# Plane on a Treadmill - SOLUTION **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 3, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954 "2006-03-03T20:26:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/181 "2009-07-17T18:02:49Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > Actually, both pusher props and jets would entrain a certain amount of flow over the wings. Not enough, realistically, to give decent lift, but this crazy business left realism behind long ago. How would a jet engine result in airflow striking the bottom of the wing??? (I’m assuming you mean that pusher props would create a flow towards them, resulting in some minimal airflow over the wing) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/182 "2009-07-17T18:23:42Z")
The same way any fan creates an air flow. While there is a zone of concentrated air flow in front of and especially behind the prop, there is a more general air flow in the area that is affected by the moving air. Air moves into the prop/jet/etc, some air moves to where that air was. Where did that air come from? But the answer is that that airflow is insufficient to do anything to help the plane fly. If it were sufficient, then you wouldn’t need a runway and wheels, you could just crank up the prop/jet/etc until enough airflow was established for the plane to float up into the air. So **AskNott** , it’s not an assumption, it’s a demonstrated fact by how planes operate. **AskNott** said: > [@](#): > > I don’t know. **Irishman** proposes tying the wheels to the ground, but that’s only halfway to a good test. The plane would crash on its nose. If you want to know if a plane with no groundspeed will get off the ground, tether it from its center (center of effort? center of drag?) on a horizontal axis. You are correct, if one tied the plane at the wheels, then the axis of thrust is not in line with the anchor force, and that induces a rotation. You would need to tie to the fuselage in line with the engines. Preferably some solid airframe structure that could withstand the loads. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/183 "2009-07-17T19:05:46Z")
What if Monty Hall is the pilot? ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/184 "2009-07-17T19:52:44Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > This is only true if the engine is a propeller which is in front of the wings. For obvious reasons, you don’t put jet engine exhausts in front of the wings. And not all propellers are made to “pull” the airplane; some are set to “push” the plane, and thus don’t push wind over the wings. … First off, I’m quite willing to accept that the airflow of a stationary engine is not enough to lift the plane, and that somebody surely showed that long ago. I’m still going to disagree with the idea that there’s little or no wind ahead of a pusher prop or jet engine. Both work by shoving lots of air rearward. That air has to come from somewhere, and that creates a tremendous wind in front of the engine. On a much smaller scale, if you stand on the intake side of a 20-inch box fan, you’ll feel quite a breeze. If you have it in a window, pointed out, and you stand in a doorway on the other side of the room, you’ll be comfortably cool. In industrial situations, I have stood upwind of 4-foot fans, and the wind will ruffle your hair and clothing. Even that is not near as much air as a pusher prop or a jet pulls into itself. The air crew won’t let you stand in front of a jet engine at full song, but if you could, you’d have to lean into the wind and hold onto your hat. (And leave the goose at home!) Now is that enough to lift the plane? Alas, no. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/185 "2009-07-17T19:58:21Z")
[QUOTE= Asknott] Nearly everyone seems to be assuming that, if the plane has no groundspeed (relative to the real ground, not the treadmill,) then it has no airspeed. It seems to me that a stationary engine, whether prop or jet, will create a tremendous area of moving air around itself. That moving air has to be generating lift on the stationary (relative to the ground) wings. The zone of airspeed won’t be very wide, so a long-winged plane is unlikely to leave the ground. Would a short-winged sport plane make it? [/QUOTE] > [@Irishman](#): > > But the answer is that that airflow is insufficient to do anything to help the plane fly. If it were sufficient, then you wouldn’t need a runway and wheels, you could just crank up the prop/jet/etc until enough airflow was established for the plane to float up into the air. Right, in an ordinary plane, there’s only a tiny bit of lift from the propwash over the wings, not enough lift to make much difference. But let’s modify a plane to see if we can make it work. First, all the wings are doing is taking some of that backwards propwash and pushing it downwards, so if you want lift from the propwash, the most efficient way is just rotate the prop so it’s pointing up-and-down and the wash is straight down. At that point, you don’t need the wings anymore, so just drop them (dead weight). To get enough lift, you’ll need a big propellor, I mean bigger than the main body of the aircraft probably. And maybe another smaller propeller (at right angles) to balance rotational issues. But if you did all that, you would indeed have an aircraft that wouldn’t need to be moving forward to lift off, and indeed could just “crank up the prop until the aircraft floats up into the air”. Most people wouldn’t call it a plane anymore, though. ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/186 "2009-07-17T23:41:24Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > No one is (or should be) suggesting that a plane can take off without forward air speed (or, in the absence of that, air directed backward at sufficient velocity). The question is whether the plane will have forward air speed given the conveyor belt beneath it. > > You assume _prima facie_ that the plane will have no air speed. Everyone else – Mythbusters included – say “wait a minute, who said the plane wouldn’t move relative to the ground? Look here, the physics says it will.” > > So why are the experiments invalid? They show that the plane will have airspeed – and as you admit, a plane with airspeed will take off. So what’s the problem? > Powers &8^] The problem, sir, is that it’s a thought experiment. In the experiment, we are told that the conveyor belt is moving fast enough to keep the plane stationary. Thus, any live experiment in which the plane is not held stationary (you could simply set the brakes) is not valid as a “solution” to the original thought experiment. ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/187 "2009-07-17T23:43:59Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > No, it’s a perfectly acceptable solution. The whole point of the experiment was to see if the aircraft would gain forward speed. And it did, thus allowing the wings to generate lift. > > When this question came up, I argued as you do: that the treadmill would not allow the aircraft to move forward, and thus there would be no lift. But I was operating on a false assumption: that the treadmill _could_ keep the aircraft from moving forward. It can’t. Unlike a car, there is no relationship between the thrust being generated and the landing gear. The wheels do not transmit energy to the treadmill. The point of the experiment is to see if the plane will take off while on a conveyor belt designed to keep it stationary despite applied takeoff power. It’s not a question of whether or not the treadmill “could” hold it from accelerating. The brakes do. MythBuster’s experiment did not. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/188 "2009-07-17T23:48:48Z")
> [@SkylerHart](#): > > The problem, sir, is that it’s a thought experiment. In the experiment, we are told that the conveyor belt is moving fast enough to keep the plane stationary. Thus, any live experiment in which the plane is not held stationary (you could simply set the brakes) is not valid as a “solution” to the original thought experiment. You didn’t read my post, did you? And I spent so much time on it, alas. ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/189 "2009-07-18T00:16:32Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > Why not? What exactly is stopping the plane from moving forward due to the engines throwing air backwards? The wheels on the treadmill rotate faster than they would if the plane was on solid ground, but that is the only difference from a normal takeoff. > > No it’s not. Lift is provided by the air hitting the underside of the wing, in the same way as when you put your hand out a car window flat then tilt it slightly upwards. The Bernoulli theory demands that the air rushing over the top of the wing move faster than that below the wing, ie that the air “knows” that it needs to move faster over the longer distance over the top of the wing. Obviously it doesn’t do that. > [Cite from NASA site.](http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html) Lift is indeed produced when the wing has a positive angle of attack - meaning that the angle formed between the chord of the wing and the relative wind is greater than 0° on the leading edge. But, Bernoulli’s “Principle” is not a “theory.” Just as the restriction in your carburetor (if you have one) sucks fuel in to the intake air, and just as the venturi dam under many performance automobiles reduces pressure beneath the car to add downforce, the camber of the wing also generates lift by causing a reduced pressure above. Go look at some dimensional layouts. Many aircraft do not have wings with a positive angle of attack during level flight. How do they stay aloft? I’m not saying that article is untrue.. I’m saying that it is only part of the reason why planes fly, but not the only or the primary reason. Unless the Federal Aviation Administration and all of the licensed aviation schools in this country are wrong? But let’s say for a second that lift is generated solely by a positive angle of attack. In the thought experiment, the aircraft is stationary on the conveyor belt. If you hold your hand outside the car window, but you’re not moving, is your hand still lifted in to the air? ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/190 "2009-07-18T00:24:54Z")
> [@EvilTOJ](#): > > I believe an image macro is in order: > > [http://tinyurl.com/2bmjob](http://tinyurl.com/2bmjob) > > The wheel speed is irrelevant. The plane could be on skids scooting along the ground and it’ll still take off. The Mythbusters test was conclusive. I don’t see why we’re debating this any more. I was in the ‘the plane won’t take off’ camp until I saw the video and it clicked for me. Now I can’t unsee it. The whole premise of the thought experiment is that the plane is stationary because of a conveyor belt moving exactly the same speed in the opposite direction. So when the MythBusters test allowed the aircraft to move forward, they failed to perform the right experiment! They may as well have taken off from a runway and said, “Look, see! It works!” ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/191 "2009-07-18T00:26:34Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > No one is (or should be) suggesting that a plane can take off without forward air speed (or, in the absence of that, air directed backward at sufficient velocity). The question is whether the plane will have forward air speed given the conveyor belt beneath it. > > You assume _prima facie_ that the plane will have no air speed. Everyone else – Mythbusters included – say “wait a minute, who said the plane wouldn’t move relative to the ground? Look here, the physics says it will.” > > So why are the experiments invalid? They show that the plane will have airspeed – and as you admit, a plane with airspeed will take off. So what’s the problem? > Powers &8^] The problem is that it has airspeed! In the thought experiment, it does not! It is stationary! ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/192 "2009-07-18T00:35:18Z")
> [@zut](#): > > I suppose I should repost this once again, because it’s easier than referring back to the older post, and I’ve also gotten a lot of mileage out of it already. > > For reference: In case you didn’t know, **Cecil** has two columns on this subject: [An airplane taxies in one direction on a moving conveyor belt going the opposite direction. Can the plane take off? (03-Feb-2006)](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html) and [“A plane is standing on a runway. . .” No, it’s not. Here’s why. (03-Mar-2006)](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060303.html) > > … > > Pick your scenario–they’re all correct. Nice post. I think the premise was simple, that the conveyor belt would be designed to keep the plane stationary. And planes aren’t moving that fast when they take off; many less than a hundred nauts and even those that are higher - I’m sure we have both the technology and the steady hands to construct such an apparatus. The idea that the conveyor’s speed will somehow have to ramp to infinity to keep the plane stationary is ludicrous. You can walk backwards up the escalator and maintain the same position… [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W_6OG4xQEjQ/hqdefault.jpg "2000 HP Mustang Dyno") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_6OG4xQEjQ) Dynamometer anyone? Dear God, the universe is imploding! ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/193 "2009-07-18T00:38:06Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **SkylerHart** said: > > No, they conducted an experiment to see **if** the treadmill could prevent the plane from moving forward, not to see if the plane could take off when held stationary. Horse puckey. They wanted to solve the riddle. Of course a treadmill could prevent the plane from moving. Nothing magical about it. Are you saying that the truck pulling the tarp on that episode was moving the exact speed as the plane at all times? ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/194 "2009-07-18T00:43:26Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > I’m reluctant to flog this old bird, but I’m a bit confused about one point. > > Nearly everyone seems to be assuming that, if the plane has no _groundspeed_ (relative to the real ground, not the treadmill,) then it has no _airspeed._ It seems to me that a stationary engine, whether prop or jet, will create a tremendous area of moving air around itself. That moving air has to be generating lift on the stationary (relative to the ground) wings. The zone of airspeed won’t be very wide, so a long-winged plane is unlikely to leave the ground. Would a short-winged sport plane make it? Jet engines exhaust behind the wing. Propeller driven aircraft form a propwash about 1-2 yards wide, and our single engine aircraft will only or mostly be washing on the fuselage… No lift. Even a twin is not going to make nearly the required airflow to lift the aircraft. You have to figure that this ~2000 lb object (twin recip engine) has to hurtle itself about 90 miles an hour down the runway before it can take off. > [@](#): > > Would it be enough to lift the plane? I don’t know. **Irishman** proposes tying the wheels to the ground, but that’s only halfway to a good test. The plane would crash on its nose. If you want to know if a plane with no groundspeed will get off the ground, tether it from its center (center of effort? center of drag?) on a horizontal axis. You’d want to allow the pilot to control the angle of attack **if** it lifts. Again, you don’t want to crash the thing. :eek: > > I feel a little foolish stepping into the ring with this zombie, but I felt this detail had been overlooked. Well, again, you could just set the brakes. ---
**Author:** ![SkylerHart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f05b48/32.png) [@SkylerHart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkylerHart)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/195 "2009-07-18T01:10:03Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Not goes: gone. Oh, well, I’m sorry. What were your credentials again? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/196 "2009-07-18T01:11:21Z")
The problem with your interpretation of the riddle is that you are essentially wording it this way: ‘If you could create a situation in which it is impossible for an airplane to take off, would the airplane take off?’ ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/197 "2009-07-18T02:09:57Z")
> [@SkylerHart](#): > > …Of course a treadmill could prevent the plane from moving. Nothing magical about it… ONLY a magical treadmill could prevent an airplane from taking off. > [@](#): > > _…Are you saying that the truck pulling the tarp on that episode was moving the exact speed as the plane at all times?_ It wouldn’t have made any difference. The truck could have been going ten times as fast as the plane and it still would have taken off. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/198 "2009-07-18T02:22:35Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > First off, I’m quite willing to accept that the airflow of a stationary engine is not enough to lift the plane, and that somebody surely showed that long ago. > > I’m still going to disagree with the idea that there’s little or no wind ahead of a pusher prop or jet engine. Both work by shoving lots of air rearward. That air has to come from somewhere, and that creates a tremendous wind in front of the engine. > > On a much smaller scale, if you stand on the intake side of a 20-inch box fan, you’ll feel quite a breeze. If you have it in a window, pointed out, and you stand in a doorway on the other side of the room, you’ll be comfortably cool. > > In industrial situations, I have stood upwind of 4-foot fans, and the wind will ruffle your hair and clothing. Even that is not near as much air as a pusher prop or a jet pulls into itself. The air crew won’t let you stand in front of a jet engine at full song, but if you could, you’d have to lean into the wind and hold onto your hat. (And leave the goose at home!) > > Now is that enough to lift the plane? Alas, no. Stop. Think. I’ve already addressed the issue of propellers, and others can do the math for you to establish that the inflow wouldn’t be enough to lift the plane. But I raised objection mostly to the jet engine theory. HOW are you positioning the jet engine so that it’s intake is coming in via the underside of the wing??? Oh, right, that’s not where jet engines are located (directly behind the wings). 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/199 "2009-07-18T02:29:58Z")
> [@SkylerHart](#): > > Oh, well, I’m sorry. What were your credentials again? The problem with your blasé response to the question posed is that it assumes something that may and or may not be part of the question. **zut** very CAREFULLY addresses this issue. Put plainly, you simply CANNOT in reality make a treadmill that would be able to accellerate infinitely fast. Nor can you make one that would accellerate to the finite speed needed to actually impart a restraining force on the plane. So unless you want the question to be entirely a thought question, without practical application, you have to accept a meaning for the question that allows the planes wheels to roll as the force of the engines pushes the plane forward faster than the treadmill can roll under them. You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that this issue hasn’t been thoroughly addressed by really intelligent (and qualified) people here before. Trust me that it has: this subject gets rehashed about every 6 months or so here. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954/200 "2009-07-18T02:37:25Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that this issue hasn’t been thoroughly addressed by really intelligent (and qualified) people here before. Trust me that it has: this subject gets rehashed about every 6 months or so here. 😉 Indeed it has, and indeed it does. > [@Plane on a treadmill roundup](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-roundup/446408/1): > > [Plane on a treadmill column](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html) > > Comments: > [Speaking of treadmills, read this.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357311) > [Plane on a Treadmill, redux](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=361338) > [A formulation of the airplane/conveyor belt problem that “works”?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363904) > [Planes with “0” airspeed can fly?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=373453) > [Flight and the Conveyor Belt](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357014) > [Conveyor belt?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=396863) > [Plane on a Treadmill - SOLUTION](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=361386) > [Airplane taxiing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=409570) > [The Airplane and the Treadmill](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=423394) > [error in the “will the plane take off”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=432720) > [RE: A plane is standing on a runway. . ." No, it’s not. Here’s why.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=445235) > Mythbusters – Plane on a treadmill > [Mythbusters – Airplane on a treadmill!!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=451808) > [Mythbusters 1/30/08 Plane on a conveyor belt](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=453505) > [Plane on a treadmill](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=453705) > [Mythbuster PoaT episode (open spoilers in OP)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=454615) > [Plane on a Conveyor – Revisited](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=464976) > [Plane on a treadmill](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=482079) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plane-on-a-treadmill-solution/346954.md?page=11)