747 Conveyor Belt (again)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 Conveyor Belt (again)
I feel quite stupid asking this which I assume has already been dealt with however I am prepared for plenty of flak. The question being - If a 747 is placed on or over a very wide conveyor belt that is travelling in the opposite direction to a/c wheels . Will it take off?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V1
It's a great question and needs to be better explained.
In theory (and it's just that because no one has a conveyer belt wide enough)
Yes.
The problem is with Accelerate/Stop distances. Should an engine fall below V1 the length of conveyor belt required to bring the aircraft to a halt will be greater than the length of the belt itself, and will result in an overrun.
As an aside, an Airbus won't takeoff, due to Control Law protections. They've tried to make them idiot proof...
In theory (and it's just that because no one has a conveyer belt wide enough)
Yes.
The problem is with Accelerate/Stop distances. Should an engine fall below V1 the length of conveyor belt required to bring the aircraft to a halt will be greater than the length of the belt itself, and will result in an overrun.
As an aside, an Airbus won't takeoff, due to Control Law protections. They've tried to make them idiot proof...
Oh gawd - not again!
Quick version - the question has no answer because it contains fallacies, and any attempted answer must make one of two assumptions to remove the fallacy (thereby making it an answer to a different question). The two optional assumptions will produce two different answers ("yes" and "no" respectively).
Summary:
The aeroplane will only take off if it moves with respect to the AIR. The aeroplane really doesn't care much about how fast the ground is rolling past beneath its wheels.
The principle fallacy is the idea that if an aeroplane is propelling itself forwards at 20mph on a runway that is moving backwards at 20mph that will stop the aeroplane. It won't. There might be a miniscule reduction in speed due to increased dynamic friction in the wheels, but it wouldn't really be measureable.
So that's the core fallacy in the question as it is usually phrased* - the rolling runway would not have the effect that the question setter claims, so the whole questi0on is just bunkum. To answer the question you need to assume either:
a. The rolling runway would stop the aeroplane; or
b. it wouldn't
In case (a) the aeroplane wouldn't move forwards, so it wouldn't take off.
In case (b) it WOULD move forwards, so it WOULD take off.
But either assumption makes it the answer to a different question.
Fiunal thought - I understand there is an bill going through parliament which will legalise hunting people who post this question on forums with dogs. Or at least if there isn't there should be...
* "....on a conveyor belt runway configured to move backward as fast as the aeroplane is moving forwards" or "....on a conveyor belt runway configured to move backwards fast enough to stop the aeroplane moving forwards"
Quick version - the question has no answer because it contains fallacies, and any attempted answer must make one of two assumptions to remove the fallacy (thereby making it an answer to a different question). The two optional assumptions will produce two different answers ("yes" and "no" respectively).
Summary:
The aeroplane will only take off if it moves with respect to the AIR. The aeroplane really doesn't care much about how fast the ground is rolling past beneath its wheels.
The principle fallacy is the idea that if an aeroplane is propelling itself forwards at 20mph on a runway that is moving backwards at 20mph that will stop the aeroplane. It won't. There might be a miniscule reduction in speed due to increased dynamic friction in the wheels, but it wouldn't really be measureable.
So that's the core fallacy in the question as it is usually phrased* - the rolling runway would not have the effect that the question setter claims, so the whole questi0on is just bunkum. To answer the question you need to assume either:
a. The rolling runway would stop the aeroplane; or
b. it wouldn't
In case (a) the aeroplane wouldn't move forwards, so it wouldn't take off.
In case (b) it WOULD move forwards, so it WOULD take off.
But either assumption makes it the answer to a different question.
Fiunal thought - I understand there is an bill going through parliament which will legalise hunting people who post this question on forums with dogs. Or at least if there isn't there should be...
* "....on a conveyor belt runway configured to move backward as fast as the aeroplane is moving forwards" or "....on a conveyor belt runway configured to move backwards fast enough to stop the aeroplane moving forwards"
On and over are different things - which do you mean? One means "wheels touching the belt" - the other means "wheels not in contact with the belt/ground" - a flyby.
How fast is the conveyor belt moving? 10 kts? 150 kts?
Aircraft fly (or not) based primarily on airspeed (excepting VTOLs/helos). Ground speed (speed relative to the ground - or in this case, the belt) is mostly irrelevant.
Scenario 1: 747 needs (let us say) 150 knots airspeed to take off. Assume conveyor belt is moving tailwards at 150 knots (effectively, a 150-knot tailwind). The 747 will still need to reach a total net airspeed of 150 knots, or 300 knots relative to the conveyor belt. And then it will fly (assuming the tires don't fail travelling at 300 knots along the conveyor belt).
Scenario 2: Assume the conveyor belt is moving 20 knots tailwards. Then the 747 will need to accelerate to 170 knots relative to the belt, for an airspeed of 150 knots (170 knots minus "tailwind" of 20 knots).
Scenario 3: reverse the direction of th conveyor belt so that it carries the 747 forward. Leave the 747 throttles at idle and the brakes set, and increase the belt speed to 150 knots. The 747 now has an airspeed of 150 knots, and can lift off (BUT will not retain its forward speed of 150 knots once it loses contact with the belt - the source of its speed - better throttle up quickly!)
How fast is the conveyor belt moving? 10 kts? 150 kts?
Aircraft fly (or not) based primarily on airspeed (excepting VTOLs/helos). Ground speed (speed relative to the ground - or in this case, the belt) is mostly irrelevant.
Scenario 1: 747 needs (let us say) 150 knots airspeed to take off. Assume conveyor belt is moving tailwards at 150 knots (effectively, a 150-knot tailwind). The 747 will still need to reach a total net airspeed of 150 knots, or 300 knots relative to the conveyor belt. And then it will fly (assuming the tires don't fail travelling at 300 knots along the conveyor belt).
Scenario 2: Assume the conveyor belt is moving 20 knots tailwards. Then the 747 will need to accelerate to 170 knots relative to the belt, for an airspeed of 150 knots (170 knots minus "tailwind" of 20 knots).
Scenario 3: reverse the direction of th conveyor belt so that it carries the 747 forward. Leave the 747 throttles at idle and the brakes set, and increase the belt speed to 150 knots. The 747 now has an airspeed of 150 knots, and can lift off (BUT will not retain its forward speed of 150 knots once it loses contact with the belt - the source of its speed - better throttle up quickly!)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answers to this question often seem to assume motive power comes from the wheel/belt interface, which as any pilot knows, does not. Cars and tractors, yes, aircraft, no.
The principal limiting factor in preventing forward movement is the friction of the rolling tires and wheels against the surface of the belt. Although quantifiable*, that friction is minuscule compared to available thrust.
*Rolling friction and brake drag are why a transport category aircraft will not begin rolling forward after brake release without applying thrust above idle.
It is helpful to picture the scenario from a point off the side of the aircraft. In order to keep the aircraft from moving forward with thrust applied, the belt would need to run at such a great speed that the friction of the freewheeling tires prevents the aircraft from moving forward. If this belt could be ran at such a speed, tire failure would occur prior to reaching the limiting forward friction requirement.
Also, it is helpful to recall thrust provided by the fan air and (lesser) turbine output works primarily in relation to the air mass surrounding the aircraft, not the ground upon which it sets.
The principal limiting factor in preventing forward movement is the friction of the rolling tires and wheels against the surface of the belt. Although quantifiable*, that friction is minuscule compared to available thrust.
*Rolling friction and brake drag are why a transport category aircraft will not begin rolling forward after brake release without applying thrust above idle.
It is helpful to picture the scenario from a point off the side of the aircraft. In order to keep the aircraft from moving forward with thrust applied, the belt would need to run at such a great speed that the friction of the freewheeling tires prevents the aircraft from moving forward. If this belt could be ran at such a speed, tire failure would occur prior to reaching the limiting forward friction requirement.
Also, it is helpful to recall thrust provided by the fan air and (lesser) turbine output works primarily in relation to the air mass surrounding the aircraft, not the ground upon which it sets.
Last edited by vapilot2004; 18th Jan 2018 at 19:12.
Mythbusters did an episode on this a few years back - I'm sure it's on YouTube somewhere. They do a good job of explaining things in layman's terms.
But the short answer, as others have noted, is the conveyor belt doesn't do squat - airplane performance is governed by airspeed, not ground speed.
But the short answer, as others have noted, is the conveyor belt doesn't do squat - airplane performance is governed by airspeed, not ground speed.
Sheesh - how many times do we have to explain this!!!
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well it all depends on the frame of reference doesn't it.
if the runway start and end points are drawn on the conveyor belt and the plane starts stationary on the belt it is indeed a tailwind. but that's even less sane than that question.
also maximum wheel speeds can get out of the specs i'd say.
so might bust some wheels before taking off therefore not take off
now i feel silly having replied in this thread, oh well!
if the runway start and end points are drawn on the conveyor belt and the plane starts stationary on the belt it is indeed a tailwind. but that's even less sane than that question.
also maximum wheel speeds can get out of the specs i'd say.
so might bust some wheels before taking off therefore not take off
now i feel silly having replied in this thread, oh well!
We have wind gradient due to friction with the surface in the real world, and wall effect in wind tunnels which is much the same. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a moving conveyor belt would induce some movement in the air above it. Clearly the belt would need to be going a lot faster than normal take off speed to induce an airflow at wing level that is at take off speed, and the comments about tyre speed would apply. The aircraft would need to be restrained at some fixed point ahead of the conveyor belt to prevent it being shot backwards until it is in the air or engine thrust carefully balanced to match the drag from the induced airflow acting on the airframe.
As all the others have said, it is airflow over the wing that generates the lift that allows a conventional aircraft to fly, not speed on the runway. Here is a hang glider proving the point:
As all the others have said, it is airflow over the wing that generates the lift that allows a conventional aircraft to fly, not speed on the runway. Here is a hang glider proving the point:
Last edited by Mechta; 18th Jan 2018 at 22:00.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or has forgotten his flying basics...
Quoting a previous post by Pasir...
Quoting a previous post by Pasir...
Originally Posted by Pasir
I was a Junior with KLM at Croydon Airport in '46 and would wander around what I feel certain were JU52s in various...
Now, if the 747 was a cargo ship with a full load of canaries on board, and they all took wing at the same time, that there 747 would levitate off that conveyor belt in no time at all. 
We have wind gradient due to friction with the surface in the real world, and wall effect in wind tunnels which is much the same. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a moving conveyor belt would induce some movement in the air above it. Clearly the belt would need to be going a lot faster than normal take off speed to induce an airflow at wing level that is at take off speed, and the comments about tyre speed would apply.
Here is a hang glider proving the point:
Last edited by PDR1; 19th Jan 2018 at 07:21.