would anthro birds be able to fly like RL birds can fly? if yes, how would they fly? horizontal or vertical? would we be able to ride them? (given that anthros are about the size of a human). if no, explain why they wouldn't be able to fly
Would anthro birds be able to fly like RL birds can?
- Thread starter download_a_flareon
- Start date
Alexxx-Returns
The Sergal that Didn't Vore
No.
DrDingo
Moved to phoenix.corvidae.org with the others
An anthro bird with arms like a human would not be able to fly.
To fly, its wings would need to be much longer than its arms. Simply because the arms are too heavy and too short.
The only way it could have hands and fly by flapping its arms is if it looked like a pterodactyl. And pterodactyls can't hold stuff like a person can.
To fly, its wings would need to be much longer than its arms. Simply because the arms are too heavy and too short.
The only way it could have hands and fly by flapping its arms is if it looked like a pterodactyl. And pterodactyls can't hold stuff like a person can.
Alexxx-Returns
The Sergal that Didn't Vore
Yeah, if you want man-sized anthros to be able to fly, you need to be pretty darn extreme and generous with your science.
alphakitsune
Batsh*t insane
Real physics don't always have to apply. Screw logic, My fursona can fly and her wings are about the size of Rouge the bat's.
Kerocola
Member
tl;dr: NO!
1. Powered flight: this is what everyone is thinking of. The bird flaps its wings, providing the thrust to fly. Since surface area increases proportionally less than weight (SA^2 < W^3) the size of wings a large bird needs would simply be too large to offset its weight. This is known as wing loading, and we don't really see birds larger than 12 kg(~26 pounds) use powered/flapping flight.
2. Non-powered flight: Argentavis magnificens was believed to be a ~160 lb bird that was able to fly. Large birds, such as this extreme example, used wind currents from the environment to fly. So, just in terms of SIZE...yes, large birds of roughly human weight have been speculated to soar/glide. Couldn't fly without existing air-currents. But...
3. Anatomy/Physiology: Birds have a "fusiform" shape to minimize drag when flying. Literally everything about birds has been modified to fly (air sacs, fused & pnuematic bones, the list goes on). Making them anthro would definitely make even soaring impossible since all these traits would be lost.
There's your cursory explanation. Now you have some $5 science words of the day (pneumatic, fusiform) and a cocktail party fact to throw around (The 160 lb "Thunderbird" as it was called).
1. Powered flight: this is what everyone is thinking of. The bird flaps its wings, providing the thrust to fly. Since surface area increases proportionally less than weight (SA^2 < W^3) the size of wings a large bird needs would simply be too large to offset its weight. This is known as wing loading, and we don't really see birds larger than 12 kg(~26 pounds) use powered/flapping flight.
2. Non-powered flight: Argentavis magnificens was believed to be a ~160 lb bird that was able to fly. Large birds, such as this extreme example, used wind currents from the environment to fly. So, just in terms of SIZE...yes, large birds of roughly human weight have been speculated to soar/glide. Couldn't fly without existing air-currents. But...
3. Anatomy/Physiology: Birds have a "fusiform" shape to minimize drag when flying. Literally everything about birds has been modified to fly (air sacs, fused & pnuematic bones, the list goes on). Making them anthro would definitely make even soaring impossible since all these traits would be lost.
There's your cursory explanation. Now you have some $5 science words of the day (pneumatic, fusiform) and a cocktail party fact to throw around (The 160 lb "Thunderbird" as it was called).
Stratelier
Well-Known Member
"Winged humanoid" style anthros would not be able to fly horizontally. Why? Because if you have wings sticking "out the back" and not the sides, how are they going to get a full flap out of them? A half flap yields much less power than a full one, and that's without getting into all the science about wing size/lift vs. body mass.
WolfNightV4X1
King of Kawaii; That Token Femboy
Of course! I imagine they would be!
The way I see anthro birds are drawn two/three ways
1)Feathers draping from arms, they have talon hands
2. They have normal wings, no talons, and the artists renders five feather at the tip to resemble 'fingers'
3. The wings are on the back.
Before I was a huge furry, I read this series called 'maximum ride' Basically, they are avian human hybrids (though not 'furry'). The way they fly is horizontal, and they have the wings on their back, so I imagin it's much like superman flying.
With wing-arms flying might be a bit different, arms outstrectched kind of like pretending to be an airplane. However, with arms that are exactly like wings it's drawn exactly the same.
No pun intended but...the sky's the limit! It depends how the artist wants to portray the anthro bird and it's up to what they can come up with
Edit: Pshhh...you guys are being to literal! We're talking anthro birds, they don't exist so why deny them the ability to fly just because 'it's not logical'
The way I see anthro birds are drawn two/three ways
1)Feathers draping from arms, they have talon hands
2. They have normal wings, no talons, and the artists renders five feather at the tip to resemble 'fingers'
3. The wings are on the back.
Before I was a huge furry, I read this series called 'maximum ride' Basically, they are avian human hybrids (though not 'furry'). The way they fly is horizontal, and they have the wings on their back, so I imagin it's much like superman flying.
With wing-arms flying might be a bit different, arms outstrectched kind of like pretending to be an airplane. However, with arms that are exactly like wings it's drawn exactly the same.
No pun intended but...the sky's the limit! It depends how the artist wants to portray the anthro bird and it's up to what they can come up with
Edit: Pshhh...you guys are being to literal! We're talking anthro birds, they don't exist so why deny them the ability to fly just because 'it's not logical'
Last edited:
Conker
Destroyer of Nazi Teddy Bears
The question is rendered entirely meaningless if the answer is, "it's fake so who cares?"
Granted, it's a meaningless question already since the answer is clearly "no" when any semblance of realty is applied.
WolfNightV4X1
King of Kawaii; That Token Femboy
With reality applied, it's as fake as the existence of anthro birds.
However, most realities can go out the windows when you have *spongebob voice*Imaginaaation
Fun fact: Anyone remember the movie finding nemo? Of course you do! It was a big hit when it was made. Beautifully rendered, scenic, and colorful. You can tell the movie creators sid their research when it came to many aspects of it. However, the movie is about a talking fish who saves his son from a dentist office with a short-term memory loss blue tang.
I recall one commentarry in which the animators were having a discussion. Regarding the scene where Marlin and Dory pick up the snorkels with their fins, one guy says 'No, that's implausible, it looks wrong, fish cannot move their fins that way" to which another guy responds, all the humor in his voice "...fish can't talk either"
^^^Moral of the story: Logic not always necessary
jtrekkie
Feathered
You can get around those problems. Why don't we put together some designs and evaluate them? It can't be too hard.
Last edited:
PastryOfApathy
Well-Known Member
If something so outside the realm of reality like anthro bird people can exist, why can't they fly? I mean why not?
Carnau
Ice cream is the only way
with hollow bones you could fly I suppose. But yeah, as red dagger stated, larger great muscles.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/7b13c247df796c055f592c4a1c5294ec/tumblr_mfie93Zlj31rhqfm7o1_1280.png
http://37.media.tumblr.com/d8a2fca2d194901acd5f94e4e128ab47/tumblr_mfie93Zlj31rhqfm7o5_1280.png
http://38.media.tumblr.com/7b13c247df796c055f592c4a1c5294ec/tumblr_mfie93Zlj31rhqfm7o1_1280.png
http://37.media.tumblr.com/d8a2fca2d194901acd5f94e4e128ab47/tumblr_mfie93Zlj31rhqfm7o5_1280.png
Armored Chocobo
Let's Playing Avian
I think the wingspan would be super-massive to be able to achieve standard avian takeoff.
Hell I still have no idea how I do it, bumblebee physics?
Hell I still have no idea how I do it, bumblebee physics?
This is why angels are considered to be bugs. Animals - wings instead of hands. Bugs - wings on the back, as additional pair of limbs.
No. Because with the size also comes mass, and to support it you need additional muscle mass. After reaching certain mass flying simply becomes impossible, because amount of musclemass needed to lift you from the ground becomes higher than mass that your wings are able to hold. Matemathician or physicist (and a native speaker) would be able to explain it better. Dunno. Ask Fallowfox.
It's exactly the same as with bugs - their skeletal and muscular system becomes inefficient after reaching certain mass so it's impossible for them to be bigger than X in earth gravity (not to mention limited breathing and oxygen delivery systems efficiency). Same applies to mammals. To every living thing.
It can be pictured by a simple chart.
(of course it's more complicated as in this case I'd also need to take into consideration wing surface size and shitton of other factors, but two mentioned are the most important)
By perfect I mean something that makes sence and can exist de facto
By imperfect I mean something that makes no sence and can exist only theoretically (or exist de facto for a short period of time as a blind alley of the evolution, or in favourable conditions, or after losing it's primary function - like wings of the flightless birds)
By impossible I mean impossible in current conditions, even in theory.
Of course that chart varies, depending on the movement mechanism (so, type of muscles, internal/external skeleton, skeleton and muscle material et cetera), oxygen levels, gravity, air density, air pressure, et cetera.
That applies to everything, vechicles and airplanes included.
Last edited:
S
Sar
Guest
Even with such a massive set of wings, the weight would still be too great to achieve natural flight.
This is a bit more than breaking the norm for biology, it's seeing how far we can go before breaking physics to get there.
I mean, unless imagination becomes an actual substance that's lighter than air...
Gnarl
The Arcane Sage
ARGH! In the late 1970's there was a school of thought that went something like this:
Those things which we conceive in our minds exist! Though in a dimension of mind and not the prime material plane, we have seen them in our heads.
and since we are real, therefore they must also be real. The imagination is, under this belief, thought of as a doorway to another dimension.
There are within this dimension of mind as many possible realities and the ideas of all humanity would ever dare to think up.
Why would we chose to willingly limit our creative nature by trying to hold to some rule about reality? If the artist or creator of the creature thinks that it can fly, then it can! Even in star Trek, in TNG, the were able to travel to a place outside the confines of time and space, where anything that existed in thought, became the reality! Why not embrace such things for the sake of the Anthro-creatures? And if I draw a creature on a piece of paper does no then the creature exist in reality? Or do you deny the piece of papers existence?
The original form of this was much more complex and intended to give those who thought about it a head-ache. It in itself is meant to question what is reality.
Those things which we conceive in our minds exist! Though in a dimension of mind and not the prime material plane, we have seen them in our heads.
and since we are real, therefore they must also be real. The imagination is, under this belief, thought of as a doorway to another dimension.
There are within this dimension of mind as many possible realities and the ideas of all humanity would ever dare to think up.
Why would we chose to willingly limit our creative nature by trying to hold to some rule about reality? If the artist or creator of the creature thinks that it can fly, then it can! Even in star Trek, in TNG, the were able to travel to a place outside the confines of time and space, where anything that existed in thought, became the reality! Why not embrace such things for the sake of the Anthro-creatures? And if I draw a creature on a piece of paper does no then the creature exist in reality? Or do you deny the piece of papers existence?
The original form of this was much more complex and intended to give those who thought about it a head-ache. It in itself is meant to question what is reality.