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
The debates I've seen mostly seem to be due to different interpretations of a loosely defined system. Hypothetically, you could rig a treadmill to alter it's speed to always offset the aircraft movement. Note that this doesn't mean the treadmill moves backwards at the same speed the aircraft would move forwards as the undercarriage isn't perfectly efficient at transferring energy. In fact, if the aircraft manages to produce any lift then the contact will be reduced, requiring drastically increased treadmill speed to prevent forward motion (tending towards infinite speed as lift approaches weight). The question then becomes whether the aircraft can produce lift without travelling forwards. Again, this depends on the assumptions in the system. You could have a cartesian movement of zero but a notable airspeed, as the treadmill itself will generate airflow. A common misconception is that an unpowered, frictionless treadmill would rotate to cancel any forward motion of the aircraft. Instead, the only force potentially pushing such a treadmill backwards would come from as a reaction to the aircraft moving forwards, which cannot therefore generate an opposing force on the aircraft.
@@adamrobinson6951 agreed. I think that the interesting way to word the problem is just a rocket on wheels on a powered treadmill that matches the wheels speed. The rocket being horizontal (no upward force component). In that case the rocket would stay still. In the video the plane engine has an upward component, that's how it generates lift.
It's almost like 2 guys, one of which doesn't like being in front of the camera, and constantly having to deal with pain in the ass fans trying to make or break myths by their ridiculous standards (see splitting an arrow) of a 20 year old show, MAYBE they aren't gonna articulate everything flawlessly and hindsight is 20/20.
Im so happy that Mythbusters has come to UA-cam. 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
No, the plane should not have a propellar, the propellar creates enough thrust to generate lift. I think the experiment is flawed. But yes, a conveyor belt can provide lift to a plane.
@@Lattrodon It will, if you go fast enough and there is a hill or bump on the road. It won't go far (by moderna airplane standards) and the landing will most likely be rough on both machine and occupants.
@@sudheerahewapathirana2331so What you should do is Chain it to the ground so that it want move an inch forward which was the whole idea in the first place that they flawed. Because you could see the plane moving forward… which the whole point of the experiment is can a plane take of standing still. Which no obviously not. So for a redo. They should chain the fucker to the ground and voila if your theory is correct it should take off by it self just from the propeller.
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.
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.
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)
@@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.
I think a better way to explain it is like this, the conveyer belt could be going FASTER than the plane and the plane will still fly. This myth is hyper focused on the parable of "who wins immovable object vs unstoppable force" but the two forces at play are not interacting with each other at all. The myth cannot exist with our reality on it's face, not that I don't see why people believe it. I remember when I saw this episode as a kid I was sure the plane wouldn't take off, but that's because I was hyper focused on what the myth was and it's isolated idea rather than understanding everything at play in the actual test environment. This makes this myth fascinating to me cause it feels the most mythical out of any of the tests, the story is so appealing to consider that it overshadows the real factors at play. I hope this might clear things up for anyone still confused, look more into V speeds specifically cause those are calculated airspeeds for maximum flight safety which might help contextualize this all better because aeronautics can be confusing lol.
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.
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 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)
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
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.
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
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)
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.
@@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).
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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
@@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.
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.
Adam and Jamie are NOT engineers or scientists. The word "science" has nothing to do with Mythbuster which is an entertainment show hosted by 2 jokers.
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 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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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).
Still, they did not match the speed of the plane, the plane moved faster, it gained its wind speed. Yup, car went 22mph but plane moved 44mph (probably) so it was not done right as discussed that the conveyor must match the speed.
People who think the wheels matter - how do you think the plane keeps flying when it's in the air? All the wheels are for is keeping the fuselage off the ground when landing and parking. How do you think float planes, or ski planes or whatever works?
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.
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
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 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...
Both parties are right. In reality the plane will always take off, but if we keep consistent to what the question asks then the plane wouldnt take off. This scenario is actually impossible, because the belt can never actually match the speed of the planes wheels, so it's voids the riddle as a belt moving backwards at 10mph means wheels moving forward are actually going 20mph
10mph from the forward motion of the aircraft and 10mph from the belt in reverse technically meets the criteria of matching wheel speed. The confusion lies with the multiple interpretations of the question.
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 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...
@@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.
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 ^^
I notice they also don’t even mention what type of radiation its being exposed too. I.e alpha beta gamma. My memories blanking from tiredness but a google search would get the answer easily enough since they mention the source’s material but there also wouldn’t have any reason not to of said so on the show. Unless it’s another producer decision thing?.
Plane on a conveyor, no brainer. It is the wind over the wings that makes it fly not the wheels going round, hence aircraft carriers turn into wind for planes to take off. Who thought it would not fly??
Inherently it depends on the friction between tarp and plane, if there is no friction, the airplanes inertia is able to keep it in place and the propeller is able to speed it up and the plane takes off. If there is a lot of friction the tarp pulls the plane and regardless of anything else it cannot take off. Myth not busted, but dependant on the material of the tarp
Friction should only be an issue here if the propellers somehow end up moving in a medium that is much thicker than air. Otherwise the propellers will still generate lift to counteract the friction on the tarp because it is pushing the plane upwards. Friction would only be a problem if the force moving the plane is coming from the wheels but those wheels are actually just free spinning tyres with brakes so regardless of how much grip their friction on the tarp may have on the plane, the propellers will still generate enough air pressure to push on the wings to end up lifting it off the ground
@@julianmrgl9568 it actually wont since a propeller constantly speeding up is constantly going to apply the air pressure needed to get off the ground. let's say that at perfect rest the wheels of the plane are 100% immobilized because the friction is perfectly gripping onto the wheels. now let's start the propeller which is generating at the moment the air pressure to slowly lift the plane. this will cause the amount of friction holding the wheels in place to change regardless of how well the wheels are stuck because the propellers will now start generating a force pointing upwards and not just one parallel to the ground. this will continue until the plane eventually overcomes enough friction from gravity that the wheels will just eventually lift off the ground because the PROPELLERS have generated enough lift to make ground contact a non issue Sorry if this doesn't make too much sense, I dropped out of a physics degree before anyone could teach me any kind of science communication skills, though I'll be happy to try and "ex-plane" things more if it's not clear enough
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😂
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.
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.
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.
Will a plane fly at a conveyor belt? Yes but thats because the question isnt that well made. When we talk about a conveyor belt what we think about first is the object keeping at the same place but the plane will move forward and not keep in the same place, thats why it will fly.
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.
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.
There is a way to use a conveyor belt to get planes in the air or landing without loosing rubber: the entire runway as a conveyor belt and the plane stationary on the belt until meeting rotation speed. It could reduce noise from taking off plane and also from landing planes. But it would surely kill energy efficiency.
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
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 ?
@@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.
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
@@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.
@@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)
@@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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
The absolutely easiest way to understand why the threadmill idea is ignorant (not stupid, but close) is to consider the effect wind has on takeoff and landing distances. There are competitions for extremely short takeoffs and landing where the planes just need a tiny headwind to go straight up and then down again. So there is actually no "takeoff speed" relative to the ground, as groundspeed is irrelevant.
you have to find a way to see what happens to a plane on a treadmill if it did not give any thrust to the engine . It is actually same logic of clearing a table cloth from a table without dropping anything. You have to have enough sudden force (G-Force) to not to spill anything or move the plane backwards. And let me tell you you can not create that force all the time unless you are accelerating non stop . So as a result eventually depending on the weight of the plane and the force of the treadmill the plane will start moving backwards so it is going to need x2 amount of thrust to achieve the necessary speed ... It is not that difficult if you know what G-Force and it's effects are...
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.
The problem with the conveyor belt is that it's not capable of pulling the plane backwards as it's too heavy. You need something for the plane to have to fight against. That's the myth. The trick would just rip the tarp and not move the plane at all so to the plane, there is no belt there. It's on a non-moving ground so it takes off normally.
The point is that the conveyer will NEVER pull the plane backwards, unless you physically stop the wheels from spinning. The wheels are completely decoupled from the thrust of the plane. The same way the wheels on your desk chair are.
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)...
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.
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.
@@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.
1200 feet is nowhere near the world's largest conveyor belt! Lots of quarries and mines have belts several km, and in Morocco they have one 50km long moving phosphate rock! It's not event he widest either, Kooragang Shiploaders in Australia have belts 5m wide!
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)
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?"
I imagined the propeller was to push air to the plane, but had never read about it. In theory then, you could have a plane with no wheels and it would take off 🤔. You would think that the plane needs to move forward so that the air of the propeller is added the airflow caused by the movement of the plane through it. But what I got from this is that the air from the propeller is enough to lift the plane.
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.
@@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.
@@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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
The plane taking off from the threadmill has to be the most stupidest thing they ever teste, ofcourse.... its a fucking endigne pushing air, but thats why i love them
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 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
Some people are really huffing copium saying even if the plane stayed stationary it could take off with strong winds, yes it could, but you are just cherry picking excuses to make your reasoning seem smarter, if there is no air passing under the wings and if the plane cannot accelerate forward to generate airflow under the wings it will not take off, it is pretty much dependant on the wheels until you reach the take off speed, an appropriate example would be wheels with no friction on a runway with no wind on a perfectly level and smooth surface, the wheels would just spin and the plane wouldn't take off. This representation of this problem is not reflected properly on this experiment, as, the plane simply accelerates forward, the actual question suggests that it matches the wheels that the plane is stationary. You'd first of all need to disprove the plane can't move when the wheels get the exact opposite force exerted on them
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
I know right. It's basic Newtonian physics. The engines generate thrust which acts on the body of the plane in accordance with Newton's 3rd law. The wheels basically have nothing to do with it.
@@calebfuller4713 You can't say "it's basic physics" and then bring up specific knowledge of how a plane works and the principles that get it in the air. That's not basic physics, that's aeronautics nerdery. The average person doesn't know what a plane's propellers/engines are for or how they work.
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.
The explained it wrong and the pilot said "If there's no air over the wing, it won't take off." So he's right. This is an idiotic "myth" that makes no sense.
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.
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.
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
conveyor belt could be going 1000km/h in the opposite direction of the plane and the plane could still take off. A plane takes off depending on its air speed over the wings. A conveyor only changes ground speed. If you want to stop of plane from taking off you need to cancel it's air speed.
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.
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)
I cant believe how DUMB this Plane take off myth is. That pilot shouldn't be flying a plane if he thought the plane wouldn't take off. The propellor alone creates some lift as the wind passes over the Wings and Elevator. The surface the plane is on is irrelevant. You can even have a plane moving backwards and still remain in the air, its about air speed over the wings surfaces, not ground speed.
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
Exactly my thoughts. The wheels spin twice as fast, but everything else remains the same as a normal take off.
It's basic physics that if you take off the wheels were slower than 44 mph. You should measure the wheels speed too.
The debates I've seen mostly seem to be due to different interpretations of a loosely defined system.
Hypothetically, you could rig a treadmill to alter it's speed to always offset the aircraft movement. Note that this doesn't mean the treadmill moves backwards at the same speed the aircraft would move forwards as the undercarriage isn't perfectly efficient at transferring energy. In fact, if the aircraft manages to produce any lift then the contact will be reduced, requiring drastically increased treadmill speed to prevent forward motion (tending towards infinite speed as lift approaches weight).
The question then becomes whether the aircraft can produce lift without travelling forwards. Again, this depends on the assumptions in the system. You could have a cartesian movement of zero but a notable airspeed, as the treadmill itself will generate airflow.
A common misconception is that an unpowered, frictionless treadmill would rotate to cancel any forward motion of the aircraft. Instead, the only force potentially pushing such a treadmill backwards would come from as a reaction to the aircraft moving forwards, which cannot therefore generate an opposing force on the aircraft.
@@adamrobinson6951 agreed. I think that the interesting way to word the problem is just a rocket on wheels on a powered treadmill that matches the wheels speed. The rocket being horizontal (no upward force component). In that case the rocket would stay still.
In the video the plane engine has an upward component, that's how it generates lift.
It's almost like 2 guys, one of which doesn't like being in front of the camera, and constantly having to deal with pain in the ass fans trying to make or break myths by their ridiculous standards (see splitting an arrow) of a 20 year old show, MAYBE they aren't gonna articulate everything flawlessly and hindsight is 20/20.
Im so happy that Mythbusters has come to UA-cam. 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
rest in peace grant, you are very missed
How did grant pass away ?
iirc brain tumor
@@zockinatorhd3599 oh what a shame …what a talented young man he was 😔
@@zockinatorhd3599 thought it was aneurysm? Either way rest in peace. Gone too soon.
@@LeSkateWA Yes it is. F
Kari changed her hairstyle so many times in this episode
please like this comment so top comment won't be insulting the pilot for believing the highly debated myth
I liked it so it would be 69 likes (at the time of making my comment)@@christianstorms3950
There is a slight possibility they didn't film all myths in the same sequence as they were put in the episodes.
If conveyor speed mattered at all, then aircrafts would need no wings to take off, just wheels.
I'm surprised my car doesn't take flight on the highway
No, the plane should not have a propellar, the propellar creates enough thrust to generate lift. I think the experiment is flawed. But yes, a conveyor belt can provide lift to a plane.
@@Lattrodon It will, if you go fast enough and there is a hill or bump on the road. It won't go far (by moderna airplane standards) and the landing will most likely be rough on both machine and occupants.
@@sudheerahewapathirana2331so What you should do is Chain it to the ground so that it want move an inch forward which was the whole idea in the first place that they flawed. Because you could see the plane moving forward… which the whole point of the experiment is can a plane take of standing still. Which no obviously not. So for a redo. They should chain the fucker to the ground and voila if your theory is correct it should take off by it self just from the propeller.
@@LattrodonYour car is designed to be glued on the ground
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.
why?
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.
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)
Well said. Planes fly in the air, spin the wheels as fast as you like.
This is scary that people need visual aids to understand basic physics.
@@motherpigeon1582Not at all. People need to be educated. Visual aids help in all sorts of scenarios to help educate people.
@@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.
I think a better way to explain it is like this, the conveyer belt could be going FASTER than the plane and the plane will still fly. This myth is hyper focused on the parable of "who wins immovable object vs unstoppable force" but the two forces at play are not interacting with each other at all. The myth cannot exist with our reality on it's face, not that I don't see why people believe it. I remember when I saw this episode as a kid I was sure the plane wouldn't take off, but that's because I was hyper focused on what the myth was and it's isolated idea rather than understanding everything at play in the actual test environment. This makes this myth fascinating to me cause it feels the most mythical out of any of the tests, the story is so appealing to consider that it overshadows the real factors at play. I hope this might clear things up for anyone still confused, look more into V speeds specifically cause those are calculated airspeeds for maximum flight safety which might help contextualize this all better because aeronautics can be confusing lol.
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.
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
@@i3bigc3i how can the plane move forward using the propellers ? Isn't the conveyor belt constantly matching the wheel speed ?
@@i3bigc3ithe plane can't move forward if it's being pulled back.
@@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)
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
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.
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
7:30 Perhaps one of the earliest introduction of German roach to the US
Do they not sterilize terminal insects before shipping them out to labs etc.?
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)
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.
@@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).
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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
@@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.
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.
Adam and Jamie are NOT engineers or scientists. The word "science" has nothing to do with Mythbuster which is an entertainment show hosted by 2 jokers.
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.
Germany gets down to -15 Celsius, well below freezing. So that’s obviously not true. They must hibernate or something.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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).
@@funkyjbass7762 They should have done a scale test in a small wind tunnel, to show the difference between ground speed and air speed.
Still, they did not match the speed of the plane, the plane moved faster, it gained its wind speed. Yup, car went 22mph but plane moved 44mph (probably) so it was not done right as discussed that the conveyor must match the speed.
All anyone ever has to explain is that wheels are 100% irrelevant to the planes airspeed. And the airspeed is all that matters.
People who think the wheels matter - how do you think the plane keeps flying when it's in the air? All the wheels are for is keeping the fuselage off the ground when landing and parking.
How do you think float planes, or ski planes or whatever works?
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.
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
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
To qoute the Hyneman "This myth is so stupid it is embarrassing", anyone with grade school physics should understand this.
@eljaibas16 I knew this from the start of the clip. Only watched this for grant.
@@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...
Both parties are right. In reality the plane will always take off, but if we keep consistent to what the question asks then the plane wouldnt take off. This scenario is actually impossible, because the belt can never actually match the speed of the planes wheels, so it's voids the riddle as a belt moving backwards at 10mph means wheels moving forward are actually going 20mph
10mph from the forward motion of the aircraft and 10mph from the belt in reverse technically meets the criteria of matching wheel speed.
The confusion lies with the multiple interpretations of the question.
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.
Might be the most unnecessary myth ever tried on the show.
@@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...
@@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.
@@emperorfaiz although it isn't really a myth, just people being dumb
Myth:
a widely held but false belief or idea.
44:54 Pilot Mark needs to hand in his pilots licence because he has no idea how his aircraft works.
Yeah what a dumbass.
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 ^^
At least half of the people do. All scientists use metric, including engineers, etc.. It's the stupid government that's the problem.
@@markjohnson7887 Not really. The US government promoted the metric system under Jimmy Carter for example. It's the people who resisted the change.
I notice they also don’t even mention what type of radiation its being exposed too. I.e alpha beta gamma.
My memories blanking from tiredness but a google search would get the answer easily enough since they mention the source’s material but there also wouldn’t have any reason not to of said so on the show.
Unless it’s another producer decision thing?.
16:02 someone's hungry 😂
yep, i did not at all think about the fact that airplanes don't have powered wheels, lol
The intro already gets me hahaha love it
Plane on a conveyor, no brainer. It is the wind over the wings that makes it fly not the wheels going round, hence aircraft carriers turn into wind for planes to take off. Who thought it would not fly??
Inherently it depends on the friction between tarp and plane, if there is no friction, the airplanes inertia is able to keep it in place and the propeller is able to speed it up and the plane takes off. If there is a lot of friction the tarp pulls the plane and regardless of anything else it cannot take off. Myth not busted, but dependant on the material of the tarp
Friction should only be an issue here if the propellers somehow end up moving in a medium that is much thicker than air. Otherwise the propellers will still generate lift to counteract the friction on the tarp because it is pushing the plane upwards. Friction would only be a problem if the force moving the plane is coming from the wheels but those wheels are actually just free spinning tyres with brakes so regardless of how much grip their friction on the tarp may have on the plane, the propellers will still generate enough air pressure to push on the wings to end up lifting it off the ground
@@UnknowinglyDerpy well if there is too much friction between the tires and tarp won't that change everything? Not arguing just curious
@@julianmrgl9568 it actually wont since a propeller constantly speeding up is constantly going to apply the air pressure needed to get off the ground.
let's say that at perfect rest the wheels of the plane are 100% immobilized because the friction is perfectly gripping onto the wheels.
now let's start the propeller which is generating at the moment the air pressure to slowly lift the plane. this will cause the amount of friction holding the wheels in place to change regardless of how well the wheels are stuck because the propellers will now start generating a force pointing upwards and not just one parallel to the ground.
this will continue until the plane eventually overcomes enough friction from gravity that the wheels will just eventually lift off the ground because the PROPELLERS have generated enough lift to make ground contact a non issue
Sorry if this doesn't make too much sense, I dropped out of a physics degree before anyone could teach me any kind of science communication skills, though I'll be happy to try and "ex-plane" things more if it's not clear enough
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😂
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.
Thanks for the uploads, greetings from Colombia
😂😂😂😂
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.
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.
Will a plane fly at a conveyor belt? Yes but thats because the question isnt that well made.
When we talk about a conveyor belt what we think about first is the object keeping at the same place but the plane will move forward and not keep in the same place, thats why it will fly.
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.
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.
There is a way to use a conveyor belt to get planes in the air or landing without loosing rubber: the entire runway as a conveyor belt and the plane stationary on the belt until meeting rotation speed. It could reduce noise from taking off plane and also from landing planes. But it would surely kill energy efficiency.
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
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 ?
@@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.
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
@@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.
@@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)
Anyone got reminded of a Pokemon returning to it's ball when you hear the sound effects of their cutaways? XD
I dont believe that a pilot that knows how a plane works would believe that myth
That really blew me away hahaha
The pilot mentioned air going over the wings before the test, so he wasn't wrong
@@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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
It’s quite amazing how many people are struggling with such a simple concept.
I think many assumed the plane would be stationary
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.
finally, humanity can rest
The plane myth is sort of like putting wheels on a boat.
The absolutely easiest way to understand why the threadmill idea is ignorant (not stupid, but close) is to consider the effect wind has on takeoff and landing distances.
There are competitions for extremely short takeoffs and landing where the planes just need a tiny headwind to go straight up and then down again.
So there is actually no "takeoff speed" relative to the ground, as groundspeed is irrelevant.
you have to find a way to see what happens to a plane on a treadmill if it did not give any thrust to the engine . It is actually same logic of clearing a table cloth from a table without dropping anything. You have to have enough sudden force (G-Force) to not to spill anything or move the plane backwards. And let me tell you you can not create that force all the time unless you are accelerating non stop . So as a result eventually depending on the weight of the plane and the force of the treadmill the plane will start moving backwards so it is going to need x2 amount of thrust to achieve the necessary speed ... It is not that difficult if you know what G-Force and it's effects are...
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.
Planes dont take of when you apply the brakes on solid ground too, what would that proffe?
The problem with the conveyor belt is that it's not capable of pulling the plane backwards as it's too heavy.
You need something for the plane to have to fight against.
That's the myth.
The trick would just rip the tarp and not move the plane at all so to the plane, there is no belt there.
It's on a non-moving ground so it takes off normally.
The point is that the conveyer will NEVER pull the plane backwards, unless you physically stop the wheels from spinning.
The wheels are completely decoupled from the thrust of the plane. The same way the wheels on your desk chair are.
You should test reproduction capacity of the bugs post radiation exposure to ensure they could survive long term.
24:40 that's fucking rad
what might have been more to try is can a plane take off is a fast enough wind is going over the wings, can it take off in a 30mph wind.
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)...
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.
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.
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.
@@JcGross93 Christ, can you relax?
@@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.
who'd thought 15 - 20 years ago that an RC plane would one day be the scariest weapon in the history or the world?
That one time mythbusters gave bugs cancer
a classic
1200 feet is nowhere near the world's largest conveyor belt! Lots of quarries and mines have belts several km, and in Morocco they have one 50km long moving phosphate rock! It's not event he widest either, Kooragang Shiploaders in Australia have belts 5m wide!
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)
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?"
I imagined the propeller was to push air to the plane, but had never read about it. In theory then, you could have a plane with no wheels and it would take off 🤔. You would think that the plane needs to move forward so that the air of the propeller is added the airflow caused by the movement of the plane through it. But what I got from this is that the air from the propeller is enough to lift the plane.
a sea plane can take off without wheels. for the love of God I don't understand how this is even a thing.
Because you're stupid...
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.
@@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.
@@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?
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
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!!
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.
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.
@@jagheterbanan Indeed, it seems a very unlikely situation for that reason.
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.
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 !
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.
To bad they didn't have the worlds longest conveyor belt. The bagger 288 bucket wheel excavator has one over 3 miles long.
42:42 what the heck lol
rest in peace grant. sucks you're not around anymore
The only thing you need to realise for this is if you can’t move, the wings can’t create lift
You also have to realize that a conveyor belt can’t stop an airplane from moving.
Yes but the conveyer belt had a jumbo in it - you need a bigger plane! :D :D :D
Air speed vs ground speed
The plane taking off from the threadmill has to be the most stupidest thing they ever teste, ofcourse.... its a fucking endigne pushing air, but thats why i love them
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..
At what distance?
@@anderssorenson9998 The sign in about 200ft outside the security fence of the Plant, the sign is actually about coastal ferns
@@Wanton110 Is it Sellafield? If yes it's much worse than that.
@@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
Some people are really huffing copium saying even if the plane stayed stationary it could take off with strong winds, yes it could, but you are just cherry picking excuses to make your reasoning seem smarter, if there is no air passing under the wings and if the plane cannot accelerate forward to generate airflow under the wings it will not take off, it is pretty much dependant on the wheels until you reach the take off speed, an appropriate example would be wheels with no friction on a runway with no wind on a perfectly level and smooth surface, the wheels would just spin and the plane wouldn't take off. This representation of this problem is not reflected properly on this experiment, as, the plane simply accelerates forward, the actual question suggests that it matches the wheels that the plane is stationary. You'd first of all need to disprove the plane can't move when the wheels get the exact opposite force exerted on them
Prime television era
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.
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?
They matched the takeoff speed since matching it at every moment during acceleration is extremely hard/impossible.
i've been saying tarpaulin wrong the entire time. i though it was TAR-pau-lin, turns out it's tar-PAU-lin
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.
They should have tried putting the foam filled car in the car crusher at the scrapyard!
29:37 😂😂😂😂
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.
The question of the myth is basically “can a conveyor belt stop an airplane from moving forward?”
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
Seriously. It's not hard to figure out the plane would take off.
@@markjohnson7887 I know right?!
you need to consider a lot of people don't have high school physics
I know right. It's basic Newtonian physics. The engines generate thrust which acts on the body of the plane in accordance with Newton's 3rd law. The wheels basically have nothing to do with it.
@@calebfuller4713 You can't say "it's basic physics" and then bring up specific knowledge of how a plane works and the principles that get it in the air. That's not basic physics, that's aeronautics nerdery. The average person doesn't know what a plane's propellers/engines are for or how they work.
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.
Remember when kari did the hot nurse photoshoot?
That pilot should have his license revoked for massive stupidity.
The explained it wrong and the pilot said "If there's no air over the wing, it won't take off." So he's right.
This is an idiotic "myth" that makes no sense.
if the plane would pull its own belt it would not take off ever
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 😓😓😓
I'm amazed that there are conveyortards at all. The plane flies in the air.
He was always an accident waiting to happen. No wonder why.
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.
It's amazing that the pilot does not understand how a plane works
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.
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.
He’s right, execution of the experiment is totally wrong
same with car mechanics. some of them think wrong. lol
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
so the pilot doesn't even know why his plane is flying...🤣
Thay from Germany Lol greetingz from Germany ^^ xDD love Mysbasters i am looking thoes guys since 20 Years like :D
conveyor belt could be going 1000km/h in the opposite direction of the plane and the plane could still take off. A plane takes off depending on its air speed over the wings. A conveyor only changes ground speed. If you want to stop of plane from taking off you need to cancel it's air speed.
Wish they would have measured the airplane wheels rpm/speed on a normal takeoff Vs the conveyor take off. :(
Wheel speed means nothing, wouldn't matter how fast you moved that conveyor belt. The plans forward by air trust.
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.
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)
@@i3bigc3iit's not moving at all through the air if it's still on the ground.
@@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.
radroaches
1000 Rad = 10 Sievert
How does mythbusters adam look both younger and older than tested adam
I cant believe how DUMB this Plane take off myth is.
That pilot shouldn't be flying a plane if he thought the plane wouldn't take off.
The propellor alone creates some lift as the wind passes over the Wings and Elevator.
The surface the plane is on is irrelevant.
You can even have a plane moving backwards and still remain in the air, its about air speed over the wings surfaces, not ground speed.
Meanwhile aerodynamists laughing at the corner🤣🤣🤣FSI
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.
Pilot sounds like zoidberg