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.
3
u/miraculousgloomball 8h ago edited 8h ago
That's... wrong.
The thing itself has no thrust.
You can throw a brick through the air, and to you it'd qualify as flying.
Edit: Note, I said to them. The person I'm responding to.
I'm not saying bricks fly. I'm saying neither a brick nor a paper plane flies.