[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Fw: Pterosaur size
Not particularly. Diomedea exulans has a glide ratio of about
rounded off to 20 for convenience in multiplying.
---- that is high, as in upper end.
It's quite good, yes, but many of the fossil species we are discussing
did even better. Pelagornis managed 27:1. Some pterosaurs did just as
well or better. Note that we have feather impressions for
pseudodontorns, so planform is known with a fairly high degree of
(<=== Relative to how the albatross gets there, see sink rate, minimum
stall and air circulation patterns through geological time. Last I
checked, the air circulation trend was more air circulation globally
(from past to present), which has implications for ancient soarers.)
True, ancient circulation patterns would probably have an effect on
preferred foraging routes and such. In any case, getting to 1000 feet
is not a problem for any of the soaring species we're discussing,
regardless. You may assume cloud street usage, shear extraction,
flapping gains, etc. depending on your preference. --MH
-------------- First answer got chopped out, I'll expand. Gets chopped
out again, I will resend. Dredging this up from memory, if I have been
wrong all these years, so be it. L/d= glide ratio. Sink rate increases
w/ weight, as does minimum stall. More to the point w/ biosystems,
increase in density = decrease in effective weight _WITHOUT LOSS OF
POWERMASS OR FAT RESERVES_. Equal power, less "weight", lower sink
rate/stall speed and more fuel/range.
So with the lower sink rate, the travel time between any given points
increases; which isn't going to be beneficial to most pelagic birds.
As Jim already said, the glide distance is not going to change, so the
fuel/range ratio is left unaltered. In the end, a pelagic bird (or
pterosaur) probably just ends up increasing loading by reducing span a
bit and the scenario ends up looking basically like the standard
atmosphere scenario. --MH
People speak of kinematic adjustments. These are MORE beneficial at
higher density, as sink rate, etc. can ALWAYS be increased through
Actually, sink rate cannot always be increased through planform
adjustment, but it can be for the ranges of changes we're discussing.
Bats, in particular, have limited span reduction ability (flutter
problems, etc.) They do have great camber control, though. --MH
Also braking power is improved. No way this is not massively
beneficial to a large bird, ESPECIALLY FROM THE ECOLOGICAL > PERSPECTIVE.
Actually, it is quite possible it would not be "massively beneficial".
It might not be very beneficial at all, depending on how much the
difference is felt. After all, the benefits have to be weighed against
the loss of sink speed (and thus travel speed for soaring birds). Most
large birds would probably barely notice. Frigatebirds might notice
the difference of small density shifts at launch altitude. --MH
Increases in flight medium density (within reason) are beneficial to
volant biosystems at Re > 10, period. 15% is significant.
Er, not "period". They have an effect, yes, but it is probably minor
unless the increase is quite large. Oh, and I do agree that at around
Re=10 to 100 or so, the difference would be substantial. At Re >
100,000 (small birds), I'm more dubious because the fluid circulation
won't shift as markedly. As for 15% being significant, it depends on
what you mean by "significance". If you mean that small flying species
might see altered flow regimes, or that large flying species might
alter planform, then I agree. If you mean that a swath of large-bodied
taxa suddenly gain the ability to launch more effectively, then I am
more dubious. Again, it might be significant for species that are at
the very limits of their launch ability for their morphotype. This
could apply to say, frigatebirds trying to launch from the ground
(without gravity assistance), but it does not apply to most running
launch seabirds, to pseudodontorns, or to pterosaurs. Large
pterosaurs, interestingly enough, were probably further from a
launch-constrained size maximum than the large birds in question.
Confirming that fact requires a biomechanical perspective; the
selection gradients are too complex to use models of selection trends
to determine the performance of large extinct flying species. Of
course, once the performance trends are quantified, we can use them to
inform all sorts of interesting evolutionary questions. --MH