# Airplane taxiing **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 22, 2007, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airplane-taxiing/393276 "2007-02-22T22:01:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DracheCool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8c91f0/32.png) [@DracheCool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DracheCool)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airplane-taxiing/393276/1 "2007-02-22T22:01:31Z")
I think the logic behind Cecil’s explanation is lacking in the matter of airflow. If the thrust of the engine were applied only to airflow over the wing, then the plane would indeed take off. However, most of the lift is generated by the airflow over the ENTIRE wing, not just the part of the wing over which the thrusted-by-the-engine air is moving. Indeed, on an aircraft with jet engines mounted under the wings, the airflow directly impelled by the engine does not touch the wing at all. The thrust of the engines is about moving the entire aircraft forward, which provides airflow over the wings (well, really it provides wingflow through the air, but relative to the wing, it is airflow), which allows lift to be generated by the entire surface of the wing. The motion of the wheels is indeed incidental to the thrust of the engines, but is certainly not irrelevant, as it is the motion of the wheels which allow the motion of the aircraft, which allows the relative motion of the air across the entire wing. The way Cecil states it would require that the entire airflow be the dynamic motion of the air across the motionless wing (because the forward motion was cancelled by the conveyor), instead of the motion of the air being relative to the moving plane. (I know, I know, all motion is relative, but I am using these terms to describe which item, the aircraft or the air, is having kinetic energy applied to it as a result of the thrust of the engine.) If this is not the case, then what about those large passenger jets which have an engine in the very back end of the plane, at the base of the stabilizer? Those would be rendered completely pointless by your explanation, Cecil. Love your column, by the way. C.B., Georgetown, Kentucky ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airplane-taxiing/393276/2 "2007-02-22T22:32:12Z")
I assume you are discussing the plane on a treadmill column, which has spawned heated discussions on these forums. [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060303.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060303.html) ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airplane-taxiing/393276/3 "2007-02-22T23:26:18Z")
Small sampling, covering the longer, more involved threads only, not the short one-offs: > **[Plane on a Treadmill - SOLUTION](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=361386)** > > MODERATOR EDIT: Please note that this thread was started in 2006, has been revived several times since. Please be careful about what you’re responding to, since it could be way (way!) old. This thread is in response to this Straight Dope column and... > **[Flight and the Conveyor Belt](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357014)** > > Cecil, always enjoy your column, however you’ve got this absolutely wrong So, if I tie a seaplane to a mooring in a rapidly running river I had better be careful because the aircraft might fly away? How far would it go? Oh, this example doesn’t... > **[Plane on a Treadmill, redux](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=361338)** > > http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060303.html Why on earth hasn’t Cecil forced Little Ed or some other lackey into roller skates and onto a moving treadmill with a fire extinguisher? Or go to O’hare and get on a moving walkway, same equipment. And the single most definitive post on the subject, the reading of which should be a prerequisite for anyone who wants to offer additional speculations or argumentation: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7969857&postcount=66](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7969857&postcount=66) ---
**Author:** ![DracheCool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8c91f0/32.png) [@DracheCool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DracheCool)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2007, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airplane-taxiing/393276/4 "2007-02-23T13:49:53Z")
Sorry, I couldn’t believe it when I didn’t find any previous discussion, so I charged ahead. Thanks for the links… good stuff! 🙂 -C.B.