Re: The origin of flight: from the water up

["James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>]

Waylon Rowley wrote:

> > In regards to Dipper wings:
> > Sure? Even stubbier than Archie's?

Does stubby translate as 'short', or as low aspect ratio?

> , but Dipper's do appear to have
> smaller wings, or smaller primaries at least.

Does 'smaller' translate as 'shorter', less surface area, or lower
aspect ratio?  As you no doubt note from these two questions, my
interest is in aspect ratio.

> I doubt that many behavioral changes would be needed
> to simply make a gliding maniraptor angle it's wings
> up periodically (I'm not talking about flapping, but
> the parasagittal axis of the wings).

Why would it necessarily angle the wings up?  Most planes and many
animals glide at a negative angle of attack.  Why would Archie be
different?  Are you assuming that zero lift occurs at zero angle of
attack?  If so, are you assuming that the wings are planar?  Note that
I'm not saying that they didn't angle the wings up,  just questioning
the assumption that they had to.

> > I think *Rahonavis*, with its very long wings

Does 'very long' mean a large wingspan, or does it mean a high aspect
ratio?

Thanks for the info,

Jim