Wing-Loading
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Pterodactyl was not strictly speaking, a flyer. It could not take off, but had to find a cliff or hill to launch from, to soar. Those finger thingies at the LE joint are graspers to climb with. The Alien Head helped reduce drag. Launch, hike, Launch, hike, Launch hike, etc. Kinda like hang gliding.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Plenty of hang glider flyers use the same site for takeoff and landing, it's called slope soaring. And when they're airborne they seem to think they're flying.
Many birds use slope soaring, a gull rarely flaps its wings except for t.o. and l., and uses cliffs and seashore features to gain height. Pelicans seem to fly all day in line-ahead formation using wave soaring. Glorious to watch the whole formation wing over one by one from one wave to the next.
I somehow think a pterodactyl would be a little vulnerable when hiking and would prefer to return to base by air. Good energy management would permit excursions to lower levels and return to base. Dunno what they used to feed on, could they catch 'insectosaurs' in midair or did they grab ground-based food?
Many birds use slope soaring, a gull rarely flaps its wings except for t.o. and l., and uses cliffs and seashore features to gain height. Pelicans seem to fly all day in line-ahead formation using wave soaring. Glorious to watch the whole formation wing over one by one from one wave to the next.
I somehow think a pterodactyl would be a little vulnerable when hiking and would prefer to return to base by air. Good energy management would permit excursions to lower levels and return to base. Dunno what they used to feed on, could they catch 'insectosaurs' in midair or did they grab ground-based food?
Last edited by mike-wsm; 10th Mar 2011 at 05:52. Reason: add Pteraichnus nipponensis
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember those days. Hughes Air West, PSA and Air California with a crew of hotties. The trouble is they are still flying and the only requirement is to fit through the window exit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mike-wsm
I just thought of something. The earth is not a perfect sphere, it's diameter and circumference across the equator is larger than the poles which has to do with the earth's rotation.
Regardless to compute the differences of altitude you'd take the planet's circumference, which is pretty easy to compute (πD); you'd take the planet's circumference at altitude ([D+2(Altitude)]π); then divide the circumference of the planet at altitude by the circumference of the planet at sea-level.
At that point you multiple that number by the length of your trip.
Circumference of Earth at Sea Level (Across Equator) = 40,075 kilometers
Altitude of 35,000 feet = 11,000 meters
Altitude of 60,000 feet = 18,288 meters
Circumference of Earth at 11 kilometers = 40,144 kilometers
Difference in Circumference @ 11 kilometers = 69 km
Circumference of Earth at 18.288 km = 40,187 kilometers
Difference in Circumference @ 18,288 meters = 112 km
So theoretically, for a flight that would traverse 10,000 km on the ground right along the equator, you would travel about 10,017.22 kilometers by air if you were flying at 35,000 feet; and 10,027.95 kilometers if you were at 60,000 feet. Of course this is theoretical because you'd have to take off, climb to altitude, then descend; you would also have to fly right along the equator with no deviation (no northwest/northeast/southwest/southeast); to make it even more complex many airports are not at sea-level, and flights usually don't involve a constant climb and descent rate.
I just thought of something. The earth is not a perfect sphere, it's diameter and circumference across the equator is larger than the poles which has to do with the earth's rotation.
Regardless to compute the differences of altitude you'd take the planet's circumference, which is pretty easy to compute (πD); you'd take the planet's circumference at altitude ([D+2(Altitude)]π); then divide the circumference of the planet at altitude by the circumference of the planet at sea-level.
At that point you multiple that number by the length of your trip.
Circumference of Earth at Sea Level (Across Equator) = 40,075 kilometers
Altitude of 35,000 feet = 11,000 meters
Altitude of 60,000 feet = 18,288 meters
Circumference of Earth at 11 kilometers = 40,144 kilometers
Difference in Circumference @ 11 kilometers = 69 km
Circumference of Earth at 18.288 km = 40,187 kilometers
Difference in Circumference @ 18,288 meters = 112 km
So theoretically, for a flight that would traverse 10,000 km on the ground right along the equator, you would travel about 10,017.22 kilometers by air if you were flying at 35,000 feet; and 10,027.95 kilometers if you were at 60,000 feet. Of course this is theoretical because you'd have to take off, climb to altitude, then descend; you would also have to fly right along the equator with no deviation (no northwest/northeast/southwest/southeast); to make it even more complex many airports are not at sea-level, and flights usually don't involve a constant climb and descent rate.
