Mythbusters: Airplane on a Conveyor Belt

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now serving crow at the Engineer Boards Cafeteria. Should be a pretty long line.

 
Sure did! I guess it's good that I'm not an aeronautical engineer.

 
Did it actually move forward on the conveyor belt? Did it take longer to take off?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anti-climactic!

No one has ever explained how they thought a conveyor could sufficiently retard an airplane's speed.

To fully bust this myth, I'd love to see what happens when a jet takes off while their wheels are completely locked - can't get more retarding (friction) than that!

 
I love that at the end he points out that most people cant "wrap their brains" around the concept of why it flies. Most people who say it wouldnt fly were looking at it in completely the wrong frame of reference. Of course you know their will be deniers out there who will say it was rigged or not an accurate experiment. Overall they did a good job of testing AND explaining why it worked out the way it did. The animation of the car and the airplane were very good illistrations.

 
It appeared to be moving faster thatn the conveyor belt, so the plane had forward motion. It was not really apparent if it took longer. It seemed that the clip was edited.

 
It appeared to be moving faster thatn the conveyor belt, so the plane had forward motion. It was not really apparent if it took longer. It seemed that the clip was edited.
They never told us how fast the conveyor belt (i.e. truck towing a long piece of cloth) was going when it took off. It would have been nice to see the truck speed up to 100 mph - but I'm guessing they didn't have enough cloth for that.

 
I saw a wire on top of the plane.

actually, I was painting and missed the whole thing.

 
I dn't know why, but I feel incredibly pleased despite the fact that this is about number 349 on my priorities list.

:thumbs:

 
I thought it was nicely done considering how difficult that would be at full scale.

If only those two didn't act like the biggest dorks on the planet, but it adds sensationalism.

 
I called my friend, a high school chum, who works in the video and lighting department at Discovery Channel. He said the episode, while not entirely faked, was actually a "composite". What that means is that they took some liberties with the video shooting, much like when CBS blew up the GM side-tank trucks.

He explained: When Adam ran on the mat to test it, it tore some holes. They were worried that the holes would catch the wheels of the ultralight and trip it over, so they shot the seen from several different angles including the plane rolling on the mat on the unbroken part, the plane reaching speed, then the plane taking off with the mat moving in the background.

There's no breach of journalistic ethics though because:

 
Here's another way to look at it. Think about a plane in the arctic that has skis instead of wheels. That's about as frictionless as you can get.

c130%20on%20skis.jpg


 
I would think the way planes take off on aircraft carriers would also be a good comparison? I dont think they use the wheels to take off from the carriers either?

 
I would think the way planes take off on aircraft carriers would also be a good comparison? I dont think they use the wheels to take off from the carriers either?

I think they do use the wheels, the plane just happens to be dragged along by the catapult.

Im talking to a friend of mine who was a die hard "the plane wont take off kind of person". Hes actually starting to admit defeat, but still cant understand how it works.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top