I don't think anyone in the history of this question has ever thought that the wheels are the source of propulsion for the plane. Also, I don't think anyone has ever thought that a plane can take off without air moving over the wings. The question is designed to get groups of people arguing about two completely different scenarios, and these non-points are inherent in the comparison between the two. Based on what you believe the question is stating as the premise (which isn't specified), there are two different outcomes. There is no "right" answer.

yes there is.

dude.

if the plane is going 100 mph, and the track of the treadmill is also going 100mph.....then the plans'e wheels are going 100 mph......but they have no effect on the plane's speed because they rotate

Uh, wheels = 200, Jim.;)
The question was written to lead people into the wrong logic, rather than discarding superfluous information. It is a trick question, but there still is one right answer..... and many wrong answers.

"forward speed" relative to what? Not stated.

Of course, in #3 the plane can slide into forward motion, but that isn't necessary unless in addition to #1. In #2 it just takes off.

rotating 200 mph, yes. moving 100 mph as the plane carries them


relative to the earth, flint, as everything is.

Nor did I say that. I said that if you'd only been in powered-wheel vehicles the situation was counterintuitive.

Oh, by the way:

an airplane that generates some lift in an unorthdox way

This is the internet. It's not over until somebody says something about Hitler and you know it.

Oh, crap. I just blew my nomination for the Hall of Fame. Is a non-productive contribution to the thread still counted as a contribution?

wow, maggie. here's more

why aren't these designs being applied to other aircraft?

George Jr is the observer? No wonder an accurate answer is not possible!

And you mentioned Hitler in the same post! Double whammy.

The speed is obviously defined by this: Again, a reference to the equations F=ma and v=at . Speed does not exist on its own. Speed is a relationship between two references. Force (the "F") defines those two refeneces. Engine creates a force between airplane and air. Therefore speed is also created / measured between airplane and air. "Forward speed" is defined by that phrase Previously posted are the numbers to stick into those equations so that we know how long (t time) that engine (F force) must push the plane (m mass) to obtain minimum takeoff speed (v speed).

how fast would a standard jet have to turn it's engines in order to pull enough wind over its wings to generate lift? assuming it stood still relative to the ground?

They are mounted under the wing, so they couldn't do what you describe. The airflow has to be above the wing.

the air has to go faster above than below, so the engine position below the wing prevents that from ever happening. right on

Well...it looks gooofy, and aviators can be surprisingly conservative. The engineering of it is tricky...I suspect the wing shape has a weight penalty. And once you're airborne there's usually plenty of lift available, as long as you're willing to trade it for induced drag.

It's a rockin' performer on takeoff, but I bet the efficiency blows dead goats in cruise. Nonetheless, Custer apparently sued Fairchild claiming the A-10 Warthog violated his patent.

By the way, The MidAtlantic Air Museum at the Reading Airport has a Channelwing...not currently flyable.