats what they were talking about with the car comparison. This is why wind tunnels are used to test planes, because all they really care about is airspeed. Also the conveyer belt does not really impart significant force onto the plane. The wheels are literally designed to impart as little friction as possible, so its not like the plane has a lot of friction to overcome. The wheels spin freely while the plane moves through the air.

[@janezjamsak8535]

The Best myth in 2023 is surely if the earth is flat or not right??

[@alihms]

Could someone explain? I still do not understand how that plane can take-off. Granted, the wheels aren't connected to the engine. The engine provides forward thrust to the plane by pushing air backwards. The flow of that pushed air can provide upward lift force to the wings. But the thing is, that pushed air is mainly concentrated around the fuselage. Not enough of it goes through the entirety of the wings to generate a sufficient lift force. The forward movement of the plane itself seems to be too slow for additional air from the surrounding to help. What am I missing here?

[@CarOnStands]

The prop pulls the aircraft through the air - not across the ground. Airspeed - that's the key word here. Not ground speed. Eventually, the air speed of the aircraft is such that the wings generate their own lift. The propellor (or thrust of a jet or rocket) does nothing for the lift of the wings or fueselage as you seem to suggest - as a matter of fact it has quite the opposite. The air from a prop is turbulent and messy and has to be considered when designing the aircraft.

[@alsoHechter]

The wheels are just there to have something to roll on g. It’s like standing on a skateboard in a train that is accelerating you’re gonne stay where you are and the train is just gonne roll under you now if you put a proppeller on your back it’s not gonne change you staying where you are in any way but if you turn it on it can still push you in the opposite direction of the train. If you’re struggling to see the train vision there is videos of people doing shit like that on bikes and crashing into the doors because the train accelerates away under them

[@flaspank9467]

plane need "forward" and "up" to fly. proppeler gives "forward" if spun. wings give "up" if given "forward". engine turn on=plane move=plane fly nowhere in the flight equation of a plane does it depend wheels. it just cant be chained up. planes also take off on water and snow sleds in places. really i was like jamie in the intro the whole episode, like who thinks ofa a myth like this 😂

[@oswith971]

The plane still gets 25mph air speed and takes off, the only difference the tarp makes is the fact that the WHEELS spin at 50mph because they're being dragged in the opposite direction. So there is almost no difference assuming the wheels have very little rolling resistance

[@eljaibas16]

​@@oswith971yeah, even if the tarp was moving the other way (so the tires wouldn't rotate) the plane would have taken off, because the only thing the plane cares about is the speed of the air interacting with the wings

[@FSboy70]

So some people actually believe that airplane drive on wheels in the sky, or is that a myth?

[@ShaMana999]

If you put a plane on a regular conveyor belt, the plane crashes of the belt. They heavily imply the plane taking off while being in place and not the plane creating thrust to move over the ground. Misleading, heavily.

[@8Zatto8]

This must have been the most stupid episode or rather the must stupid myths in the whole series. I mean just use your brain for 2 seconds...Anyway love the uploads.

[@Chris_1024_]

It's amazing how many people in the comments still don't get it.