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

Re: Quetz wing questions

Currently, I favor a flight membrane very similiar to Jim's, except that I have 
been working with a model that has a hind limb attachment for the wing.  
However, because I support quite a sharp turn to the hind limb (for several 
reasons that I think are well-supported), the actual membrane extent is only 
very slightly greater than the one that Jim uses.  I think we may use a 
slightly different tip shape and trailing edge approach, as well, which further 
broadens my wing relative to his, but my uropatagium reconstruction is slightly 
more narrow.  My actual hind limb attachment point varies; I have tried both 
knee/thigh and ankle attachments.  With the sharp approach angle, the 
difference in wing shape and area is actually pretty trivial.  I like to play 
with varies attachments just to see what comes out.  With a broader wing, I 
generally assume greater mass, as well.  Overall, I prefer a bit more body mass 
than Jim; I have also run some very quick calculations with a mass esti
mate from Mark Witton's work, presented at the Flugsaurier meeting in Munich, 
which is on the higher end.  The upshot is that my wing loadings are the same 
to greater, despite preferring a bit more wing area, give or take.

Otherwise, my thoughts are the same as Jim's (metacarpal ratios, etc) so I'll 
leave that to him.



----- Original Message -----
From: "<Bruce Woollatt>" <brucewoollatt@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:19 pm
Subject: Quetz wing questions
To: dinosaur <dinosaur@usc.edu>

> Hello all, particularly Mr Habib and Mr Cunningham;
> With regards to Quetz's aspect ratio; maybe I missed this information
> upthread (or even in a previous thread), but I was wondering if each 
> of you
> could indicate what your assumed flight membrane hindlimb attachment point
> is (if any), and the extent of any uropagium. Also, what is the ratio 
> of
> wing outboard of the metacarpal to that inboard, and how does this compare
> with Langston's 1981(?) reconstruction of Qn ?
> Thanks,
> Bruce.