On Thu, 24 May 2001, Reggie Bautista wrote:
> So the fighter jets that are launched by catapult from aircraft carriers
> aren't airplanes? The Merriam Webster Dictionary (50th anniversary edition)
> defines an airplane as "a powered heavier-than-air aircraft that has fixed
> wings from which it derives lift." Of course, by that definition, movable
> wing airplanes aren't airplanes either...
I'm not sure that catapult-launched Navy jets make a good counterexample.
AFAIK these kinds of fighters are perfectly capable of taking off from an
ordinary runway, but the catapult is used because an aircraft carrier
doesn't offer quite *enough* runway.
As for whether or not the method of takeoff matters, I can see arguments
in both directions. If all the talk about "self-powered heavier-than-air
flight" is technical jargon for "enable a man to fly like a bird," then
one might argue that an airplane builder hasn't succeeded until he builds
something that can take off without assistance. Birds don't need
catapults, after all.
On the other hand, to make the bird metaphor the measure of success lets
out, in my opinion, any airplane that needs a runway to get going. Birds
don't need runways any more than they need catapults.
But if the critereon of success is that the machine be able to *fly* like
a bird--as opposed to "take off like a bird"--then the Wright Brothers
succeed admirably.
Except for the bit about flapping the wings, of course.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
