Jump to content



Photo

MythBusters tackles "plane on a conveyor belt problem"


  • Please log in to reply
340 replies to this topic

#301 kernatch

kernatch

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 31 January 2008 - 03:08

Alright, I don't agree with what they did in Mythbusters!. When they pull that curtain with the truck the other way, the plane is still going and moving, it's gaining forwardness, it has to pick up! but when the belt is going the same speed with the plane, it wont allow it to move so no air on the wings, this isn't possible, mythbusters did this wrong, what do you guys think.


The plane can move forward regardless of the ground below. See my post above.


#302 vetMathachew

Mathachew

    Wise beyond my youth... that's what she said!

  • 11,206 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 04
  • Location: Spring, TX
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 31 January 2008 - 03:20

Something just didn't seem right about it, because it seemed like once the gas was pushed for the plane, it moved forward, never really matching the speed of the conveyor belt. It seems like that they want to achieve the same speed of both directions and then see if the plane takes off. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong?

They should build a large conveyor belt that doesn't require dragging a large belt on the ground. Those guys can do it!

#303 kernatch

kernatch

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 31 January 2008 - 03:29

The question describes the belt moving at the same speed of the plane (but in the opposite direction) just so that, at first, you incorrectly picture the plane being still ('cancelling it out'). But even if the question said the belt moved twice as fast as the plane, which would, at first, make you (incorrectly) picture the plane moving backwards, in reality the plane would still move in exactly the same way as if the ground was still. The speed of the belt really is of no importance (apart from technical details like how fast the plane's wheels can spin before overheating). Essentially the question is asking: does a moving runway affect a plane's take off?

#304 OP The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,146 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 31 January 2008 - 11:19

Episode just aired, plane took off no problem. What was sad was that the pilot appeared not to understand how his plane functioned and believed his plane would remain stationary.

It's surprising how many people don't know how planes work, but you'd think pilots would understand.

#305 Kushan

Kushan

    Sold his soul for some megahurtz

  • 7,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03
  • Location: The End of the Universe

Posted 31 January 2008 - 11:26

It's surprising how many people don't know how planes work, but you'd think pilots would understand.


The problem (For most people, at least) wasn't that they didn't know how planes work, but that they didn't know quite what exactly the question was asking in the first place.
I always assumed the conveyor belt was just a way of saying "the plane is being kept stationary, can it still take off?" and if you look at the vast majority of the arguments against the plane taking off, they all talk about air flow and such.
If the plane is moving forward, there will be air flow, if not, there wont (and it wont take off). The myth was testing if the conveyor would stop the plane moving forward, that's clear now, but a lot of us (myself included) thought the myth was testing if the plane could take off from a stationary position.

The end result? Most people weren't really WRONG, it was more a case of whoever came up with the question didn't explain it well enough.

#306 kernatch

kernatch

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 31 January 2008 - 11:50

The end result? Most people weren't really WRONG, it was more a case of whoever came up with the question didn't explain it well enough.


But I think the whole point of the question was to catch out the people who thought it would stay stationary.

It's an excellent question because to answer to 'no' you have to have some understanding of aerodynamics, e.g. that a plane needs air going over its wings to gain lift. This knowledge makes you feel a bit smug and sure of your answer. The twist is that you need even more knowledge, about how planes get their thrust, to answer it properly.

#307 Kushan

Kushan

    Sold his soul for some megahurtz

  • 7,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03
  • Location: The End of the Universe

Posted 31 January 2008 - 11:55

But I think the whole point of the question was to catch out the people who thought it would stay stationary.

It's an excellent question because to answer to 'no' you have to have some understanding of aerodynamics, e.g. that a plane needs air going over its wings to gain lift. This knowledge makes you feel a bit smug and sure of your answer. The twist is that you need even more knowledge, about how planes get their thrust, to answer it properly.


People on both sides of the argument were incredibly smug about their answer, plus you don't really need THAT much knowledge to know that a plane gathers thrust from it's engines.
I still say the question was poorly worded, it should have asked "will the plane be able to gather enough forward momentum to take off?" rather than just "will the plane fly?".

#308 +StevoFC

StevoFC

    In Search Of...

  • 8,908 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 02
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 31 January 2008 - 11:59

Something just didn't seem right about it, because it seemed like once the gas was pushed for the plane, it moved forward, never really matching the speed of the conveyor belt. It seems like that they want to achieve the same speed of both directions and then see if the plane takes off. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong?

They should build a large conveyor belt that doesn't require dragging a large belt on the ground. Those guys can do it!


During the show they said what they did...
They first had the plane take off without the belt. They recorded the speed the plane was going when it lifted off the ground.

Then they put the plane on the conveyor belt and moved the truck at the speed previously recorded and started the plane moving. And as everyone saw it took off with no problem still.

I don't understand what doesn't seem right? They explained that a plane is nothing like a car and the ground has absolutely nothing to do with how a plane moves.

#309 curme

curme

    Grand Inquisitor

  • 4,121 posts
  • Joined: 24-December 03
  • Location: Korea

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:13

I think the reason the pilot didn't think it would take-off is because he wasn't a real pilot. He was an ultralight pilot. Ultralight pilots don't have to go through all of those pesky years of flight training and theory, I don't even think you need a license.

I didn't see the episode, I don't live in the states, but I read about it. You would think with so much controversy, they wouldn't half-ass it like it sounds like they did. It sounds like the plane was traveling much faster then the trap. If anyone knows a link to the episode, please post!

#310 kernatch

kernatch

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:15

People on both sides of the argument were incredibly smug about their answer, plus you don't really need THAT much knowledge to know that a plane gathers thrust from it's engines.
I still say the question was poorly worded, it should have asked "will the plane be able to gather enough forward momentum to take off?" rather than just "will the plane fly?".


I didn't mean people were smug in a derogatory sense. I was just trying to explain how the question works on a psychological level. To answer no you have to have knowledge, which makes you feel like you know how to answer the question (sompare with someone who knows nothing about how planes work: they might not know how to answer at all, or will give a yes or no answer but for entirely the wrong reasons). I also realise that knowing how a plane gets thrust isn't a terrible amount more knowledge, I just mean that to answer properly you have to go beyond the initial bit of knowledge most rested on.

I also agree the question can be reworded, but like I said, the phrasing of the original is completely intentional in catching some people out. It's called a trick question.

#311 vetFred Derf

Fred Derf

    Klaatu barada nikto

  • 44,440 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 02
  • Location: ɐpɐuɐɔ 'oʇuoɹoʇ

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:21

I always assumed the conveyor belt was just a way of saying "the plane is being kept stationary, can it still take off?" and if you look at the vast majority of the arguments against the plane taking off, they all talk about air flow and such.
...
The end result? Most people weren't really WRONG, it was more a case of whoever came up with the question didn't explain it well enough.

The entire point of this question was to root out the people who thought the plane would remain stationary. This exposes the people who think of a plane as a winged car.

#312 curme

curme

    Grand Inquisitor

  • 4,121 posts
  • Joined: 24-December 03
  • Location: Korea

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:31

I knew something like this would happen:

Not A Believer! says:
It's a lie! It's all a lie!

I cannot accept their findings as they did not follow a method that I approve of, one that will guarantee that I am right that it's dumb to believe that an airplane can take off from a conveyor belt. Their test was stupid and not done correctly, the airplane was MOVING and that is so obviously wrong that I'll stop watching their show , their "treadmill" should have been moving much faster than the plane.

No matter what they say or prove, I cannot be made to believe that an airplane can take off from a conveyor belt. Better luck next time Myth-"busters".
» by Not A Believer! on Jan 31, 2008 at 07:15 AM

kottke.org


:laugh::

#313 Kushan

Kushan

    Sold his soul for some megahurtz

  • 7,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03
  • Location: The End of the Universe

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:37

The entire point of this question was to root out the people who thought the plane would remain stationary. This exposes the people who think of a plane as a winged car.


Except that it didn't, not in my case anyway. I'm fully aware that a plane works completely different than a car. As I said, I never took the conveyor into the equation because the question was "can the plane still fly?" and not "can the plane outrun the conveyor?" or something.

#314 vetFred Derf

Fred Derf

    Klaatu barada nikto

  • 44,440 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 02
  • Location: ɐpɐuɐɔ 'oʇuoɹoʇ

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:40

Except that it didn't, not in my case anyway. I'm fully aware that a plane works completely different than a car. As I said, I never took the conveyor into the equation because the question was "can the plane still fly?" and not "can the plane outrun the conveyor?" or something.

If you never took the conveyor into the equation then the answer to "can the plane still fly?" would be an easy yes.

#315 Kushan

Kushan

    Sold his soul for some megahurtz

  • 7,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03
  • Location: The End of the Universe

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:43

No, that's what I mean. Like I said, I took the conveyor belt to be a way of saying "the plane is stationary on the ground". So the engines are at full force, but the plane isn't moving forward. That's how I (and many others) interpreted the question and in THAT scenario, the plane definitely would not take off.
Everything Mythbusters did was absolutely correct and I'm not disputing their findings or anything, I'm just saying that there seems to be two real interpretations to the question and depending on which one you took would decide what your answer was.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!