Why airplanes taxi

On Feb 6, 1:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

writes:

Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward on the ground.

So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

No, it takes a few minutes. Don't you watch star trek?

Bertie

It actually depends on the volume and pitch of the 'rrorrr-rrOORRR'
sound and angle at which Mr. Scott finds himself clinging to the fence
in front of the engines.

Smoke escaping out of various panels on the bridge seems to help as
well.

You sure this isn't a GM product we're talking about here?

wrote in
:

On Feb 6, 1:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:

writes:

Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as
they move forward on the ground.

So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer
space should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

No, it takes a few minutes. Don't you watch star trek?

Bertie

It actually depends on the volume and pitch of the 'rrorrr-rrOORRR'
sound and angle at which Mr. Scott finds himself clinging to the fence
in front of the engines.

Smoke escaping out of various panels on the bridge seems to help as
well.

You sure this isn't a GM product we're talking about here?


Bwwahwhahwhahw!


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote :

Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward on the ground.

So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.

From this logically follows that any meteorites that succeed through the
atmosphere and hit Earth have an initial velocity faster than the speed of
light.

I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
the most recent black hole. ;-)

Snowbird writes:

The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.

Only with infinite friction.

I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
the most recent black hole. ;-)

The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. I've
illustrated why.

On Feb 6, 2:42*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Snowbird writes:
The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.

Only with infinite friction.

I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
the most recent black hole. ;-)

The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. *I've
illustrated why.

No you haven't you moron:

Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward on the ground.

taxi: this word implies that the airplane is moving under its own
power.
move forward: this indicates that the airplane is in motion for the
above stated reason.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking Tony.

Airplanes taxi to get from one side of the airport to the other, much
like the chicken crossing the road.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...

The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.

Only with infinite friction.


I'm just applying your flavor of logic.

I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
the most recent black hole. ;-)

The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. I've
illustrated why.

Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)

On Feb 6, 4:39*pm, "Snowbird" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote ...



The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.

Only with infinite friction.

I'm just applying your flavor of logic.

I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
the most recent black hole. ;-)

The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. *I've
illustrated why.

Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)

How about floats though?

Has anyone considered the friction between floats and water?

The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect.
I've
illustrated why.

Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)

How about floats though?

Has anyone considered the friction between floats and water?

As far as I can see, the scope of the original posting was limited to
taxiing on the ground. It is of course debatable whether a layer of water
between the airplane and the ground, which in this context is more aptly
named the bottom, is influencing the amount of molecules in outer space. As
there have been no reports of floatplanes leaving the atmosphere, I let the
case rest.

On Feb 7, 9:31*am, "Snowbird" wrote:
The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect.
I've
illustrated why.

Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)

How about floats though?

Has anyone considered the friction between floats and water?

As far as I can see, the scope of the original posting was limited to
taxiing on the ground. It is of course debatable whether a layer of water
between the airplane and the ground, which in this context is more aptly
named the bottom, is influencing the amount of molecules in outer space. As
there have been no reports of floatplanes leaving the atmosphere, I let the
case rest.

Wasn't it a floatplane that was looking for the other three in the
Bermuda triangle?

-Kees