>From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I would argue that a bird that needs a running start to get launched is
>not equivalent to, say, a Boeing 747 that needs a runway to get launched.
>The question is not whether the flying thingie or beastie needs to gather
>momentum before flight. The question is whether it needs an artificial
>aid to gather that momentum, and I think that a long, paved runway is not
>much different from a catapult in this sense. A swan might need a
>running start but it does not need a *runway.* There are airplanes that
>don't require long, paved runways, of course--but most commercial jets do.
>
A catapult is very different from a runway. A catapult is an external
device that adds power to the airplane. A runway is simply a thing that
allows an appropriate space for an airplane to gather momentum under its own
power, the same way a swan needs an appropriate space to gather momentum
under its own power. An airplane could take off from rock or dirt (and they
do, sometimes).
The comments about runways were made by me and others in response to
someone's statement that a runway is an "external device" that aided an
airplane, setting airplanes apart from birds. (I don't exactly remember why
that was an issue at the time...) I still stand by my original assertion
that some birds use the functional equivalent of a runway.
Here's an interesting thought -- could the Wright brothers' catapult be
considered a part of the airplane that was simply left behind, like a
booster rocket?
Reggie Bautista
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
