On Fri, 25 May 2001, Reggie Bautista wrote:
>
> 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).
Some do. I'd like to see a Boeing 747 try taking off from natural field
though, the way a single-engine Cessna might. Better yet, try to land it
in one.
> 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.
As a runway is an artificial device that eliminates a mechanical barrier
to flight, I'd have to disagree. I agree that swans need a running start,
though.
> 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?
Huh! I suppose it could be looked at that way.
Here's another comparison: were the early automobiles, whose engines a
human had to crank and crank to start, truly "auto" mobiles? Should they
be disqualified from the history of the development of cars?
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
