Woohoo! I own Page 8!

quote Originally posted by buddycraigg: so does anyone still think it would not fly?

I dunno - the last number of posts have been reiterating the same thing as if they're still trying to convince someone... even though it appears to have been agreed upon quite a bit earlier

[This message has been edited by MinnGreenGT (edited 12-07-2005).]

To get out of the compensating conveyorbelt thingie force you'll need to change the angle of the opposing/compensating forces to anything else than 180 degrees to make it move....
I would simply get a VTOL plane like an Osprey or Harrier and dont waste too much time on this issue
The wheels are there (on the ground), the wings are there (but pretty useless in this situation), only the thrust is angled...
now it will fly

quote Originally posted by buddycraigg: so does anyone still think it would not fly?

Dunno, last I read, Firefighter still seemed pretty convinced it would not fly.

quote The plane in question will remain on the ground until it runs out of gas, then fly off the back of the conveyor like someone running on a treadmill who suddenly stops running forward. CRASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ed

Fie Ro:

quote To get out of the compensating conveyorbelt thingie force you'll need to change the angle of the opposing/compensating forces to anything else than 180 degrees to make it move....

And, I think I would get on the Hindenburg before I let them strap me into an Osprey.

Have you ever seen an Osprey catch a fish?
Apparently thats the method the aircraft of the same name lands.

Well, with my interpritation, the conveyor belt only turns the wheels at the theoretical speed of the plane. The belt has no effect on the windspeed, no opposing windforce against the plane, therefore, the plane will move forward off the belt and then fly away gracefully. Sorry if this has already been answered. thanks

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: Have you ever seen an Osprey catch a fish? Apparently thats the method the aircraft of the same name lands.

pilots crash all sorts of aircraft - the osprey is a good plane/chopper -- they fly around here all the time (work by a naval air base) and they've never crashed here, but other planes have

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: pilots crash all sorts of aircraft - the osprey is a good plane/chopper

Airplanes (as opposed to other categories of aircraft) often need a pilot to help them crash. Conversely, rotorcraft (including helicopters and the Osprey) seldom need any help. The Osprey compounds this tendency to instability even further by moving the rotors far away from the center of gravity.

An Osprey will neither glide nor autorotate.
78 million a pop.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Airplanes (as opposed to other categories of aircraft) often need a pilot to help them crash. Conversely, rotorcraft (including helicopters and the Osprey) seldom need any help. The Osprey compounds this tendency to instability even further by moving the rotors far away from the center of gravity.

the ospreys problems are caused by the pilot changing the rotor angle too fast, or at the wrong time causing loss of lift which is difficult to recover from, even with fly-by-wire settups

Saw an Osprey go right over my head at work here, about a month ago. The rotors were at about a 45 degree tilt, as we are right under the final approach path for the local airport/air national guard. I was amazed as I could see the rotors being slowly tilted while is was in the air.

I saw an Osprey up close and personal in 1988 or so, in a hangar at the Arlington LTV complex at Dallas/Ft. Worth. What a beast! At that time, it was still pretty much in testing. It was scary looking. Lots of security around it.

Would I get on one now? Not if I had the choice between that and a Huey or Ranger rotorcraft.

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: the ospreys problems are caused by the pilot changing the rotor angle too fast, or at the wrong time causing loss of lift which is difficult to recover from, even with fly-by-wire settups

Extra Extra-read all about it!!
Osprey discussion

Osprey has far more problems than just pilot input errors. I've followed this boondoggle since it's inception, and it is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and lives imo. Vortex ring state, cracked hydraulic fittings, at hover resonance, unable to carry it's initially claimed troopload, no armament of any kind last time I checked, large target profile, noisy as heck from what I hear from people who have worked on them, not to mention that a lot of the grunts are scared to death of them. Yes, it's faster than the ch46 it is to replace, but at advertised cruise speed, the fuel consumption is too high to make the range that they are really looking for.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-08-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Fie Ro: I would simply get a VTOL plane like an Osprey or Harrier and dont waste too much time on this issue

lol. I shouldnt have mentioned the Osprey .....the Harrier also had issues but I still bet:
It will fly

lets face it people... planes are designed to operate the way they do today for a reason ... by the way i don't think it will fly... it needs to be moving... why do we build runways for planes if we could just have them parked at the terminal put the parking brake on... fire the engines to max and watch it take off? i mean if you try what i just said with a real plane... its not going anywhere... the brakes are on... only thing you'll do is push through the brakes... clearly the real estate to build runways is being put to good use.

i hope i understand the question... if not just ignore it...

------------------

[This message has been edited by Saber49 (edited 12-09-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Saber49: i hope i understand the question... if not just ignore it...

You need to read all eight pages.

quote Originally posted by Saber49: by the way i don't think it will fly... it needs to be moving...

what makes you think that it is NOT moving?

Well people, I gotta defend the Osprey a bit. First, No, I don't own stock in Bell...

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: An Osprey will neither glide nor autorotate. 78 million a pop.

That is just plain baseless internet rumor BS. The Osprey is fully capable of a auto rotative descent in helicopter mode. It is also capable of a glide-in ditching procedure in the unlikely event that a transition to helicopter mode cannot be made. Just as in ANY helicopter, there are unsafe altitude/airspeed envelopes that pilots are not permitted to operate.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Airplanes (as opposed to other categories of aircraft) often need a pilot to help them crash. Conversely, rotorcraft (including helicopters and the Osprey) seldom need any help.

This could be said of most modes of transportation but just as most car wrecks are caused by operator error, so is the case with airplanes AND helicopters. The crash rate of helicopters due to mechanical failure is actually pretty low compared to pilot error. The most significant variable has more to do with the helicopter's relatively close operating proximity to the ground. This doesn't give the PILOT enough time to react to a problem. Altitude is your friend.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: The Osprey compounds this tendency to instability even further by moving the rotors far away from the center of gravity.

This just proves to me how little you really know about the topic of you're discussing. The CG envelope of a tandem rotor aircraft such as the Sea Knight or the Chinook is actually better than most helicopters with a single-main/tail-rotor design. Although the osprey's rotor's are not 'tandem' to the airframe, the relationship to the CG is the same as a tandem rotor system. You not only have to look at the distance laterally from the CG, but also the distance vertically. If you look at a picture of the Osprey, the rotors are VERY high above the fuselage in helicopter mode making it a VERY stable platform.

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: the ospreys problems are caused by the pilot changing the rotor angle too fast, or at the wrong time causing loss of lift which is difficult to recover from, even with fly-by-wire settups

I can't speak to this with complete and sure knowledge but I'm pretty sure that the pilot does not have direct control of this operation. The control inputs go through a computer that won't let him do anything stupid like in your example. The same thing was said about the F-14 Tomcat by critics who didn't know that the wings moved automaticaly as a function of airspeed. Any modern fighter aircraft would be able to rip itself to shreds if the flight control computers didn't limit the pilot's inputs.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Extra Extra-read all about it!! Osprey discussion Osprey has far more problems than just pilot input errors. I've followed this boondoggle since it's inception, and it is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and lives imo. Vortex ring state, cracked hydraulic fittings, at hover resonance, unable to carry it's initially claimed troopload, no armament of any kind last time I checked, large target profile, noisy as heck from what I hear from people who have worked on them, not to mention that a lot of the grunts are scared to death of them. Yes, it's faster than the ch46 it is to replace, but at advertised cruise speed, the fuel consumption is too high to make the range that they are really looking for.

Okay, Where to start, first, the link I'll have to reserve judgement on it until I can read more, but at first glance it looks like it's pretty even handed, but you have to read some of the pro-osprey posts along with the anti posts. Some posters quote news articles written by know nothing reporters with an agenda. They said that same kind of cowpucky about my beloved CH-53E Superstallion back when I was flying in one every day. The Orange County Herald was constanly publishing stories and stats that anyone in-the-know could torpedo full of holes without any effort at all. We just figured they wanted the real estate that the base was occupying. They got the base eventually, but the 53E is one of the Marine's most valuable aviation assets today.

Ring vortex state? do you even know what that is or are you throwing out words that you saw on your weblink above? EVERY helicopter has that problem, it is also known as settling with power. That's why helicopter pilots are trained to AVOID those decent-rate/airspeed operating parameters in which it becomes a factor.

As far as the cracked fittings, we'll just call it growing pains... fire the vendor and get one that makes them right. Every modern aircraft goes through that type of thing. Should we stop developing everything?

Unable to carry originally claimed troopload, well, that's no big deal, they are very close. Specs on military aircraft can be changed when technology to achieve them is proven to be to expensive compared to the net gain in performance required to achieve the original goal. Sounds worse than it is, the argument is a toothless tiger.

Last, it will carry any of the weapons that the other Marine helicopters can currently carry, save for the cobra, but stay tuned... hell they put sidewinder missles on a 53 once. Pretty easy to strap on weapons on or in any aircraft as the need arises.

Oh, and the stupid airplane flew away already, those of you that can't figure it out, missed it.

Hey helo-mech i think you need to cut down on the caffine brutha ! . oh yeah the plane will fly .

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

quote Originally posted by Helo-mech: Well people, I gotta defend the Osprey a bit. First, No, I don't own stock in Bell... Okay, Where to start, first, the link I'll have to reserve judgement on it until I can read more, but at first glance it looks like it's pretty even handed, but you have to read some of the pro-osprey posts along with the anti posts. Some posters quote news articles written by know nothing reporters with an agenda. They said that same kind of cowpucky about my beloved CH-53E Superstallion back when I was flying in one every day. The Orange County Herald was constanly publishing stories and stats that anyone in-the-know could torpedo full of holes without any effort at all. We just figured they wanted the real estate that the base was occupying. They got the base eventually, but the 53E is one of the Marine's most valuable aviation assets today. Ring vortex state? do you even know what that is or are you throwing out words that you saw on your weblink above? EVERY helicopter has that problem, it is also known as settling with power. That's why helicopter pilots are trained to AVOID those decent-rate/airspeed operating parameters in which it becomes a factor.

What training provides and what happens out in combat are 2 different things, and you know it.
Yes I know what vortex ring state is and I've been thru it personally on a D model 53 but didn't know what it was called at the time. Steep fast descent into an LZ with a 105 slung underneath. We managed to fly forward thru it, and avoided a crash but pickled the load to do it. I thought the hac was going to pull the collective thru the floor for a while there.

quote As far as the cracked fittings, we'll just call it growing pains... fire the vendor and get one that makes them right. Every modern aircraft goes through that type of thing. Should we stop developing everything? Unable to carry originally claimed troopload, well, that's no big deal, they are very close. Specs on military aircraft can be changed when technology to achieve them is proven to be to expensive compared to the net gain in performance required to achieve the original goal. Sounds worse than it is, the argument is a toothless tiger. Last, it will carry any of the weapons that the other Marine helicopters can currently carry, save for the cobra, but stay tuned... hell they put sidewinder missles on a 53 once. Pretty easy to strap on weapons on or in any aircraft as the need arises. Oh, and the stupid airplane flew away already, those of you that can't figure it out, missed it.

I'd estimate that most of the people posting on that website have more time in combat rotary aircraft than any other place on the web. Until just a few months ago, it was only open to USMC Vietnam Combat Helicopter pilots and crews. Some of the people posting there are retired Marines and work at New River and Pax River. I persoanlly know a couple of them that work with the Osprey, and speak with them almost daily on another website, not open to public view.
Yep it will carry any weapon, but with an even more reduced overall payload and range once that system is installed. Weight is weight, no matter where it comes from and for every lb of amament added, an equal reduction has to be subtracted from the payload.

They're close?-a toothless tiger? I've seen that toothless tiger before, when we had to leave medivacs because we couldn't fit any more on board. I've seen the 53D relegated to less vulnerable missions for a period of time in 1970, when it was decided they were too expensive to lose on inserts and emergency extracts.

My biggest gripe about Osprey is that it isn't needed and it's too expensive. The 53E is a proven bird and the billions spent on Osprey could have been spent on upgrades and new procurement of those fine Sikorskys. I know they want/need to replace the Phrogs medium lift, and they've sure seen their share of service, but there are other ways to replace them. Faster and bigger isn't always better. With more 53s they could take up the role of both medium and heavy lift. On top of that we have to wonder just what the rest of The Corps has had to do without in order to pay for Osprey.
-------------------------------------

DIMMER LIVES

I know I am late to this thread and I did not take the time to read the whole 8 pages, but here is my input. I am amazed this thread is 8 pages long. I am a pilot who is not current at the moment, but as the first posters stated the plane will not lift even one inch off the ground. It will only fly if Bernoulli's principle is being implemented then and only then flight will happen. You can spin wheels a thousand miles an hour on a conveyer belt and only the wheels will spin faster on the plane. No air over the wings means no flight. As stated on the first page a dynoed car does not move forward and likewise a plane does not fly without the relative wind. NO WIND NO FLIGHT!!! I was incouraged by the first responders that there are some thinking people on this forum. Well I guess we would have to be smart, because we all have to stay one step ahead of our cars. It saddens me to realize that there are people out there on other forums that are really that dumb. Sucks to be them.

------------------
Make it FAST or don't make it :)
......... .........
LITTLE RED BOMB......Someday it will be mine....The Teacher
www.velocityaircraft.com
DIRECTIONS FOR FREE COMPUTER

quote Originally posted by stalen88GT: I know I am late to this thread and I did not take the time to read the whole 8 pages, but here is my input. I am amazed this thread is 8 pages long. I am a pilot who is not current at the moment, but as the first posters stated the plane will not lift even one inch off the ground. It will only fly if Bernoulli's principle is being implemented then and only then flight will happen. You can spin wheels a thousand miles an hour on a conveyer belt and only the wheels will spin faster on the plane. No air over the wings means no flight. As stated on the first page a dynoed car does not move forward and likewise a plane does not fly without the relative wind. NO WIND NO FLIGHT!!! I was incouraged by the first responders that there are some thinking people on this forum. Well I guess we would have to be smart, because we all have to stay one step ahead of our cars. It saddens me to realize that there are people out there on other forums that are really that dumb. Sucks to be them.

I think I'm gonna be sick.
You really need to read all 8 pages.

Guess I better go ahead and do my thing with the cam corder and toy plane. IT WILL FLY FLY FLY FLY FLY FLY FLY.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-12-2005).]

Try this concept.
If you put a jet engine on a car will it stay on the dyno ?

quote Originally posted by stalen88GT: I know I am late to this thread and I did not take the time to read the whole 8 pages, but here is my input. I am amazed this thread is 8 pages long. I am a pilot who is not current at the moment, but as the first posters stated the plane will not lift even one inch off the ground. It will only fly if Bernoulli's principle is being implemented then and only then flight will happen. You can spin wheels a thousand miles an hour on a conveyer belt and only the wheels will spin faster on the plane. No air over the wings means no flight. As stated on the first page a dynoed car does not move forward and likewise a plane does not fly without the relative wind. NO WIND NO FLIGHT!!! I was incouraged by the first responders that there are some thinking people on this forum. Well I guess we would have to be smart, because we all have to stay one step ahead of our cars. It saddens me to realize that there are people out there on other forums that are really that dumb. Sucks to be them.

Holy crap !! Can't believe this was written by a pilot. No wonder he is not 'current '

quote Originally posted by fierosteve: Holy crap !! Can't believe this was written by a pilot. No wonder he is not 'current '

Maybe he's current on the runway.................

The wheels on the plane go round and round---round and round.
The wheels on the plane go round and round and off in the sky it goes.

I posted the original question on a helo forum a couple weeks ago and everyone of those pilot type guys got it right off the bat. Of course, most of them transitioned to helos from F-8 Crusaders way back when.

Wow. This thread has been an enlightening read about some of you. But the plane will still fly.

A conveyor belt that is moving 100 mph one way isn't going to matter much compared to a plane that is moving 100mph in the opposite direction, except for making the wheels turn like the plane was traveling at 200mph. After liftoff that wouldn't matter much either.

------------------

My Web page | The Turbo Super Duty Build.
You know that little voice that says it can't be done? I duct-taped mine's mouth shut and pushed it down a flight of stairs.

I've missed reading this thread for a couple of days, so forgive me if I duplicate anything already said. But...

Neal Boortz http://boortz.com a nationally syndicated radio talk show host has been discussing this same subject. He asked that listeners send in their thoughts and he'd read some of them on the air. Don't know if mine made it on the air or not, but here's what I submitted:

WILL THE PLANE FLY?

The major requirement for the plane to fly is airspeed over the wings that will create enough lift to keep the plane suspended in the air.

If the plane is on the conveyor belt, and the engine isn’t running, it must be tethered to the ground in order to keep it from moving backwards in the direction the conveyor belt is moving. If the plane needs an airspeed of 50 MPH in order to remain suspended in the air, the fact that the conveyor is moving at 50 MPH doesn’t affect the speed the air around the plane is moving.

If the plane is on the conveyor belt and the engine IS running, any engine speed sufficient to pull the plane will cause the plane to move forward. If the conveyor belt is moving at 50MPH, and the engine is pulling the air at 10 MPH, then the wheels would be moving at 60 MPH. The plane would move forward relative to the ground at a speed of 10 MPH, and relative to the conveyor belt at 60 MPH.

Therefore, if the plane needed an airspeed of 50 MPH, it must pull the air over its wings at a speed of 50MPH, causing the wheels to spin at 100 MPH. The plane would move forward at 50 MPH and be able to lift away from the conveyor belt.

quote Originally posted by Helo-mech: This just proves to me how little you really know about the topic of you're discussing.

I decline your invitation to exchange personal insults.

I do, however, stand by my original statements. Helicopters, including the Osprey in its low-speed flight regimes, are inherently less stable aerodynamically than airplanes. In support of this assertion, I offer the fact that while most civil airplanes can rather easily be certified for single-pilot IFR (instrument flight rules) operation, only a very small percentage of civil rotorcraft can ever be IFR certified ... and the primary reason has to do with the difference in inherent stability of the two aircraft categories.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-15-2005).]

An Osprey will not Auto rotate.
Show me one piece of evidence where it will.
They dropped the requirement just to keep testing it.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I decline your invitation to exchange personal insults. I do, however, stand by my original statements. Helicopters, including the Osprey in its low-speed flight regimes, are inherently less stable aerodynamically than airplanes. In support of this assertion, I offer the fact that while most civil airplanes can rather easily be certified for IFR (instrument flight rules) operation, only a very small percentage of civil rotorcraft can ever be IFR certified ... and the primary reason has to do with the difference in inherent stability of the two aircraft categories.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting, I just don't believe you have demonstrated an understanding of the stability characteristics of a tandem rotor based system. I would also contend that all rotorcraft are MUCH more stable in low speed flight regimes, especially as the fixed wing aircraft slows to its stall speed. You need to qualify that statement by saying "Helicopters, including the Osprey in its low-speed flight regimes, are inherently less stable aerodynamically than airplanes in cruise flight", but that is comparing apples to oranges. Anyway your original post implied that the Osprey is less stable than OTHER helicopters. I contend that it is as stable or more stable than most helicopters due to the fact that its proprotors are displaced so far vertically and horizontally from the CG. A single main rotor configuration is less stable because its center of mass is very close to its CG, which also means more maneuverable, but with a narrower performance envelope.

As for the IFR certification, most currently produced civil helicopters ARE IFR certified, although many, like the the Bell 407, is only IFR certified for dual pilots. There are many helicopters that are single pilot IFR certified including the Bell 222's that operate all over the country and the new 429's coming out in a couple of years. I would add that everything takes longer when designing helicopters, not just the IFR package. Also, the requirements are more stringent. Helicopters certified for single pilot IFR in the past, could not be certified using current and evolving standards. Case in point, the 206L-3 could not meet the current standards for its type certificate if it were being certified today. The same could be said of many older fixed wing aircraft too.

I with agree though that helicopters are less stable in general, the ability to hover has a price, but the aircraft we're discussing has exceptional stability according to its pilots. If helicopter stability were a real issue, all of the small ones should all be grounded today, the smaller they are, the less inertia, the more unstable. Have you ever seen an MD-500 hover in a gusty wind, or rode in the back of a BK-117? There are some stability issues.

Anyway, my original intent with the post was to present the other side because so many Osprey haters chimed in. I'm not so sure where I come in on the cost/benefit analysis, someone said what have the Marines had to do without to pay for it? I cannot answer that and it does give me pause, but with all of the money spent, and the life of a major North American aircraft manufacturer on the line, I'm willing to give history the chance to prove the concept. As I said before, I saw many baseless rumors propogated by the press about my aircraft when it was new in the early '80s. Now that the CH-53E is a mature combat veteran, and most of its critics have disappeared. I still can't find a dang plastic model of the thing, but it is a tool in the inventory that has come to emblematize the Marines. Personally, I expect nothing less for the V-22 as it enters service. Call me stupid, but if I was still wearing the Eagle Globe and Anchor, I would volunteer for the program.

Even before powered flight, every new aircraft has had to survive the assault of critics. Heck, didn't our Fiero have its own critics when it was new too? Too bad Pontiac/GM listened...

Here is an article that addresses some of the myths and half truths

If anyone is interested, take a look for what its worth. If you cannot be swayed, take a look anyway, at least see where I'm coming from. I didn't get my opinions from this article, but although it lacks a bit in detail, it backs my opinion up fairly well.

Good article about the Vortex Ring State

[This message has been edited by Helo-mech (edited 12-15-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Helo-mech: I just don't believe you have demonstrated an understanding of the stability characteristics of a tandem rotor based system.

I was not commenting on the tandem-rotor configuration, where both rotors are directly above the centerline of the fuselage. I was commenting on the Osprey configuration, where the rotors are placed at the wingtips.

quote Originally posted by Helo-mech: I would also contend that all rotorcraft are MUCH more stable in low speed flight regimes, especially as the fixed wing aircraft slows to its stall speed.

Yes, we agree that an airplane cannot hover in zero-wind conditions. But clearly I was referring to controlled flight. Aerodynamic stall ... whether in an airplane or in a rotorcraft ... represents a departure from controlled flight.

quote Originally posted by Helo-mech: ... your original post implied that the Osprey is less stable than OTHER helicopters. I contend that it is as stable or more stable than most helicopters ...

Around the roll axis in hover? No way! (Assuming no active stability augmentation.) Ground resonance in an Osprey with the two rotors out of phase is virtually guaranteed to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

quote Originally posted by Helo-mech: As for the IFR certification, most currently produced civil helicopters ARE IFR certified, although many, like the the Bell 407, is only IFR certified for dual pilots. There are many helicopters that are single pilot IFR certified including the Bell 222's that operate all over the country and the new 429's coming out in a couple of years.

I will defer to your knowledge of the specific certifications. But how many civil rotorcraft types can be certified for single-pilot IFR without a (working) two-axis autopilot or stability augmentation system? Most civil airplanes can, and inherent aerodynamic stability is the primary difference.

quote Originally posted by Helo-mech: I agree though that helicopters are less stable in general, the ability to hover has a price.... Have you ever seen an MD-500 hover in a gusty wind, or rode in the back of a BK-117? There are some stability issues.

Yes. We agree.

quote Originally posted by Helo-mech: Anyway, my original intent with the post was to present the other side because so many Osprey haters chimed in ... Even before powered flight, every new aircraft has had to survive the assault of critics.

We agree. The Osprey is an interesting design concept, and I would like to see it succeed. But neither your wishing nor mine will make its identified problems just go away; lots of testing, good engineering, and money still might. Time will tell.

Oh, by the way ... The plane will still fly!

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-15-2005).]

Amazing thread.

It's been my keen observation that what really makes the plane fly is the pilot's pucker factor. Has a whole lot to do with landing the thing, as well.

David Breeze

------------------

Pantera Rebody Kits

[This message has been edited by opm2000 (edited 12-15-2005).]

quote A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). The question is: Will the plane take off or not?

For those of you who have implicated that I am a moron, walk up or down an escalator in the opposite direction at the exact speed of the escalator, do you make any headway? If the runway is moving "as on a conveyor belt" then there is no relative wind and the plane will not take off. If the plane is moving as fast as the converor belt in the opposite direction at the precise speed of the belt all forward motion is cancelled. the only way the plane will take off and I am not recanting what I am taking a stand on - ie. the plane will not fly - the friction of the belt "runway" movin in the opposite direction of the plane will cause wind to flow in relative direction of the plane. If there were enough of this "wind" genereated by the revolving runway the plane would only lift in a vertical plane with no forward motion and if the "wind" were strong enough the plane would actually go backwards. When flying a pilot must take into account head wind. if your forward motion generated by your motor/propeller is 150kts and you have a headwind greater than your forward motion you will be blowen backward. This is one of the reasons why airliners always take longer to fly WEST than EAST because of headwind. The next time any of you go flying round trip find out what travel time is east and west. and they call me a moron, take a simple physics class.

And I challenge those of you out there that are not pilots to get your license and then you will know why I am not flying at the moment. Ten to one some of you don't know the jetstream from a bucket of propwash or coriolis from a vortex generator and here is one more - slipstream from midsream. sad that you have to revert to insulting when that is all you have left.

Oh happy New Year @ zero hour in 1:57

quote Originally posted by stalen88GT: For those of you who have implicated that I am a moron, walk up or down an escalator in the opposite direction at the exact speed of the escalator, do you make any headway?

That's the common misconception. On the escalator, you are correct - you won't move in relation to the ground. What you're missing is that you're propelling yourself thorugh your feet, which are moving relative to the escalator.

The airplane, on the other hand, is propelling itself through the air. The speed of the air isn't affected by the conveyor.
If this were a car, it would remain stationary - again because the car's propulsion is through the contact with the conveyor.

As long as force pushing the airplane forward doesn't come from anything in conctact with the conveyor, the speed of the conveyor will not affect the plane's speed. The only assumption you have to make is that the plane's wheels can freewheel (i.e. the brakes aren't applied). A plane has no propulsion through the wheels. All the wheels can do is roll freely, or apply the brakes.

Maryjane,
You fly yet?

*Leads forum in loud chant POST! POST! POST! POST! POST! POST!*

I will eat my words if you get a plane to fly while rolling in one spot on a spinning conveyor belt. In fact I will conduct the experiment myself when I get back to california. I do have a toy plane and a tread mill. So you conduct your experiment and I will conduct mine and I will have a Depends moment if it flies. I will video get someone to host video, I do not have hosting capability.

David you big fibber.

Every pilot knows the only thing that makes an airplane fly is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by opm2000: Amazing thread. It's been my keen observation that what really makes the plane fly is the pilot's pucker factor. Has a whole lot to do with landing the thing, as well. David Breeze

quote Originally posted by stalen88GT: Maryjane, You fly yet? *Leads forum in loud chant POST! POST! POST! POST! POST! POST!* I will eat my words if you get a plane to fly while rolling in one spot on a spinning conveyor belt. In fact I will conduct the experiment myself when I get back to california. I do have a toy plane and a tread mill. So you conduct your experiment and I will conduct mine and I will have a Depends moment if it flies. I will video get someone to host video, I do not have hosting capability.

Nope I haven't. Didn't feel the need to. I didn't realize there was anyone left that believed it wouldn't fly. It is confusing to the mind at first, but the moment you set your little plane on your treadmill, and turn on the treadmill, you will see the light. With the engine off, you will have the hold the plane in place with your hand to keep it from rolling off backwards. At that moment, you will realize that
"Hey, not only can I hold it in place, I can also push it forward, with minimal effort, no matter how fast the treadmill is rolling the other way."
Guess what?
You are the propellor. You just pushed that plane & it's wings forward thru 'AIR'.
Think about it.

quote Originally posted by opm2000: Amazing thread. It's been my keen observation that what really makes the plane fly is the pilot's pucker factor. Has a whole lot to do with landing the thing, as well. David Breeze

My expereince has proven out the theory that "Take offs are optional, landings are mandatory". Now how you acheived that landing is another story.
------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's always earned.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-01-2006).]

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I'm guessing you were current and qualified in a wheel driven A/C. Can't say I've ever been current on one of that type so I'll have to agree with you on that particular type of A/C. All of the thrust propelled A/C I've ever flown didn't give a hoot about how fast the wheels were spinning. Happy Fieroing

I hear the hardest part about flying a wheel driven A/C is keeping your thrust once wheels are up.