[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: ARCHAEOPTERYX FLIGHT
>Alas, a new thread.....
>Chris Nedin wrote:
><<<So, as you see, the furcula of Archaeopteryx is built to hold a
>large wing depresser muscle.>>>
><<This has little bearing on what I wrote, namely that the some tendon
>structures amongst others ( e.g. M.supracoracoideus) of Archae implies
>that it was not capable of power flight (flapping flight, yes) and so
>was probably not on the direct line to birds with the ability to power
>fly. FWIW I accept that Archae was capable of flapping flight, but not
>"Power flight"? If you are using the term as a way to define the strong
>way that modern birds fly I would agree with you. To a point......
I 'defined' what I meant by "power flight" at the start of this thread:
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 16:11:32 +0930
From: Chris Nedin <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Theory on ornithoptering and could Archie do it ?
"One needs to differentiate between flight and *powered* flight, they are
two separate things. Flight can be seen as simply keeping yourself
airborn, and is surprisingly easy (given the correct power/weight ratio).
Once a certain aerial speed is achieved (approx. 9 m/s) then simple
flapping in enough to maintain flight.
Power flight is an entirely different animal. Power flight is the ability
to take off from a standing start, to fly at very low speeds and to do
aerial acrobatics. Power flight is to flight what the 4 minute mile is to
running. Just because you cannot run the mile in 4 minutes does not mean
that you cannot run. Similarly, just because a bird cannot power fly does
not mean that it cannot fly."
I think we are actually in agreement.
Many say it was a mistake to come down from the trees, some say
the move out of the oceans was a bad idea. Me, I say the stiffening
of the notochord in the Cambrian was where it all went wrong.
It was all downhill from there.