And since no normal treadmill can do that, therein lies the interesting part of the question.
Nothing interesting about it at all. Simply means you need magic. Whoopteedoo. 
Here’s how it probably came down:
Someone creates the thought experiment. They are trying to demonstrate the fact that an airplane’s wheels have nothing to do with getting airborne. So they use the treadmill to force you to think past the idea of a car or train, where the wheels are the driving force. Cool thought experiment. 
Then, someone starts wondering: hey, maybe it CAN’T get off the ground! They focus on the wording of the question, and they get all lawyer like and start arguing that the treadmill is going to keep getting faster as the wheels go around faster, negating the ability of the plane to go forward! Now this gets shot down pretty quickly, until some bright bunny figures out that the wheels CAN manage to impart sufficient torque and/or friction to stop the plane from taking off, but only if the treadmill is magic and the plane is made of unobtanium.
Whereupon squabbaling commences ad infinitum on this Board. 
Why would I give a flying proverbial about what the “original” question asks, even assuming there is a single “original” question and that we know what it is?
The very simple question which you believe to be “orginal” is only slightly less boring than sand. It can be answered by knowing (a) that planes obtain their thrust other than through their wheels and (b) their wheels can withstand double their normal speed of rotation. Yawn.
Many of the weird and wonderful alternate versions of the questions outlined in The Zut Post involve much more complex physics. The suggestion that those alternate versions are not interesting because they just involve magic is horseshit. They involve consideration of what the effect of idealised forces and things would be upon real world things. The latter aspect means that it is not simply a mater of using magic to overcome all considerations.
Finally, as Cecil says in his original column, the very thing that confuses the whole picture is that the question is often unintentially worded in a way that is not thought through: if it states that the conveyor belt matches the speed of the wheels, then a paradox is created that means that the question is precisely not positing a normal treadmill. You will no doubt say that this is not the “original” question, but good luck proving that.
Holy smokes, is this thing still going on? Geez… even Mythbusters tackled this one already… 
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode97
Anyway, for all of you “magic” treadmill people, has anyone actually done the math to determine at what rate of speed/acceleration the treadmill will need to spin at to stop a 767 from taking off? What about an F-22? A Cessna?
Hey guys I have been arguing to the fact that the plane will not take off from the treadmill because no forward motion means = airflow over the wings = no lift.
I think both sides are in agreement of this fact.
Where this argument exists is will the plane achieve forward motion regardless of the treadmill?
The answer is yes because as was mentioned the wheels are “just along for the ride” and the plane is pulled forward by its propellors/jets.
To visualize this in action just imagine the plane flying over the treadmill before touching down. At this point the plane is moving forward at thrust speed. At the moment of touchdown, as long as the plane maintains thrust it could remain travelling in the same forward motion, the same as it could on a regular runway…albiet with the wheels spinning twice as fast.
A real life scenario that proves this theory in reverse is the old stunt of a plane landing in the back of a moving flat-deck truck.
Well I have been arguing to the fact that the plane will not take off from the treadmill because no forward motion = no airflow over the wings = no lift.
I think both sides are in agreement of this fact.
Where this argument exists is will the plane achieve forward motion regardless of the treadmill?
The answer is yes, but the wheels will be spinning twice as fast because as was mentioned the wheels are “just along for the ride” and the plane is pulled forward by its propellors/jets.
To visualize this in action just imagine the plane flying over the treadmill before touching down. At this point the plane is moving forward at thrust speed. At the moment of touchdown, as long as the plane maintains thrust it could continue travelling in the same forward motion as it was before touching down…albiet with the wheels spinning wildly.
A real life scenario that proves this theory in reverse is the old stunt of a plane landing in the back of a moving flat-deck truck.
The problem with the question is that it is accompanied by a picture of a plane on a treadmill which clearly does not supply the necessary room needed to take off so it is assumed that the plane will remain in a stationary position.
If you were standing between two runways…one normal and one large treadmill version and were watching two planes come in to land…both landings would be identical except that with the treadmill plane its wheels will be spinning twice as fast.
This naturally will be the same for takeoff.
That’s an excellent and original way to frame it, look at landing. Airplane wheels are not powered, so every time the plane lands the wheels go from zero to plane speed immediately on contact, except for the transition time as they skid to get up to speed.
However, the argument will be that when landing, the plane is already up to speed, whereas when trying to take off, there is less ability to move because you are starting at zero, so there is no momentum. Oh well.
As for Slug’s illustration, take it with a grain of salt. It’s not intended as an actual diagram, merely a suggestive illustration of the concept for humor purposes.
actually, the plane would fly.
you see, the plane uses the proppelers to move forward, not the wheels, unlike a car.
so the plane is unaffected.
also, ever see that mythbusters episode of this?
ever read a thread before you post to it? :rolleyes:
Yes it would and there was never any need for an experiment.
(based on analogy of pulling or towing the treadmill plane forward in place of engines)
Where people are fooled is by the photo of a plane on a treadmill…which I have little doubt the original question was intended as a joke to say if a planes wheels turned fast enough then would it take off from a stationary position? Obviously no because their is no lift. Then the unseen aspect of this question was hijacked and thus the long debates about forward motion regardless of the treadmill.
Ah, Christmas approaches, one can tell from the usual addition to the chestnuts from people who can’t be bothered to read all 7 pages, nor search out all previous commentary.
Armchair Aviator, Slug’s pictures aren’t meant to actually be useful to understand and evaluate the column question, they’re just whimsical images that catch the essence of the question in some visual way.
The origins of this question.
618 pages on that second link. Surely they’ve reached a consensus…
So that explains why the problem is worded confusingly - it’s translated from Russian! They babelfished the question, so of course it isn’t clear. 
<lol> And God alone knows what point the originator was trying to make. :smack:
AIRCRAFT WHEELS DO NOT PROPEL AIRCRAFT! There is no linkage. The wheels turn freely with comparatively negligable friction, compared to all the other forces considered. The friction is not non-existent, but it is COMPARATIVELY non-existent. No conveyor belt will stop an aircraft by attempting to match the forward speed of it.
The Boeing 777, for instance, puts out 127,900 lbs of thrust per engine. Times 2 engines, that is more than stage 3 of the Saturn V rocket that carried the Apollo moon mission. Unless you cheat and use your conveyor belt to crash the aircraft before the engines start turning, that aircraft WILL take off. You can spin that belt 10x the forward speed and that wont make a bit of difference against a quarter million pounds of thrust. The wheels will have hot bearings, but it will fly. Hell, you can strap those engines to an office building and it will fly… for a bit, anyway.
Now imagine yourself on rollerskates, on a moving treadmill, holding on to a rope anchored to an engine. So long as you can keep your balance, it doesn’t matter how fast that treadmill goes. Your wheels will freewheel and you’ll be fine. Now put a prop on that engine, and give it 500 lbs of thrust. Are you telling me that that engine will not pull you forward even with the belt rubbing on your wheels? If you had a Hemi driving that belt, you would still fly.
Now picture an aircraft on skis instead of wheels, and imagine that aircraft on ice. It’s the same thing. Wheels, skis, pontoons, skids, they are all just means of keeping the ground from ripping the bottom of the aircraft open on the runway. That’s it. That’s what they do.
If you can have your method of thrust pull you vertical at 10g’s, or pull you through the air at any speed for that matter (and the air puts up a lot more resistance than a set of wheels spinning on low-friction bearings, so does gravity) then you will fly. You will taxi forward and you will have takeoff. You’d better have a straight taxi line and a great pilot, but those engines pull you through the air with such a thrust/weight ratio that no treadmill will stop you.
Oh geez not this again! It’s been answered, there’s no debate. Armchair Aviator, registered in December, who’s only posts have been in this Ogforsaken thread. Are you even going to read the rest of the site, or just sit in this thread and post stuff that’s already been posted?
I vote we lock this thread.