That's right rub but energy is still required to turn the wheel and therefore with sufficient energy (to match the thrust of the engines) to spin those wheels fast enough (to match the thrust of the engines) you are in effect causing an equal and opposite reaction. Now as I stated before, the bearings and landing gear would fail long before you were able to match the thrust.
But as I said, it may be theorhetically possibly but practically? I don't think we have the capability yet because say it takes 10 lbs of thrust to turn each wheel, so, 36 wheels for a 777 or A380? that's only 360 lbs of thrust so you'd need oh, I dunno, 360 x 108K 36 million? something like that....
And, going back to the original post, I mistakenly read somewhere that it was the thrust that was being matched, not the ground speed.....(because if you cancel thrust, then, ahem, you have no thrust and most likely no penetration !!! lol)
Tying the plane down was brought up by someone whom I was responding to.
As for the F104, that I'm not sure of but I DID read in a book on fighters about the F15, but that is a whole 'nother ballgame.....
As for power to weight ratio of other planes, hmmm *shrugs* BFD.....
Your record??? Holy shit, dude, haven't you heard of MP3's??? I mean even a CD would be better!
As for direct or indirect airflow over the wings....I never said direct, so please, don't add to my statements to reinforce your argument. But then again, how about rear engine planes? (ones with the engines mounted to the fuselage just slightly above the wing)......they are drawing air in behind the wing so there must be some airflow over the wing area...but again, that is irrelevant to my statement being true that jet engines in typical aircraft do not move enough air over the wings to produce lift......
But as I said, it may be theorhetically possibly but practically? I don't think we have the capability yet because say it takes 10 lbs of thrust to turn each wheel, so, 36 wheels for a 777 or A380? that's only 360 lbs of thrust so you'd need oh, I dunno, 360 x 108K 36 million? something like that....
And, going back to the original post, I mistakenly read somewhere that it was the thrust that was being matched, not the ground speed.....(because if you cancel thrust, then, ahem, you have no thrust and most likely no penetration !!! lol)
Tying the plane down was brought up by someone whom I was responding to.
As for the F104, that I'm not sure of but I DID read in a book on fighters about the F15, but that is a whole 'nother ballgame.....
As for power to weight ratio of other planes, hmmm *shrugs* BFD.....
Your record??? Holy shit, dude, haven't you heard of MP3's??? I mean even a CD would be better!
As for direct or indirect airflow over the wings....I never said direct, so please, don't add to my statements to reinforce your argument. But then again, how about rear engine planes? (ones with the engines mounted to the fuselage just slightly above the wing)......they are drawing air in behind the wing so there must be some airflow over the wing area...but again, that is irrelevant to my statement being true that jet engines in typical aircraft do not move enough air over the wings to produce lift......
