retard

ask adam and jamie

It would slam against the other wall

29238random speech!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Eksc3ZGBw
becouse of that!

think it wil crahs because wind is diferent in side inb4 op is a fag

It would hover.

it will stall because it works by wind going over wings, without wind than it stalls....

>I asked my physics teacher
>no one could answer correctly and precisely

What fucking retarded-ass physics teacher do you have?

I'd think that since the jet, plane, helicopter (whatever the fuck you're using) uses air as it's main thrust that once you're in a more confined space the power would be increased causing it to crash.
I.E. air hits flat wall causing more power forward.

It will crash into the floor.

IT WOULDN'T GET OFF THE GROUND BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO LIFT INSIDE THE TRUCK

>>230879859
Dude, the french school system is really lame.



simple,
ass soon as the air-stream that is outside of the car was no longer affecting the mini jet it would travel forward. unless the operator is coordinating the de-throttle of each engine individually the wind shear would make such a maneuver rather impossible... also after fourteen years you are retarted

>>230880181
well at least they use the metric system

>>230878783
17
Check out
http://www.facebook.com/pages/hahahah-LOL/124101204280476?v=app_4949752878
gogogo

­

But then who was phone?

>>230880108
needs lift

>>230880378
That's right. FUCK YOU OTHER NATIONS using any other system.

CP

niggers

>>230878783
Same speed = hover

/thread

It will crash, obviously.
Because the train car has still air inside and all the planes can fly if there's air (even trough there's no wind).

>>230880181
>>230880181
>>230880181
>>230880181
HAHAHA

i used to be in french school system.
They tried to convince me that china was bigger than france.

So, if you started the train and the plane at the same time and they both had the same rate of acceleration the plane would appear to hover, but if it were started up after the train car was already in motion it would add to the momentum of the airplane and shit would be technically going 200km/h and just smash the fuck into a wall.

It won't crash. But it won't hover either. It will crash into the floor.

Train's speed is irrelevant since the plane is not in contact with it.

It's the sudden change in airflow that will affect the plane, going from charging through air at 100mph to air that is still. Air that is still, is not flowing over the wing and therefore is not generating Lift. No Lift = plane becomes a big, fat paperweight.

Plane fall down go boom.

it would crash into the wall in front. The air inside the car is moving at 100km/h the plane wouldmove inside and then move at 100km/h relative to the air inside the car

Let me introduce you to the AV-8B Harrier

Let's assume instead that it's in space without air resistance. It's a rocket ship instead of a plane. Since they have the same velocity it would continue with not net change in position on the x axis. Does that clear it up?

it would enter the train, slightly stall a bit, which it would then either land on the train floor or recover, then the force of the jet engines will be felt on the left wall => allowing the plant to move forward. It would hit the wall.

>>230881074
the engines will still push the aircraft forward, and that will move air over the wings

The afterburner would ignite the Jews in the box car, and everything would burn.

would just hover

as long as both were at an initial speed of 100 km/h it would hover...

it would crash, as the air in the car is not moving reletive to the plaine so there isno lift, = crash

>>230881500
Then it's very clear that it will hit the wall.

>>230881160

China is bigger than france....

>>230878783
>This is not a troll
No it's a copypasta of a troll.

First if we are too assume this situation we havbe to take in the factors of human near-impossibilities and just assume the pilot and train driver are fucking amazing people. So with that in mind.

The Jet would do two things at the same time, it would send itself crashing both into the wall ahead as the force pushed against the back train wall "assuming the force wouldn't just blow it out or set it on fire" would send it to the front wall at a high speed, while at the same time since the air is moving with the train aka 100Km/h the jet would crash to the floor so in short,

Shit will crash.

I THINK THIS

wtf

/b/ is fucking smart

No wind = hover
WInd=crash

>>230881775
Seriously troll. Leave now.

it will drop to the floor of the train

>>230881629
Godwin point reached.

>>230881863
>>230881863
>>230881863
>>230881863


my bad. canada

no airflow to create lift, the plane will crash and burn

Why would that cool an airplain fly that slowly?

If the plane is a harrier you could just hover, if anything else you would either stall or fucking obliterate the front wall of the car

>>230881779

Is right, the aircraft would enter a vacuum of sorts, and lose lift... unless it had insane amounts of thrust it will crash onto the floor of the train car.

due to da air friction, i think it would blow up

depends on the way the train cart is moving, you stupid fuck.

It would enter the train, and because of the lack of ummm.... wind... under the wings the plane would quickly fall to the ground.

It'll crash. Simple.

It would do a barrel roll.

>>230881957
This is fucking simple physics. /b/ has helped me with my calculus homework if you can believe it.

THE LAWS OF INERTIA WOULD PREVENT IT FROM CRASHING INTO THE FRONT OF THE TRAIN... BUT IT WOULD FALL ONTO THE TRAIN

>>230878783
Insane speed. Let's say the jet weight 1000kg
force=mass x acceleration
f=1000 x 0
so f=0
why? because friction is overtaking the movement force, causing the jet to not gain speed anymore BUT
in the train, there's less air friction (because the train is also moving), so the jet will accelerate until it crashes in the wall.

It would hover for a brief moment then fall down to the train cars floor. The issue is the car being sealed on all sides will prevent air from moving over the wings and giving the plane lift. Now if it was an open flat bed then the plane could hover much longer but turbulence from the car in front will make the plane uncontrollable in a short time. Now you could go further and have a train consisting of nothing but flat beds then the jet could fly above just one flat bed and would seem to hover to anyone standing on the flatbed. And still fly by to anyone standing still on the ground.

NOW WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY TEACHING IN PHYSICS NOW DAYS THAT NO ONE CAN ANSWER THIS PROPERLY?

>>230881270

this

this has to be a troll, l2relativity noob

>>230881864
Is it a copypasta if I'm the same OP than the older post ?

Plane lifts off ground. The earth is moving at 24,000m/hr. Plane suddenly looks like it's moving backwards.

The air inside the car is moving forward at the same speed as the car itself, but would appear static to anything inside the car. Since the plane has generates thrust by pushing air behind it, it would crash into the front with a relative speed of 100 km/h (absolute speed 200km/h).

>I asked my physics teachers, my mother, my father, my friends, my bro, no one could answer correctly and precisely.

I'm sorry you live in the USA.
It crashs.

>>230878783
>>230878783

you have shit teachers/mentors.

you need the wind to create lift. once inside the train car the wind will cease at best, the plane might just land somewhat softly on the floor.

but most likely there will be too strange a shift in wind,
a la, one wing has some lift whilst the other has none causing the plane to violently barrell roll and crash before even making it into the car.

DONE NOW DIE

>>230882104

Your mom is bigger than Canada

i do hope you're trollin

metric system is retarded

>>230878783
34
Check out
http://www.facebook.com/pages/hahahah-LOL/124101204280476?v=app_4949752878
gogogo

the carriage thing does have air going through it from the door in front, else how do the passengers get to the buffect carriage?
Scenario Flawed

air hitting wings produces upward thrust
massive alteration of air flow in train car
plane stalls
pilot ejects
hits roof
dies
the end

Hover. Stupid niggers.

To all you faggots who think you've got it:

What if all this happens in a VACUUM? Where's your air now?

kind of related to this, i always wondered why KITT didn't crash into the truck when he drives up the ramp. the mythbusters solved this problem for me

>>230878783

Crash. Less air resistance inside the train. Also OP is a faggot.

it'd crash, simple physics

>>230882920

it will crash into the wall infront of it doesn't matter the the train is moving at the same the speed, you are within an enclosed space with stationary walls.

idiot just do what everyone else does and email it to mythbusters

I'm supposed to be studying for my certificated flight instructor - instrument checkride coming up within the week, and instead I've wasted 4 hours today on /b/

FUUUUUUUUUCk

Also the plane would immediately crash, there's no relative wind inside the train car... no lift over the wings.

as long as it's hovering over the train(doesn't touch it) and conserves its speed, it won't crash

Why does /b/ fail so much from cancer these days? Essentially, when the toy entered the train car, it would be 'taking off' from a dead start at full throttle. It would dart forward like a bottle rocket after a momentary pause.

if the planes velocity wont change it will drop on the cars floor.

no one has thought about the fact that it has a pilot.

oncwe inside the car, the plane will appear to accelerate if viewed from inside the car, however, at not enough speed to let the pilot crash at the end.

/thread

>>230878783
tell your physics teacher he's a dumb fuck.

The jet propels itself through the air. The air is not moving outside, the plane builds up momentum. when it enters the traincar, the plane is suddenly not moving through the air at 100kmph. It will most likely fall on the ground, but with an engine strong enough, it can get the speed up before hitting the ground.

>>230882753
that would be an aerofoil roll not a barrel roll

>>230882512
Why is the bottom plane larger than the top plane?

As the left wing enters still air it will generate zero lift yet airflow will still generate lift on the right wing, this will cause the aircraft to roll anti clockwise and crash to the floor or side of the truck.
This is true of both fixed and rotory wing aircraft.

I fly gas model(mainly heli's) and know this shit.

>>230882920
it's logical and consistent
10 mm = 1 cm
10 cm = 1 dm
10 dm = 1m
100m = 1 hm
10 hm = 1km

your system is more like derp derp

OP, PLS MOAR :D


http://www.m0ar.org/5046

>>230883154

Actually if it was moving into the train car slow enough too, what would happen is that the left wing would lose lift first, creating a stalled condition which would cause a quick roll to the left.... straight into the floor of the train compartment.

this is so simple /b/, the train would take off

>>230883882
>>230883882
>>230884151
>>230884151

SMARTEST TWO PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD.

/THREAD

>>230883849
because its a bigger version of the same plane.

no dipshit, its because it is closer to thee camera, the planes are nowhere near each other, acrobatic flying like this takes place in several different ways that are too complicated to explain by words and too late at night to do a picture for.

Actually, it will do a barrel roll (or at least part of one before it crashes). No joke, as soon as the left wing enters the train car, where the air is not moving, it will lose lift. The right wing, still having lift, will try to keep the plane up. As a result, the plane will swing down and to the right before the right wing hits and the rest of the plane follows.

This is actually surprisingly simple. was your physics teacher an idiot?

Two things that factor into this: A plane stays aloft basically by air flowing past the wings and, without the air speeding past it (the air would sorta stay in the same place relative to the plane), it would not stay aloft and would hit the floor if it didn't hit the wall in front of it first.

Also a plane goes forwards by, basically, pushing against the air. With a wall behind it and the same air it will push the air particles against the wall and effectively will push against the wall. Pushing against something that doesn't really move relative to the plane it would fly faster and then hit the front wall.


If you removed the back wall it would fly at the same speed if you ignore the eddies caused. The eddies could, however, speed the plane up but that depends on their size and effectiveness and that depends on the container.

Jet would stall, no lift in there. It'd probably end up bottoming out on the floor of the car.

>>230882753

why does that matter the engine is moving the plane forward and thus creating lift over the wings, who cares if its inside or outside, it will crash into the wall, the wall is not traveling 100kph infront of the plane

It would crash and the reason for this is because it does not matter if there's no wind in the car. If no wind was a problem for a plane, it could not take off unless it was a wind speed of like 800m/s.

Also, the fans inside the jet engine would still compremise air and the engine would still work, therefor the plane would go KABOOM in the wall.

Also, also, you guys are retards thinking it could not fly in the car, lol.

>>230884528

aileron roll

>>230881462
British invention, no need to thank us.

the jet sucks in air from the front of the car and ejects it out the back of the jet "pushing" against the back of the train car so it increases speed relative to the train car and crashes into the front, the ceiling or the floor.

How does it get through the door in the first place?

what kind of train is it?

>>230885074

it's not really an aileron roll if the jet isn't using using ailerons... it would more be a roll associated with adverse lift....

source: i'm a flight instructor

>>230878783
140
Check out
http://www.facebook.com/pages/hahahah-LOL/124101204280476?v=app_4949752878
gogogo

why do you all think there is no lift inside?
sure the air inside itself stands still, but the engines will still push the plane through that air, causing it to move over the wings

>>230883882
only right answer so far.

Also If a plane if pushing its self through the air (they dont go by floating on magic wind as some of you idiots seem to suggest) there is a 100kmph wind resistance when the plane enters the carriage (assuming it dosent hurtle out of control) there would be 0 wind resistance and the engines would make the plane slam into the front of the carriage.

This is clearly demonstrated in the setting of would pedal bike speed records where a pace car with a wind shied travels before the cyclist to remove wind resistance allowing them to cycle at huge speeds

>>230882512
thats gay cause balls are touching

>>230885386

well it's not a true aileron roll, but what would happen would be more like an aileron roll than a barrel roll

>>230878783
124
Check out
http://www.facebook.com/pages/hahahah-LOL/124101204280476?v=app_4949752878
gogogo

your physics teacher is a retard

there are 2 possible outcomes:

1) if the train and plane are both in a massive vacuum then the plane will enter the side of the plane and appear as if it's hovering due to the lack of wind resistance

2) if they are in open air then the plane will crash against the front wall due the the wind resistance and pressure being lower inside the cabin of the train

i'm doing ordinary level physics for my first year and I know the answer to this

if there was no back wall, it would apear to hover but the gasses that propel the plane forward (by shooting back) would bounce off the back of the car and treat the plane like a tailwind would

I know someone with a plane. Someone else supply a massive train and we'll try it.

>>230882623
>>230882623
>>230882623
this has nothing to do with the theory of relativity you fucking twelve year old.

Depends. If it started in the train and took off, yes, inertia.

If it started outside and hovered inside, no

>>230885963
sounds like a mythbusters episode to me

>>230881942
if u were trying to draw out the force of the thrust it goes the other way

my theory is that it's casting a shadow form the other limb.

this would only require a remote pause for someone as brilliant as me if the car were open. planes require lift, not just propulsion, so it would crash, and not into the front of the car either.

>>230886075
what if the plane and truck travel at near light speed

It cannot crash.
All people saying it crashes are either american or niggers, or both.

>>230886299

COULD BE A CRACKHEAAAAAD

Simply, the plane is encountering performance decreasing wind shear, causing it to stall and fall to the ground. During the brief time it takes to stall, it will travel slightly forward relative to the car with the decrease in drag, but will hit the floor of the car well before hitting the forward wall. This ignores all of the turbulence encountered around the door, which would do fuck knows to the plane.

it will fall onto the floor of the train.

The air inside the train is going at the same speed as the train and plane while the air outside is still (or you can say its moving backwards relative to the planes wings). Anyway, since there wont be any air going over the wings inside the train there wont be any lift. The truster wont make the plane go faster since its going as fast as it can at the current trust.

tl;dr it falls, lrn2physics.

>>230886485

basically exactly what would happen.

planes fly becasue flows over there wings if it flys into the train car there is no moving air and will just fall doen on the floor

THERE IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLY OUTCOME!!

The plane will no longer be in the airflow so it will stall immediately and crash into the floor of the carriage.

That is what would happen, ask a pilot next time not a physics teacher

hehehe, so much retardation ITT

from a practical standpoint it would probably crash when you tried to get it through the door due to turbulence and mixing of moving air and stationary air in that region.

If you somehow did manage to get it inside it would accelerate and crash into the front. Aeroplanes work by forcing air past them, the air is stationary in the car so the plane would push against it and accelerate.

>>230880779
Here in England, we get to use both whenever it fucking suits us, fuck you right back.

if it's at the same speed, it will hover, but you have to think about the wind

THE FUCKING TRAIN WOULD FLY

>>230886452
THAT GOT HOLD O THE WRONG STUFF AND IT TOLD HIM TO GET UP IN THAT TREE AND PLAY A LEPRECHAUN

this makes my head hurts ):

100+100=200 km/h
yes it will crash

>>230879512
wind is not different inside. you are assuming that the train car is pressurized in which case the air inside is traveling at the same speed as the car. the train car is not pressurized hence the OPEN DOOR. Assuming that the plane is able to maintain a speed that is identical to the train car at all times, the plane would hover.

>>230886875
>implying the plane is held up by "airflow" and not the force of its twin jet engines

>>230887489


pressure has nothing to do with wind speeds dumbass.

it would crash. the plane is propelled forward against the relative air around it. once it goes inside the car, the air is stationary, and it will effectively accelerate to 100 km/h inside the car.

It supposed to be going in the opposite direction.

>>230887489
inside the car, the air is stationary relative to the car. its not moving. which means when the plane is in that air, it will be traveling 100 km/h relative to the air, which is 100 km/h faster than the train car.

it would hover

It would start moving slowly forward, then drop and crash on the floor. It wouldn't have the lift it did outside the cart, since not enough air would be flowing under the wings.

there isnt enough airflow in the car, the plane would likely drop to the bottom of the car, wouldnt have enough lift to accelerate into the wall.

>>230887344

FUCKING TRAINS, HOW DO THEY WORK?

it would hover

if it were possible to for a flying object to hit the wall of an object surrounding it going the same speed (since the speed given in this example started when the plan wasnt inside the train car, so both speeds are relevant to the same starting conditions), the speed of light could be broken and physics would be a very different thing

tldr;
it must hover because that is what makes the law that you can not break the speed of light

You would crash into the side of the train unless the door isn't relative. There would be some loss of speed whilst strafing and it would no longer align with the door as the train wouldn't be slowing.

If it did manage to get inside it would crash into the front. This isn't because it's now moving at the speed of the train + it's own speed, this is because it was flying against heavy drift from the train and without that resistance it would suddenly hurtle forward.

If there were no external forces acting - it would just hover.

think about it backwards. lets say you wanted to fly the jet into the train car, you would need to accelerate to match the speed, and then move left to get into it. if you continued to hover you would need to maintain the same speed as the train.

No it should (in theory) appear to hover. You don't add the two, because the plane isn't touching the train cart, so it's only going 100km/h as it was before

next to the boxcar, the jet has air passing by at 100kph which gives the jet lift when that passes over the wings.

inside the boxcar, the air won't be still because of turbulence of the open side door but the air won't be moving enough and in any kind of correct direction to give lift.

my guess as to what would happen:

the second the left wing enters the boxcar, it loses lift from the lack of air going over the airfoil, and the left side drops to the floor of the boxcar then the right side once it enters the car, but if the jet is still at full thrust it'll crash into the front of the boxcar anyways because the engines put out retarded amounts of thrust

>>230887811
The plane would accelerate and rip itself to shreds under tremendous Gforces

>>230879827

This. No airflow, no lift

This is kind of the same as if you jump on a bus will you get sent flying to the back

>>230881160
China is bigger than france, dumbass..

>>230887596

>implying that wings aren't needed

It would hover. Same reason a chopper dosn't move with the ground when your flying over mountains

it would not hover in any circumstances, no airflow over wings = stalling into floor

ambient air in train car isn't gonna hit plane wing surfaces at 100 mph. it'd probably just hover for the briefest of moments and fall straight down.

>>230888691
lulz physics phail phool

>>230889084

LOL WHAT

it would just fall numb-nuts. Its the wind speed on the wind that creates lift, no wind = no lift.

youre dumb. the plane would crash cause theres no airflow in the train

gtfo! you and your teacher and your mother and your father and your friends and your bros

I actually thought of this when I was young, too. More about 7, so beat you OP.

I thought of it by a bird flying outside, then moving into the window of a moving car.

The answer would be that it would crash, because the air is still in relativity to the bird.

>>4182908

>>230887038

/thread

blackhole

drop onto floor of boxcar the second it enters, unless it's a VTOL, and then thrust forward into the front of the boxcar unless the pilot immediately jumps off of the throttle

4chan Spam (Updated Agian):
http://www.megaporn.com/?d=E7T2XNZD

>>1294588

I rest my case

many variables. If you could get it in the train car without losing any speed and adjusting speed because if its inside the train car wind isn't hitting it anymore.

i didnt get the question

Ok so as the aircraft moves into the boxcar, the left wing enters first, immediatly loses lift because there is no relative wind moving over the wing. Now, as this loses all of its lift it also looses drag, which creates a large yawing tendency to the right, in other words outside of the train car. Without the left wing producing that left the plane is going to start dropping, while yawing to the right, causing it to spin out of control downwards to the GROUND, not into the train car.

:P

say that even if it were to hover inside the car/train whatever it is. Both are going 100 mph, however that's calculating air resistance. Without the resistance, if it were to stay at it's initial velocity (the engine were to produce the same amount of energy whether outside or inside) the speed would increase while inside the car (no air resistance pushing against it).

So even without the air-lift scenario, it will crash simply because it is now going faster than the car/train when inside it.

>>230881058
retard thats science illliterate

/thread

404 Not Found
The server can not find the requested page:
/text.txt (port 80)
Please forward this error screen to soviet-malware.eu's WebMaster.

>>6241226

If it can travel at a max of 100km/h then surely when it flew laterally it would just get ploughed by the door? Seeing as velocity is a vector...

mythbusters

>>230890114

Outside of the train car the air is static in the reference frame of an outside observer, but to the jet pilot the air is moving over the wings at 100 km/hr and creating lift.

Inside of the train car the air is static in the reference frame of the jet pilot but moving at 100 km/hr forward to an outside observer, same as the jet.

No air moving over the wings means no lift.

But the engines are still propelling the jet forward, and the difference in wind force on the jet from outside the train to inside of the train is tremendous and the jet will move forward under the influence of the engines. Whether it hits the ground first or runs into the front of the train car depends on the size of the train car.

This is assuming that the jet can even successfully make the transition from outside of the train car to inside of the train car without crashing because of the resistance differential across the plane's profile.

>>230878783

it won't accelerate insanely and it won't either hover:

it will just start to accelerate slowly just like it was stopped on the ground and suddenly you put the throttle you would have to be at 100 km/h

easy answer.

As long it's not touching/landing on the car it will hover.
Source : Common sense of a geek

is talked-about jet also a transformer?

  ▲
▲ ▲

Less air resistance inside the car. Would not hover, but would not crash at "insane" speed, either.

yeah, in relation to the area around it, there would be no air passing around the plane, so it would out of the two, hover, but it would just fall to the floor

just go try it

Ok so as the aircraft moves into the boxcar, the left wing enters first, immediatly loses lift because there is no relative wind moving over the wing. Now, as this loses all of its lift it also looses drag, which creates a large yawing tendency to the right, in other words outside of the train car. Without the left wing producing that left the plane is going to start dropping, while yawing to the right, causing it to spin out of control downwards to the GROUND, not into the train car.


True factz.

no
any speed increase that could happen would require insane levels of air pressure on the inside of the car, that could push it forward
otherwise no,

dive by zero

>>230891759
THE FUCK HAVE YOU DONE?!?!!?1?

>>230886075
>>230886075

The nature of his question actually has to do with relativity, but because it is not a vacuum the details of it are played out through aerodynamics.

A few people asked what would happen in a vacuum, with a spaceship. The answer to that would be that it would crash into the front wall.

That has everything to do with relativity, because it has to do with relative speeds.

This is a matter of relative systems. The airplane travels through air as a medium. The amount of thrust provided by the plane at the outside of the cart is what is necessary to propell it into a speed of 100 km/h through the air (which we will assume is moving in sum approximately at 0 km/h). However, when the plane enters the new system, the train cart, the air inside travels at a speed of 100 km/h in comparison to the air on the outside of the cart.
If the plane maintains the same amount of thrust, and the cart is indeed air-tight, the plane WILL crash into the wall.
Hope this helped, physics fag signing out ;P

the plane's air speed would be reduced dramatically. the plane will stall.

>>230878783
>I asked my physics teachers, my mother, my father, my friends, my bro, no one could answer correctly and precisely.

You are american, aren't you...

i've been asking myself the same question OP.

i think, they plane would first bump to the ground of the train because there is no more air flowing underneath the wings. then it would probably take off into the front wall because of the motor that is blowing

>>230884151

he doesn't tell what plane this is it could be one of those jets that have hover capacity, so with a very pro pilot he would only need switch from back propulsion to hover propulsion while he enters laterally very rapidly.then he could start the back propulsion again to hit the front of the car.

>>230878783
Smells like troll.

If nobody could answer 'correctly and precisely' this implies you already know the answer (to be able to judge other answers wrong or inaccurate).

As soon as it enters the train its inertial momentum will be preserved and it still be flying 100mph relative to the surface of the train. So it will crash miserably into the train wall.

>>230892282

MA MCDANIEl, ENGLISH PROFESSOR AND EXPERT ON ESTIMATING IQ AMONG POPULATIONS SAYS:

1. MASSACHUSETTS........................................104.3

2. NEW HAMPSHIRE..........................................104.2

3. NORTH DAKOTA............................................103.8

4. VERMONT....................................................103.8

5. MINNESOTA.................................................103.7

6. MONTANA....................................................103.4

7. MAINE.........................................................103.4

8. IOWA..........................................................103.2

9. CONNECTICUT...............................................103.1

10. WISCONSIN.................................................102.9

MA MCDANIELS PEER REVIEWED APPROVAL OF DR RICHARD LYNNS BOOK THE IQ AND WEALTH OF NATIONS

6 Austria 102
6 Germany 102
6 Italy 102
6 Netherlands 102
10 Sweden 101
10 Switzerland 101
12 Belgium 100
12 China 100
12 New Zealand 100
12 United Kingdom 100

YOU MAD?

i believe you've either been trolled or questioned by a retard.

>>230880307
wait, what?

I cant prove it as I am not educated. However, I believe the plane would enter then fall to the ground inside due to no air being available for the engines to create any propulsion.

Itd crash. Its not going 0 mph right now, other wise itd slam back through the trains back. It already has velocity, so if you revved it up to 100, itd be going 200.

also, obv troll is obv

>>230892729
fucking smartass he gives us material to think, and reason about. if that for you is trolling, then you lose

you would fly relatively 200 because the air speed inside the car is 0. you would fly 100 IAS (indicated air speed)

>>230893511
Anyone who creates a thread with the subject 'This is not a troll' is inevitably trolling.

>>230892864

1 Hong Kong 107
2 South Korea 106
3 Japan 105
4 Taiwan 104
5 Singapore 103

the ching chongs are still smarter than u americunts though...

Its not the air that it moves you dumb fucks. Its the airplane!

The air is still outside but it moves forward at 100km/h inside the train, thus when it will go inside it will fall like a brick.

It would not hover.

It would fall downwards, thrust is still present, but lift is not.

The train and the plane have no contact and therefore no affect on each others speed. That being said the plane inside the train would have little air resistance and would, in theory, accelerate a small amount.

>>230893880

not if u use this

>>230892610

let's see...
maybe a split second it would hover, but then it would slam against the wall.

i mean, on a train you can still move forward, you know?

This is stupid question, ofc it will fall when it enters the car. Air stands still there and acceleration isn't strong enough to keep it in the air. This is same as u would drop plain with full engine power from 1 meter with 0 speed.

>>230892864
Implying that it makes perfect sense that IQ changes related to your geographic location.

Stupid uneducated american.

There's no moving air in there, dood, so the plane would lose lift and stall or something crazy. There will be explosions, dood.

WAT IF YOU DO A BARREL ROLL?

>>230894866

You're saying gravity wouldn't be able to pull the aircraft down before the engines would be able to accelerate it to a speed fast enough to hit the forward wall?

RIGHT.

I love how everyone thinks that the plane just instantly is in the train car.

Once one wing enters the traincar, it will lose lift, the plane will spin towards the train and hit the wall of the train opposite the door.

>>230895212
I don't mean moving air, but still, I know that it would not keep flying. There's none of what it needs in there, dood.

the train carriage creates an aerodynamic microclimate where the airflow around the plane is disrupted/contained to the point where flight is no longer possible.

Presuming the windows rnt open and stuff.
it wouldnt make it in the door. it would spin and smash into the door (or loose control) but imagine it got into the train unharmed it would then fly into the front of the train.

>>230895196

Implying that genetic makeup and populations don't change with geographic location.

Whys deyz niggras in africuh and not In UEOPR> HUERPPPP

>>230896078

LET ME REPHRASE THAT, SINCE EUROPE IS BEING OVERTAKEN BY NIGGERS AND MUSLIMS.. WHY Aren't THEY INDIGENOUS TO EUROPE.***

does the plane supply its own power/ ie, is it not kept aloft by air moving beneath its wings?

if so, then it will hover when it enters the boxcar.

if it is a normal plane, it will smash into the wall, because the airspeed relative to the wings will have changed dramatically when it entered the car.

Everyone saying it would just fall to the floor cuz of no lift. I agree with you.

Also, I've never taken a physics class in my life. Just seems like common sense to me.

>>230896078
>Whys deyz niggras in africuh and not In UEOPR> HUERPPPP

I concede sir, I can tell you are far above my level.

I think it'd hover, assuming the engine didn't fuck with the wind or anything.

>>230896352

Once again, your argumentation is flawless.

Oh and, thank you for proving my point.

it wont do either you r-tard, it will fall to the bottom. In a container it cant force air under its wings

If it's already flying next to the door at the same speed as the train without flying past the train...why would simply going within the bounds of the train make it suddenly stop doing exactly what it was doing before?

If a physics teacher couldn't explain this to you then you either have a shitty physics teacher or you have been explained it properly but did not understand.

>>230896897

Well after you said something as ignorant as IQ isn't related to geographic location... when it was referring to the genetics, diets, education, and anything else of different regions that effects what a person's IQ will be.

Don't blame me either, M.A. McDaniel is a EUROCUNT FAGGOT. I can't be held responsible for him saying that the 10 smartest states are all smarter than Austria, Germany, etc.

the air would be moving alot slower inside the train car, the plane will stall and crash.

If you don't know the answer....how do you know nobody could answer it correctly?

>>230878783
Neither, there is not sufficient wind in the train car to create/maintain lift.
Airplanes need to create lift to actually fly.
You should read a little about aerodynamics.

Well the plane moves itself relative to the air, ok? so at that power setting if it has a 100 mph wind blowing against it it'll hover and stay still relative to the ground, if there's no wind it'll fly at 100 mph, and if it has a 100 mph wind blowing with it from behind it'll fly at 200 mph relative to the ground.

So outside the train it's using its engine at a high enough power setting to fly itself at 100 miles an hour relative to air that isn't moving relative to the ground (cos we'll presume there's no wind to keep things simple). If it were to go into the train carriage, it would find itself in a pocket of air that was being carried at 100 mph relative to the ground (because it's inside the carriage and the carriage is moving it). The plane's engine is working so that it moves the plane at 100 mph relative to whatever air it's in, so as soon as it gets inside the carriage, into the pocket of air that's moving at 100 mph relative to the ground, it'll start moving at 100 mph relative to THAT air INSIDE the carriage, thus moving at 200 mph relative to the ground, and crashing into the wall of the carriage at 100 mph (relative to the floor of the carriage)

1. No slamming into front wall. Guys, you're fogetting about the law of inertia. That's exactly what Mythbusters shown with car entering a moving car - it CAN'T accelerate to slam front door - it will speed up slightly, but due to inertia - there won't be a huge speed up.

The planes fly by using the same idea, it's just air instead of the road (wind) and truck base (standing air inside of train).

2. Assuming the plane entered the car (see 3) - it will fall into floor, since there's no wind to lift it (air is standing relatively to moving train). No wind under wings = fall down, while VERY slightly accelerating (law of inertia - the speed up will be basically the same as at take off).

3. The place will definitely roll. While entering the car - the plane would definitely roll anti-clockwise, due to left engine losing lift (2).

relative speed would be about 0 km/h so it wouldn't really crash hard, but as the air flow is completely different in there it would still come down.

this is dumb-easy stuff, never sawn the vids of someone driving a car into a truck while driving?

OP is lying, any physics teacher would have known that

the jet engines would push off the back wall creating thrust forward within the car, thus resulting in Rainbow Monkey cereal

>>230897368

Thanks for using unnecessary commas and acting like an overall faggot when the facts come forth.

Angry butthurt cunt.

NO JET CAN FIT IN A TRAIN PROTIP

>>230878783
its velocity forwards would be reduced as you add the sideways vector (unles the engines work harder exactly the right amount, so you'd crash.)
technically, it can get out, but in practice, no.

Not enough information is provided to accurately give an answer to your question.
-Windresistance on airplane is needed
-Will the plane spin when half of the plane is within the train(as the air resistance suddenly changes)

>>230898102
>>230898102
that was me and I've changed my mind. It'd come into the carriage, hover for an infinitely small amount of time, and immediately drop to the ground while accelerating towards the wall (just not accelerating fast enough to keep it in the air)

ok, Say A is wind resistance at power 100.
B is Momentum or thrust at power 100

the train carriage acts as a block with no wind resistance hitting from the front. Ergo slipstream occurs as no win penetrates the train.

Take the wind reisistance out of the equation upon moving into the train, B or Thrust has no resistance caused by A hence will accelerate.

or so i think

op is a fagot

>>230898398

I'll just leave this here then.
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

Enjoy the facts Mr. LOLEUROCUNTFAIL

>>230899808

infinitely small amount of time? so no time at all then, correct? unless you're using pointless turn of phrases that you cannot use properly

>>230892864
>>230892864
I'm an Irishfag who spent last summer in New Hampshire, and there is NO way in Hell that the average IQ there is above that of the Swedes.

the turbulence from the train moving would probable cause the rc plane to crash long before you actually got it inside the train car.

It's gonna hover. Slamming into the train car I thought is just..Well, FUCKING STUPID.

If we're assuming the plane is powered by propellers and no form of fuel based thrust is used, then the plane will spin round a bit and crash into the bottom corner of the compartment.
As the plane moves inside, the leading edge of the plane would cause it to twist round into the compartment wall due to the differing air speeds. As it went further inside the plane would twist round more and since there is no air flow and far less drag force the plane will crash towards the front wall and floor, twisting all the while.

>>230879512

Dude, that, what? WHAT THE FUCK REALLY?

You think wind resistance is the issue here.

Suck a dick, read a fucking science book. Jesus christ. Dumbshit crackwhore nigger, get off my /b/

>>230900455
when you throw a ball vertically into the air it goes up and then comes down, non? by "infinitely small amount of time" I'm referring to the amount of time that the ball, for example, stays still in the air between going up and coming down. But yes, this little plane would start to fall immediately

>>230899926
>>230899926

if there is a tail wind of 100kmh/h he would be able to enter the train just fine, and then smash against the front wall with a speed of 200km/h (relative to the ground outside) but if you were standing inside of the boxcar he would be traveling 100km/h

If no 100km/h TAILWIND then the plane will likely crash immediately due to the difference in air speeds, which would likely make the pilot lose control.

not this shit again sigh...

plane can't fly into there. the moment the wing gets inside, it will lose it flight abilities causing the plane to crash before it even gets in

/thread