Can an airplane on a conveyor belt take off? (resolved)

[Christophe]

Yeah Macro is what really takes the cabbage out of me!

Because they should have let the pickup take the lead ... we would have seen the plane go backwards: from the start of the test, it advances proof that the regulation and the production are bogus: the plane does not slip not at all !

Will a plane backing up at takeoff speed take off? That is to say that it is subjected to a tailwind from its take-off speed ... will it have enough thrust to accelerate twice its take-off speed? I have big doubts about it!

Now when you pull quickly enough on a treadmill ... an object placed on it tends to remain motionless because the speed and inertia induce a loss of grip! It is the blow of the tablecloth and the cutlery ... So it is a problem of physical limits but not of physics!

ps: as we have not yet taken the lead enough, a helicopter on a merry-go-round, does it take off?

[Macro]

For the helicopter ..... The problem is going to be quite different .... The tail propeller suposed to fight against the rotation of the aircraft .... Will tear off the tail of the machine .... ca go clean around the merry-go-round ....

[Christophe]

Oh yes, let's take a contra rotating rotor model then! I think it's even worse headache since one rotor will be accelerated and the other at zero lift while taking advantage of the accelerated flow of the 1st!

Well I say stop, the dreams of children that fill me up! I prefer that they dream of flying carpet!

Because we have proof that we can take off from a treadmill:

[Christophe]

For the helicopter ..... The problem is going to be quite different .... The tail propeller suposed to fight against the rotation of the aircraft .... Will tear off the tail of the machine .... ca go clean around the merry-go-round ....

So more precisely: the stabilizing rotor fights against the counter torque which will make the helicopter turn in the opposite direction to the rotation of the rotor.

If the main rotor, seen from above, turns clockwise, then the stabilizer must create a force that goes to the left: it therefore blows to the right. The stabilizer therefore always blows in the opposite direction of rotation of the rotor on the tail side!

However, a helicopter merry-go-round which would prevent the take-off of the same helicopter ... would turn the airframe of the machine counterclockwise at the same speed as the rotor which would turn clockwise: -1 turn + 1 turn = 0 rounds. So that the rotor would be static for an observer outside the merry-go-round. No relative wind, no lift, no takeoff!

The tail rotor will therefore not oppose the movement of the merry-go-round but will contribute to it!

More seriously: I noticed that often the tail rotor BLOWS the tail and its various organs ... which is aerodynamically counterproductive. Anyone know why?

[Macro]

More seriously: I noticed that often the tail rotor BLOWS the tail and its various organs ... which is aerodynamically counterproductive. Anyone know why?

Quite simply because the helicopter .... Is the most counterproductive flying machine there is .... It may be caught up at the present time by the jet men ... And again ... I do not am not sure ...

[Obamot]

Because we have proof that we can take off from a treadmill:

A 747 with legs, finally everything happens ...

The propeller of the tail suposed to fight against the rotation of the apparatus .... Will tear the tail of the apparatus ....

It's completely past that psy-pchittt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

[Obamot]

ps: your II is 2 or 11?

No, it's a biplane

-II— '

[Ahmed]

Christophe, the question is not whether there is good or bad grip of the wheels on the carpet, since they are idle wheels, unable to transmit any power whatsoever to the aircraft (except marginally). Flytox speaks of support in the air, but the reaction does not need support to exert a thrust in both directions (throttle on one side, the plane on the other) ...

[Christophe]

Christophe, the question is not whether there is good or bad grip of the wheels on the carpet, since they are idle wheels, unable to transmit any power whatsoever to the aircraft (except marginally). Flytox speaks of support in the air, but the reaction does not need support to exert a thrust in both directions (throttle on one side, the plane on the other) ...

Ah no it's gone again !! M'enfin Ahmed what are you talking about? It is painful or insulting to repeat the same things without reading the counter arguments (the example of the bicycle). Do you think I didn't understand what you meant?

With a sufficiently loaded freewheel you can brake or stop a treadmill, right? Isn't that power transmission?

If your reasoning was correct then no freewheel could transmit power through a treadmill: Doesn't a wheelchair move on a treadmill? Isn't that power transmission?

Anyway the statement was as follows: the conveyor belt permanently CANCELS the apparent speed of the plane! But we take our heads on the possibility of cancellation while it was admitted in the hypotheses ! Proof that no one reads the statements correctly! Even here !

The plane's freewheel will only go crazy at takeoff ... when the lift cancels out the weight!

ps: on an airliner, the rear wheels are freewheels, not crazy ... and even the front wheel is not crazy since it is directing ... but hey that's not the subject ...

[Ahmed]

There is friction, obviously, but not really any noticeable power transmission ... Your wheelchair would be fixed with a piece of string that would easily cancel this weak training ...
- How do you want to stop anything with a freewheel? It could be the deformation of the tire under heavy pressure, but it is not ...
- What is the difference between free and mad in terms of power (not) transmitted?