>>> Are there any planes out there that have two engine, but can't be flown
>>> on one?

>

>>Research: P-38 Lightning

>
> With one of the P-38's dual fins and rudders always in the slipstream of a
> live engine, a stall could be performed with little or no wing drop. It
> was a pilot's dream under the trying conditions of a single-engine
> approach andlanding."
>
> <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200307/ai_n9283659/pg_5>
>
> http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html

> In article newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> Jose aol.nojunk.com> wrote:
>

>>> The wheels don't have to push on anything for an aircraft to take
>>> off...there's no drivetrain feeding power to the wheels!

>>
>> Right. Phrasing it the way I did may get people to realize this, or at
>> least to think about it themselves.
>>
>> If you put an airplane on the roof of a speeding train, would it take
>> off? What if the train were shaped like a runway? What if it were very
>> thin?

>
> hmmmm, if you put the airplane on, say, a fast moving ship, could it
> take off?
>
> I wonder....
> ...

>
> "John T" hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:457f6760$0$1609$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>> "Darkwing" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:dsCdnZ9jP-JKruLYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@giganews.com

>>>

>> First, the question posed in the link by the OP of this thread is an
>> incorrect variation of the original. The original problem asks: "A plane
>> is standing on a giant treadmill. The plane moves in one direction, while
>> the treadmill moves in the opposite direction and at the same speed as
>> the plane. Can the plane take off?"
>>
>> As has been explained, placing a car on the question's treadmill would
>> result in a stationary vehicle relative to the observer standing beside
>> the treadmill. The reason is the car derives its propulsion through the
>> wheels sitting on the treadmill and the speed of the car is measured by
>> how fast the wheels are turning. The faster the wheels turn, the "faster"
>> the car moves. However, this is only relative to the treadmill belt. To ...

> "T o d d P a t t i s t" dontspamme.snet.net> wrote in message
> news:pd4un2p01rcprflel0dmjc0p3mh0vbv9lp@4ax.com...

>> [...]
>> Agreed, further interpretation is required, although I think
>> the most reasonable interpretation is pretty clear

>
> But that's my point. Just as a "reasonable interpretation" is required,
> one can just as easily assert that a MORE reasonable interpretation would
> be to assume the question means to discuss a scenario that is at least
> theoretically possibly to reproduce with existing technology.
>
> The question is ambiguous no matter how one looks at it. How can anyone
> assert that it makes more sense to interpret it in a way that creates a
> physically impossible situation than to interpret in a way that can at
> least in theory be tested experimentally?
>
> Pete
> ...

> "Darkwing" yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dsCdnZ9jP-JKruLYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@giganews.com

>>
>> This has NOT been adequately explained or there
>> would be no question about it. If the plane is not moving on the
>> treadmill but rather keeping up with the speed that the treadmill is
>> moving (yes planes DO have throttle controls) the thing is going to
>> takeoff with no air moving over the wings? NO WAY.

>
> Assuming you're a pilot, I don't understand why you think no air would be
> moving over the wings, but I'll give this one good "college try"...

>
> First, the question posed in the link by the OP of this thread is an
> incorrect variation of the original. The original problem asks: "A plane
> is standing on a giant treadmill. The plane moves...

> I bought two of these.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/LED-Pilot-Supplies-Flashlight-Piper-Cessna-Beechc......

> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:38:30 -0500, "mike regish"
> comcast.net> wrote:
>

>>Come on. You can't be serious.
>>
>>mike
>>
>>"Richard Riley" mylastname.net> wrote in message
>>news:97isn2p7l0qu392r3k2m148a4mco62gfpc@4ax.com...

>>>
>>> And, just to keep it on topic, the only planes that could take off
>>> from a treadmill are the Osprey and the Harrier.

>
> Unless you have a treadmill that's a few hundred to several thousand
> feet long, yes.

> You have a wind tunnel without a ceiling? Cool.

> You have a treadmill that's a couple of thousand feet long? Cool.

> Looks like a beautiful young lady you have there Walt.
> This was pretty much how I started too. A few rides with my father abd his
> friends, then practically raised by an Air...