

The best paper airplane in the world - wallflower
http://www.zurqui.com/crinfocus/paper/airplane.html

======
davidw
I would have won a paper airplane contest in elementary school if the teacher
hadn't been lame about it. The rules were to build a paper airplane with paper
clips, paper and tape. Clearly, most of the kids were going to build silly
airplanes that barely flew, with the best sticking to more or less standard
designs that still wouldn't go all that far. My design was very simple: wad a
lot of paperclips up into a compact ball and wrap it with paper and tape. I
knew I could hurl it a lot farther than even the viable plane designs would
go, because I could sink way more energy into propelling it. It was clearly
superior, so the teacher disallowed it:-/

~~~
Silentio
It seems thinking outside the box isn't encouraged in schools. Is this because
schools (especially schools for children) are more about socialization than
they are for learning?

~~~
orib
It seems that when you're asked for a plane, you're expected to create a
plane, not a wad of paper.

Presumably, this was during a unit on areodynamics, and the idea was to
demonstrate an understanding of areodynamics, and not to show that you can
throw balls farther than you can throw planes.

If the teacher had asked for the object that would go farthest, instead of
specifically asking for a paper plane, then you would have a point.

~~~
davidw
1\. There were no rules on what the 'plane' was supposed to look like.
Creativity was encouraged and normally rewarded in this class (I liked the
teacher a lot, actually, and was irked also because it was out of character
for her to forbid thinking outside the box).

2\. It wasn't during a unit on aerodynamics, and in any case, "the motion of
air, particularly when it interacts with a moving object" is quite relevant to
wads of paper, meteorites, missiles, arrows, helicopters, and various other
objects that are not airplanes. It might have been a good opportunity to
explore why something like my wad of paper would go farther than most planes,
as well as the relative real world advantages of different things.

------
marvin
The reason this flies well is that it is a proper airplane. Most paper
airplane designs I have seen don't have a horizontal stabilizer, which will
usually doom the plane to crash.

Without a tail section, most airplanes are unstable in the pitch plane - the
resultant force from the aerodynamic lift doesn't work from the same point on
the wing as the center of gravity. An additional horizontal lift surface is
required to make sure the plane doesn't pitch up and stall.

The point the author makes about the center of gravity is good - with the
center of gravity far forward, the airplane will have a smaller angle of
attack (and hence less lift) for any given airspeed, and hence the plane will
end up in stable flight at a higher speed, with a resulting higher margin for
how strong gusts are required for it to stall and crash.

This is pretty basic applied aerodynamics, but not very common knowledge among
the kindergarten teachers who teach the art of making paper airplanes.

This thing _might_ fly if you remove the tail, because the center of gravity
is far below the resultant lift center - there is some trick here that can
allow you to get by without a horizontal stabilizer. Paragliders and hang
gliders use this, but I don't know why it works. Actually, the instructions on
this site are pretty neat and probably a good way to learn about practical
aerodynamics. On the "how to fly" page, they explain how you can trim the
plane for higher or lower speeds by adjusting the tail section and making
"flaps" - changing the shape of the wing in order to alter the lift
coefficient (how much lift you get at a given airspeed and angle of attack)

------
tlrobinson
If Japan can pull off this paper airplane that's launched from the
International Space Station and returns to Earth (reaching speeds of Mach 20),
then I'd have to vote for that:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7230949.stm>

~~~
thomasmallen
I'm pretty skeptical of the heat resistant coating mentioned in the article...

------
ctingom
Ok, I just made it. It takes about 30 minutes to put together. The
instructions are easy to follow but halfway through I changed to watching the
video. Which is linked to in the instructions.

Mine fly's really well, it has a lot of lift so it could almost use some more
weight in the tail section.

I added some tape to the tail section to hopefully add some weight. It didn't
really help and thus my reaction is to say it isn't the "best" paper airplane.
I don't think there is any "Best" paper airplane.

~~~
11ren
Try tweaking down the trailing edge of the wing and/or the trailing horizontal
edge of the tail, to counter it. Mine was diving, and tweaking these surfaces
upwards made a dramatic difference.

He talks about this after the instructions:
<http://www.zurqui.com/crinfocus/paper/air-fly.html>

------
louislouis
Mine flew surprisingly well. Took around 20mins to build and I've just lobbed
it out of my balcony on the 30th floor lol. It was too dark outside to follow
but will try again in the daytime :D

~~~
eru
Add light. Or use glow-in-the-dark paper.

------
PStamatiou
would have come in handy at the GT vs LSU chick-fil-a bowl where disheartened
Georgia Tech fans were bored and made paper airplanes out of BB&T fliers on
every seat.

"The second half so lacked in drama that fans began throwing dozens of paper
airplanes from the second and third decks, cheering when a plane reached the
field." - AJC.com

------
thomasmallen
_"24. Carefully tear off strip of paper. Save the strip of paper because you
are going to need it to make the tail."_

In my opinion, a proper paper airplane is made from a single, uncut paper. If
you break that page into pieces, you might as well be using multiple pieces of
paper.

~~~
ralph
Mine too. You take a single sheet and fold it. No tape. No paperclips.

~~~
eru
So it's only an improper plane..

------
jrockway
That was enjoyable. Thanks for the link.

For some reason, I sometimes find myself somewhere with free time and sheets
of paper, but can never make a good airplane. That is no longer going to be a
problem :)

------
jyothi
Mine took like 10 min to make. Flies forward and upward almost for 5-8
meters(indoors) and takes a rebound and lands. It is quite a sight and worth
the time !

The heavy head and longish tail are key to this plane which distinguishes from
most common ones. In my case, I guess the not so perfect tail and slightly
tilted wings made it rebound.

PS: I checked this post and did not have the time or excitement to make one
right then. But I have to tell you, you better pick a rectangular sheet of
paper right away and try this one. Mindblowing.

------
mark_h
The best glider I've seen -- supposedly designed by a NASA engineer, although
I have nothing to back that up -- is also one of the simplest.

Fold an edge over itself a couple of times, about a cm or two, to create a
weighted edge. Then crease the entire sheet at regular intervals perpendicular
to this edge, so it forms a curved surface. That's it!

~~~
signa11
ooh a flying wing ! i have tried this a number of times myself, and it works
great indoors. however at the two extremities, i generally fold into a canard
like thingie... works fine.

------
orib
I remember this design from my childhood. (Well, a variation of it). Dropping
the tail and tearing elevators/ailerons into the back of it turns it into an
awesome stunt plane, one that can do loops and so on beautifully, or can (if
thrown right) come back to you like a boomerang.

~~~
d1rge
Me too - I've been making that variation since I was a kid and now my kids
love playing with them too. I'm going to try this tail version now to see how
they compare.

------
nihilocrat
I will have to try this out when I get home.

I still think I would prefer the Nakamura Lock, though, because it
accomplishes a similar goal (steady flight due to a proper center of gravity)
with less complexity:
<http://www.exploratorium.edu/exploring/paper/airplanes.html>

