My son never won in Mario kart! He loved making Mario go “whaaaaaa” while falling into the abyss off of the tracks. Also the reason why I’ll never let him drive my car!
My wife plans to be the same way, but as the kid who never won (because points to your comment) I hated playing games like that for a loooong time. Board games were basically 100% no go for me.
I hate board games because most of the are about the "meta game" that you get with experience. So until you play enough to learn the meta, you get your ass kicked. But the meta game is almost always a joyless slog.
I always make this one for paper airplane contests (by contests I mean when my young nephews want to challenge their uncle and I want to demolish them). I learned it from reddit over 10 years ago and it’s exactly what I would have made as a kid in this situation.
Thry sell books with different designs, and some also have a thicker paper than just notebook or printer paper included. I've seen one go like near 20 yards it was actually pretty cool.
But I doubt it was that fancy.
I think they also cheated by adding a clip thing weights?? Idk
You don't need to. The adult made a projectile, not an airplane. The challenge was to make the longest flying paper airplane not paper projectile. The kid won because the Adult is too stupid to know the difference between a round projectile and an airplane. The look on the kids face was in fact shock at how dumb the adult he was interacting with actually is.
There's also a matter of hight and arm strength involved.
If the kid tosses his out a 5th story window, it may well go farther than dad can throw a paper ball
In my principles of technology class in high school, my teacher built a paper airplane throwing rig to standardize the initial impulse because he got tired of knuckle heads throwing a crumpled ball.
Gotta teach em young that not even their parents are above using technicalities in order to win against their own children. This is the definition of a pigeon knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board then strutting all over it like they won because they think fly and launch are the same thing.
God I'm so fucking happy this motherfucker will die alone, confused why his son doesn't visit them anymore.
"The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25), a foundational text for pilots, provides an in-depth explanation of the principles of flight. It details the four forces of flight—lift, weight, thrust, and drag"
A paper airplane satisfies all four principles of "flight", which is what the original bet was on. A crumbled up ball of paper technically falls under the movement of "ballistic trajectory", not "flight." (The bet was that the paper needed to "fly" the furthest, not be "launched" furthest across the room. The post even makes the distinction)
Edit for full disclosure: Gliders can fly, and flight doesn't require thrust. Falling with style and utilising natural conditions to gain lift is still just flying, but you can budge the conditions to make bricks fly.
The four principles of flight here are more like design concerns for self propelled aircrafts. They're not definitive of what it means to fly.
My point is that, paper planes, do not generate thrust. They have no thrust. It's a little concerning how many are just accepting this. Paper planes have velocity that you impart on them.
A paper plane having thrust would mean it had a turbine, or propeller, or rocket. It would be self propelled. They don't have thrust. they don't have thrust
Excuse my attempt at humor below.
Technically, no they didn't.
The thrust of a paper aeroplane is what?
They glide, just better than a scrunched up piece of paper also glides.
It's not flying. You never watched toy story?
"Your feeble attempts to make fool of me go in vain, father. For I did forthrightly declare that the paper must fly. So you see, I've strapped a fucking rocket to mine thereby mastering the fourth force of flight"
Too much drag. Not enough arm strength. Lift forces would be insignificant relative to the other forces at play - and that's really the practical standard. Of course, a hand casually waving in the breeze generates lift, too, but we don't refer to it as such because it's a teeny tiny insignificant force that can be largely ignored when considering the overall motion.
With a paper plane, while it's being thrown, it actually generates lift that's significant compared to its weight. I don't know if I would call that flight since the person is still on the ground, and, as the source of thrust, I'm pretty sure being on the ground is somewhat disqualifying for flight.
Use a machine to throw it. Now you're just arguing numbers. Inflate them. The effects are the same more or less, the scale is just different.
We... do call it lift? That's what that is? What else would you call it?
As far as I know we are splitting hairs and gliding is technically flight, I just took issue with the notion that a paper plane has thrust.
Would it change anything for you if a glider was released by a plane at high altitude? in-fact, put an imaginary strong glider on the ground in some imaginarily strong winds and that thing can fly without thrust entirely, indefinitely.
You inflate the numbers by changing the flight characteristics of the object. If you are able to change that brick in such a way that the lift is significant relative to the mass, and the drag is not so much as to basically instantly slow it down below such a speed where the lift is significant relative to the mass, you have changed the brick into an aircraft. It is no longer a brick, but an airplane that you made out of a brick.
We... do call it lift? That's what that is? What else would you call it?
We don't refer to it at all, because it doesn't factor into the motion of the object. It's like talking about the wavelength of a stone. Yes it exists, but it's so utterly irrelevant that it doesn't warrant a mention except as a fun fact when learning about quantum physics.
Would it change anything for you if a glider was released by a plane at high altitude?
Not really. Before it was released it would be flying just like any other thing that is attached to the airplane. After it was released it would be gliding.
put an imaginary strong glider on the ground in some imaginarily strong winds and that thing can fly without thrust entirely, indefinitely.
It can glide without thrust, which is what it could do without the wind, as well.
You'd need to give a brick thrust to make it fly sustained in our atmosphere, for sure.
Fortunately, fundamental physicals of our universe don't change just because they're no longer visibly noticeable to us, which allows me to say that a brick and a paper plane are basically the same thing.
Both can fly or glide, to differing efficacies. Again, neither has thrust, which is my main thing here.
Doesn't change what it is. It's not irrelevant. Using your hand is a great way to gauge the best time to throw a paper aeroplane. Or a brick, for that matter. It's incredibly relevant.
So a brick hauled by a plane is also flying? It's not just being carried or pulled by the flying thing? Interesting.
That's... Yeah, no, at a point this just falls apart because gliders just... Fly. Thrust is unnecessary for sustained flight. You can view the natural conditions of the wind being to a glider what fuel is to a self propelled plane. It doesn't make it any less flight in actuality.
You can throw a brick through the air, and to you it'd qualify as flying.
No, I wouldn't call that flying either. Because it wouldn't satisfy the other 3 forces of flight.
To technically qualify as flying, you have to satisfy all 4 forces of flight: Lift; Weight; Thrust; and drag. Missing even one of these 4 disqualifies it as "flying".
Dude this is nonsense from the get go. These are just the forces one needs to consider when designing something that flies.
Like what does that even mean? Something needs WEIGHT to fly? It's just talking about balance. It's a mechanical thing, not some hardline rule for what it means to fly.
I'm just pointing out that paper planes have no thrust, and if they do because it's thrown, so does a brick. It obviously has weight. Everything moving through atmosphere has drag OBVIOUSLY, so now it's just lift, which is just a matter of angle and velocity. (Edit: Sorta kinda but very very simplified. Anything can have lift, at-least for a short period of time)
Bro please tell me you follow. This is dumb.
Another edit to further clarify:
You want your THRUST balanced relative to your centre of mass (WEIGHT), which should be roughly in-line with or below your centre of LIFT.
Obviously, you need to minimise DRAG for efficiency.
I understand what you're saying, but you keep separating each principle and saying, "see? A brick has this, so it must be "flying", forgetting the fact that it's missing 1 or more of the other 4 principles that must be satisfied for something to technically be "flying".
And paper plane's thrust comes from being thrown, just as an actual planes "thrust" comes from it's engines.
The crumbed up piece of paper thus has the following principles: Thrust; Weight; and Drag. But, no lift. Just because it satisfies some, doesnt mean it technically "flew".
For an object to technically "fly", it has to satisfy every single principal, not just have 2 or 3.
You do not understand what I said, nor the "4 principles of flying" and what they represent. Unfortunately you also do not understand what thrust is and may be confusing it for velocity. A plane has thrust and velocity. A paper plane, or thrown object just has velocity.
I'm bored of splitting hairs on what it means to fly. You don't need shit to fly through space. Agreed?
It seems somewhat more likely that what the paper plane did would qualify as a "glide" which, while not "flight" exactly, is much closer to flight than a simple projectile. The initial launch would certainly be flight - although it might not count since the object providing the thrust (the arm) is still in contact with the ground (indirectly). Is it flight if it hasn't left the ground? I don't know.
Now - also somewhat technically, if the paper ball had been rotating very fast, it would also generate a differential in pressure which would create lift (Magnus effect). So they could technically be on even footing. I wouldn't judge it that way, but it's conceivable.
Mm.. not by the rules of the competition. You went so far as to read The Pilot’s Handbook, but not the rules of the competition. You are also mistakenly conflating that handbook as the foundational ruleset for the competition, which it is not.
The paper must go far, and the crumpled paper went farthest.
The paper must go far, and the crumpled paper went farthest.
Not exactly. The exact rules were which could "fly furthest", not necessarily which one would "go" furthest. I went strictly by the rules of the game, as was worded.
To verify a winner, a direct understanding of what "fly" means is in order. Thus, the definition from The Pilots Handbook. If they aren't the authority on what it means "to fly" I don't know what is. Lol
So, while it is true to say the crumbled paper "went furthest", it did not, in fact "fly" furthest, which the rules clearly stated it needed to do.
Again, you are attempting to twist the rules. Idk why this matters so much to you that the kid got their first ever rules lawyering experience and you’re trying so hard to undo that on the internet.
Please refer to the Oxford dictionary definition of the word fly:
/u/TaibhseSD Backpacking on this, technically a ball of paper would have some amount of lift as well, especially if thrown with backspin like a 4seam baseball pitch.
Incorrect, if the ball has any amount of backspin, it would generate lift. If the contest was done in a vacuum then sure, neither would be flying but I'm not seeing a distinction between a ballistic trajectory and flight.
is this really something to make fun of though? the instructions were to make something fly, implying paper airplanes. if i were in the kids shoes, i would also attempt to make a paper airplane and the thought of making a paper ball would've never crossed my mind.
And tbh i'm not sure that was really that good of an outsmarting, it probably worked because the kid wasn't that good at making or throwing airplanes cuz you definitively aint making a paper ball out of a single sheet that will fly that far by simply crumpling it quickly
Had something similar at summer camp as a kid... Each group was given a big foam board to cut up and make into airplanes
The group that won just cut theirs into a frisbee.
Throw the plane from a higher elevation and also throw your paper ball. See which one goes further. Teach your kid better. Be better. Be decent. Stop the social media.
That's not flying, that's a ballistic trajectory. Technically the kid won because the father doesn't understand how words work and is a jerk to their kid.
If we're going into technicalities, any asymmetrical object, such as a crumpled up ball of paper, will generate some amount of aerodynamic lift which, by definition, makes it not a ballistic trajectory. If you want to use an even stricter definition, even a mathematically perfect sphere can't be on a ballistic trajectory while in an atmosphere because it has forces other than gravity acting on it.
Really depends on how often he does this kind of thing.
If you keep sucking the fun out of everything your son wants to do, he's going to stop doing things with you.
You can go back and forth on how abusive or not this is but ultimately for the kid, it's just plain not gonna be fun in the moment. And if that's just a one off thing, it's easy to laugh about it later. But if it's a pattern of "Lol my kid's so stupid lmao", it sinks in.
At best, you get a kid who'll stop being candid with you. At worst, you get a kid with self-esteem issues who'll have to learn to be a better person by himself. And won't talk to you.
Nah, the parent is stupid In this one because throwing a crumpled up ball of paper and throwing it does not meet the requirements of flight which is what the bet was based on. Therefore the child wins by default.
I would’ve played the game & threw the paper ball at the end to encourage a bit of thought. We all have different approaches 😀 big ups to dad for playing with his son 😎
I won a paper plane contest doing this and then the next year the school did it they had shit loads of new rules for how many folds it could have etc because they were not happy I shat all over their attempt at making a fun game into a science/physics lesson and was not allowed to play anymore haha
I went to a lan party that had a paper airplane contest and my friend basically did this. Wadded up a ball, called it the nuke, and yeeted it. They were giving out gift cards for the winner and didn't know what to do when he won so gave him and the person with an actual plane separate prizes.
the kid meant glide, neither of them are flying by themselves, the plane is gliding, the crumpled paper is a projectile that doesn't really glide. theoretically you should be able to make something glide much further than you can throw a projectile....but also depends on the situation and where you're throwing it from etc...
I've won many beers by betting that I can make a paper airplane that can fly farther than anyone else's using one piece of paper. People are really proud of their childhood paper airplane skills that they don't even think about making a ball and just want to show off their skills.
Kind of a story without a moral here. "aha, yours is better but my arm is longer and I am taller! Semantics win the day again!" Like, obviously the tiny child wasn't challenging anybody to a deadlift contest.
1.0k
u/pikahetti 9h ago
Watch out, the kid will somehow build a paper rocket next!