[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Pterosaur wings clarification (quite long)

I would like to clarify one thing I wrote on, and explain another. First,
I was the person who used the Zittel wing first to evidence for a narrow
wing. I composed the email after the webpage I submitted, and did not try
to use the wing to support any other position aside from a narrow wing
except on the webpage where I point to a particular style of wing (of
three choices) rather than a generalization. This is my fault, and I will
revise the page shortly.

  Similarly, I would like to say that in my own correspondences, I have
used "narrow-" and "deep-winged" differently, and based on Dave Unwin's
recent post, I realized I really need to clarify what I mean by it and
perhaps help others to come to some synthesis as it may result in removing
some conflict of concept-loading terms like "bat-winged" and so forth.

  Narrow-winged: Where the chord is relatively short, with a high aspect
ratio; and deep-winged: where the chord is relatively long, with a low
aspect ratio. Both used in comparison to each other, and a standard
"normal" wing to indicate which is narrow to which is deep is neccessary.
A general sum where both values are given from a similar brachiopatagium
design can be used to fix the "narrowness index."

  Bat-winged: Having the brachiopatagium attach at the ankle and with a
relatively deep, low aspect wing. As in bats, of course.

  Bird-winged: Having the trailing edge perpendicular to the chord for its
entire extent, no taper to the ankle.

  Other designs require other words, but these are my thoughts.


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.