Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4388)	11/19/2001 11:21:03 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

I would think if they thought that to be the case the Airbus would be grounded until proven otherwise or fixed.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4388)	11/19/2001 11:51:32 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

A lateral force applied to the rear stabilizer of a plane in flight would tend to push the back of the plane in the direction of the lateral force. If the plane was bolted to the tarmac so that the rear of the plane couldn't move from a lateral force, it would be much more likely to snap off from a lateral force. I still have my doubts that even in this configuration that any amount of force generated by another plane's wake, could snap it off cleanly like that. Of course, I ain't no airplane design expert, nor an expert in physics, but I think that the basic common sense about the principles of physics would support this.