how do dragons fly? (Spoilers all books to end DH)

[assasin]

Nobody has disproven your theory

Of course not, I've just given up coninving people that it is the correct one. [though not saying its right. Just that I believe it is]

Now that I think of it, do dragons require a powerful leap or running start before gaining enough speed and lift to fly? Or can they somehow lift off by only flapping their wings and some sort of magical aid?

Sintra stated [when talking about heebies practice] that dragons don't have to run before they fly. Though she did do it at the end of haven. I would assume that all they have to do it flap their wings and possibly jump into the air.

['thul]

with a strong enough flap of the wings, dragons can lift off, but when out of practice or similar, it is easier to lift off with a running start... that is also why airplanes tend to go along the ground before lifting off (except VTOL aircraft)...

the reasons behind such can be ascribed to elementary aerodynamic physics...

remember that tintaglia could take off/land in the traders concourse in bingtown/trehaug... neither of those spots have considerable running space... Dragons, when in perfect health, will use their wings combined with strong leg muscles to lift off... the wings pushing the air down just as the legs push up in a leap...

[Mervi]

Woah, 2+ pages of new conversation while I was gone!

Just a couple of random thoughts to add to the soup from the top of my head:

- I thought the "bees shouldn't be able to fly" was proven to be an urban myth/based on wrong calculations

- doesn't Terry Pratchett explain how (his) dragons can fly in... was it Guards! Guards! ?

[Farseer]

- I thought the "bees shouldn't be able to fly" was proven to be an urban myth/based on wrong calculations

Yes, Dr Drake is obviously not an expert on bees, as the "bees shouldn't be able to fly" myth is one of the two bee myths I know of (though it could well be a myth that it's a myth as I am no bee, let alone flight, expert either !).

Obviously the person who first ever said this had applied only what they knew of aerodynamic law (or whatever you would like to call it) at the time but an increase in undertsanding of calculation methods and the flight mechanics of bees has changed the perspective? What they should have said was, "Using current methods and knowledge, I cannot explain how bees fly."

The same could be said of our current discussion. That conventional aerodynamic analysyis methods do or do not apply to bees, pterosaurs or possibly even dragons, even when it is suggested that they can't or shouldn't be able to fly, does not mean that they can't. This is particularly true in the case of bees, where we have irrefutable physical evidence that shows us that they obviously can. It is much harder in the case of pterosaurs and dragons because we have no way of studying them in flight and then applying numbers and calculations to fit them into an old slot, or even create a new slot, within aerodynamic law.

Not understanding something fully eg bees and their flight mechanics doesn't mean it has to be attributed to magic or even a miracle (as some most likely believed of bees in the past sometime, when their flight could not be explained using conventional methods). Of course, when we are talking about a creature within a magical realm, such as we are talking here of dragons within the RotE, there is always the possibility that magic is used to assist flight. With magic, all things are possible!

Still, while magic may have been used by the RotE dragons, I do believe that Hobb intended for the dragon flight to be a "natural" thing or as close to natural as possible (as 'thul has previously mentioned), and not a magical thing. While it's true that dragons are magical themselves, I think she wanted their flight to sound natural, in the same way that while the Wit is magical, it is a natural instinct/sense that could be believed by the reader as an extension of what we already know/experience. It isn't so far-fetched that it can't be believed outside of a magical arena. An example of this would be her suggestion that it is the Wit at work when a mother senses that her child is crying. As a mother, I have "sensed" this sense and so find that, as I read along, I can easily believe that Fitz could have this sense in a more concentrated form.

All in all, I haven't read anything at all in the RotE books that has suggested 'magical flight' to me BUT that doesn't mean it isn't there. As for bees, we may all come to a greater understanding of this particular element if Hobb chooses to reveal something on it in future books. With magic or without magic? That is the question!

[assasin]

Ive tried to give in but I dont seem to be succeeding.

Still, while magic may have been used by the RotE dragons, I do believe that Hobb intended for the dragon flight to be a "natural" thing or as close to natural as possible (as 'thul has previously mentioned), and not a magical thing. While it's true that dragons are magical themselves, I think she wanted their flight to sound natural, in the same way that while the Wit is magical, it is a natural instinct/sense that could be believed by the reader as an extension of what we already know/experience. It isn't so far-fetched that it can't be believed outside of a magical arena. An example of this would be her suggestion that it is the Wit at work when a mother senses that her child is crying. As a mother, I have "sensed" this sense and so find that, as I read along, I can easily believe that Fitz could have this sense in a more concentrated form.

Of course my theory is quite similar to yours on old blood. The magic would be used as a focus or support. Like the wit is an extenction on natural instincs dragons would fly by gaining support with the magic. Take catylysts in biology. The catylysts allow reactions to take place but are not the cuase of the reactions. Just like magic would be nessesary for dragons to fly but the wings would be the cuase of the actual flight. Similarly wih the wit a person could sense someone behind them but the wit would allow it in a much stronger form, say by sensing everone in the room.

Of course it might just be an odd attomical structure but isnt it true that the simplest explenation is uusually the right one.

One other thing. Who says the acid is just there becuase its more natural. I can easily see a scenario where an animal has sacs with gasses that, when coming in contact with each other, burst into flame. These would be sprayed into the air and light up. Turning the creature into a fire breather. I dont think I've know of any animal which has a poison with similar properties to a dragons acids.

['thul]

one of the biggest problems with fire-breathing theorem, is that while tooth enamel is quite strong, it is not suited for repeated exposure to fire... the only way to explain away a true fire-breather would be to have it magically generate the fire just outside its mouth...

as for dragon acid, it is fairly close to many strong molecular acids, which can easily occur naturally... one example (if not from nature) of such acid, is from the film series "alien" where the xenomorphs have such acid in the place of blood. Like dragon spit, it is capable of burning through nearly anything (like 7+ decks on a starship)...

there are many reptiles that spit venom, so that aspect is also covered. Since dragons are much larger, logic would indicate that their spit would have to be that much stronger to have any considerable effect...

[redchild]

Who says the acid is just there becuase its more natural. I can easily see a scenario where an animal has sacs with gasses that, when coming in contact with each other, burst into flame. These would be sprayed into the air and light up. Turning the creature into a fire breather.

Hobb doesn't seem to be emphasizing fire-breathing ability into her dragons, though there is the possibility that the acid is flammable.

I dont think I've know of any animal which has a poison with similar properties to a dragons acids.

Many animals produce acid in their stomachs for digestion, so it's not impossible to imagine that dragons could have acid producing glands/sacs that are specially designed to contain and eject acid. It's just that dragon acid is much much more acidic, seeing as it can burn holes in a ship and everything. Hydrochloric acid could probably do the same, but at a much slower rate.

Hobb probably got the inspiration of acids from various venoms and toxin producing animals. Spider venom dissolves the soft insides of their exo-skeletal prey into slush, though I doubt the dragons need to soften their food with acid. Komodo dragons have highly toxic bacteria in their saliva that can kill prey that got away. The way dragons use their acid is a lot more aggressive and quicker than the way spiders or komodo dragons use their toxins, though. As sea serpents, they produce clouds of venom that act like nerve toxins found in species like jellyfish or sea snails. I don't remember if they still have this ability as dragons, but I imagine they can.

---

one of the biggest problems with fire-breathing theorem, is that while tooth enamel is quite strong, it is not suited for repeated exposure to fire... the only way to explain away a true fire-breather would be to have it magically generate the fire just outside its mouth...

Good point. Perhaps there would also have to be some sort of organ that ignites the flammable liquid as it leaves the mouth. And the dragon would have to maintain a forceful jet, otherwise the flames will spread up the stream and burn the dragon's throat.

[Farseer]

Ive tried to give in but I dont seem to be succeeding.

['thul]

It is nice to have something to argue (nicely) about...

[Farseer]

Who says the acid is just there becuase its more natural. I can easily see a scenario where an animal has sacs with gasses that, when coming in contact with each other, burst into flame. These would be sprayed into the air and light up. Turning the creature into a fire breather.

Hobb doesn't seem to be emphasizing fire-breathing ability into her dragons, though there is the possibility that the acid is flammable.

I just came across this as I've finally managed to get back to my RA re-read...it's in Chapter Ten, 'Fool's Errand' (I love that simple chapter headings later become book titles! ), where Fool is prompting Fitz to think about where all the Skilled ones have gone, and how he may find out more about the Elderlings:

"So answer this. What has wings in Shrewd's scroll, a tongue of flame in Verity's book, silver eyes in the Relltown Vellums, and gold-scaled skin in your room?"

While the answer to this riddle of Fool's is "an Elderling", the question that remains is if he is here thinking of an Elderling or a dragon which he and Fitz had viewed as an Elderling until they discovered that the stone dragons were imbued with the anmas of Elderlings and dragons were actually...dragons. An example of this is when Fitz saw the dragon landing in the waters of Kelsingra when he was there in AQ and he breathed, "Elderling"..yet we now know it was actually a dragon that he'd seen and NOT an Elderling. Still, at the time, he'd thought it was an Elderling...

Back to the question...is Fool here speaking of an Elderling such as Selden, speaking minstrel-like wisdom and truth or a dragon with its literal "tongue of flame"? Is this evidence to support the presence of flame-breathing dragons, and not just acid spitting etc, within the RotE?

The answer to the question regarding an Elderling vs a dragon will also provide insight into Nuytsia's question regarding King Wisdom needing the Wit or not to awaken the Elderlings...was the being beside King Wisdom depicted in Fitz' bedroom wall tapestry an Elderling borne from a human, a true-born dragon or a stone dragon imbued with the anma of an Elderling/Skilled one? Only the latter would require the Wit to awaken it so which of the three was it? Whatever it was, it shares a tongue of flame with the same being in Verity's book.