Wanna see something wild? A Japanese hobbyist managed to construct a working flying model of the Enterprise, seen making a circuit in the air in this .mpg file.

The original page on which this appears can be found here. The page is in Japanese, so unless you can read kanji, you're out of luck following the topics. Scroll down until you see the image of the flying Enterprise model plane. True, it mounts a propellor up front of the saucer, but it says something that this man pulled this off.

---

When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

That's crazy.

That's pretty funny. Perhaps we can now argue that the original Enterprise is very well designed from a aerodynamic point of view.

Hardly, Mr. Walper. That little model is flying like the old Flapjack. Or maybe this hobbyist Trekker has found the secret to mastering gravity defying technology and space aged construction consisting of "foam board" and "gasoline engine." =D

---

プロジェクトゾハルとは何ですか？
ロボットが好き。

I was joking. Given enough thrust/force, you can make the most non aerodynamic object "fly".

Pretty sweet. Flies a lot better than I'd have expected.

---

Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.

You're not genki enough to see my smilies =/

---

プロジェクトゾハルとは何ですか？
ロボットが好き。

I suspected you were joking, but I wasn't sure. Just playing it safe.

Amazing feat on part of the man who pulled off such a difficult task.

---

I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.

Now to scale it up a tad.

---

"Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves."
--Chinua Achebe

Sweetness!!!

The reason why it can fly so well is because of the surface area the saucer section provides, as well as the overall areodynamics of the ship design.

Excellent, a retard being a retard in a non-closed thread.

It doesn't fly well, and the "overall aerodynamics" of the ship are shit. Put that motor on anything resembling an airplane shape and it would have been out of sight. The thing flew in the same sense as a board with engines would fly. Give it enough power and things will happen.

---

Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.

My dad used to always say "The F-4 is proof that the old adage 'If you put enough thrust behind a rock, it'll fly' is 100% correct". It just neat to see it in action again. Still...quite an accomplishment. I'm working on getting my monitor airborne. I'll let you guys know how it goes. I need to get in touch with shep...I hear tell he has some surplus rocket motors....

*pulls out his phaser*

I'm not a retard, I am a Star Trek "expert". I'm also in the USAF, so watch it. The overall areodynamics of the NCC 1701 are decent, the nacelles are relatively streamlined, the saucer is as well. Compared to the Ent-E, the aerodynamics suck, but it doesn't really matter, they fly in space, not air.

~Fear me, I am root.

This ought to be good. Appeal to own authority through job title that need not have any knowledge attached. You might be a wing-wiper for all I know.

Oh, and I'm an aerospace engineering student. Bite me. Except for the flat rear ends, they aren't too bad. Haha, okay. I'm sure that flat plate in back makes things great. It's about as aerodynamic as a flying turd. Not real draggy until you try to get lift out of it, at which point it proceeds to suck shit. That thing has a L/D coefficient that's out of this world (fitting I suppose).

I notice you studiously avoid the engineering hull. I'm taking a poll. Will this fool:

A. Turn out to be like Stewie with his USAF experience
B. Run away
C. Put up a reasonably good WoI

I'm voting A, personally.

---

Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.

I'm a F-22 pilot. BE afraid.

The nacelles are fine,. The F-16 has a flat butt too. The saucer section is round, which is one of the reasons why it is aerodynamic.

The main hull? Ok. It is not that streamlined at all, I admit. That's really the one area in which it lack aerodynamics.

When I said "Fear me, I am root." that means that I am root on Linux. I am also a computer geek. It was my sig sorta,

Could you please Xplain the acronym "WoI"?

Of course you are. Did I mention that we're not big fans of pretenders, especially those who claim to be in the military?
Exhaust comes out the back of that flat end. There is no comparison.
Do you even know what the word "aerodynamic" means?
Obviously not. The bridge sticks out like a tit in the airstream, the nacelle ends are draggy, the pylons are too thick and are of poor profile, the neck is the same, and the saucer is exceptionally thick and has a large near-vertical section. These things are not a tremendous issue at such low Reynolds numbers, but to ignore this and proclaim the design to be aerodynamically sound is asinine.

Your google science does not impress me.
Wall of Ignorance, something you're doing a fine job of putting up so far.

---

Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.

This is getting out of hand.

Ok, I never said the Enterprise was the most aerodynamic ship ever made, all I said was that it is relatively aerodynamic.

And I'm not a pretender. I would give you my real name and Air Base, but I'm not allowed too.

Of course you're not.

I accept your lack of a point-by-point rebuttal as an implicit concession of your arguments. Please, at least try to know what the fuck you're talking about.

---

Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.

Jean-Luc, I don't recall any F/A-22s in Illinois.

Indeed, there is only one USAF base in the entire state of Illinois, Scott AFB. It is home to the 375th Airlift Wing of the Air Mobility Command. You aren't going to find F-22s with AMC, last I checked.

---

Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.

Ssh! He's with the Air Battle Force. You're blowing his cover.
Propably freshly transferred from Dreamland to tell the new intestinal control system for the advaned YRBPSKCF/A-22TLTITX BrainFart tactical fighter/bomber/recon/antisub attack transport tanker.

Ok, case in point:

Case Thesis: The USS Enterprise NCC 1701 is relatively aerodynamic.

Case Arguments:

1) The nacelles have rounded fronts, this is obviously aerodynamic because surfaces that are not blunt like this: " | " but are either pointed like this: " > " or rounded like this: " ) " give less air resistance.

2) The saucer section: Ok, this is obviously not the most aerodynamic part of the ship. However, if you look closely, you will notic that the saucer edge is angled like this: "/ ". This is in reality, an aerodynamic feature. The angled surface deflects the air under the saucer, creating lift, which means that the saucer's design is both aerodynamic and lift efficient. The bridge section and its ventral counterpart are not large enough to have a significant impact on air resistance, in fact, since the bulges in the saucer are rounded, they offer a lot less resistance than they would otherwise.

3) The Engineering hull: This is the least aerodynamic part of the vessel. The only factors in its favor are curves of the hull, and the moderately streamlined rear of the hull.

4) The interhull (the neck). This is probably the most aerodynamic feature of the Enterprise. It is thin, rounded, and offers very little air resistance.

Summary: The Enterprise is most definetly not overly aerodynamic, but as we have just seen, it does have some areas in which it is at least moderatly aerodynamic.

Is that clearer?

Just to clear things up. You would be surprised what you can make fly when you have enough power.

"Flies pretty good for a brick"

You're not making this any better for yourself.Obviously the fronts of the nacelles are fairly aerodynamic. I was talking about the backs. Nice red herring.
Yeah, about 25 degrees from vertical. That's damned near a flat plate, and has exceptionally poor aerodynamic qualities. If that is the case, I defy you to find any airplane in the history of the world that has such a laughably stupid profile. Ah, so that's why airplane companies spend big bucks to get small and streamlined radio antennas. Not to mention the extreme effort to streamline necessary bumps and lumps on such aircraft as modified KC-145s.
In other words, jack shit.
Not only thick, but also fairly blunt on the trailing edge.
Yes, it is much clearer that you do not know what you are talking about. We already know you're a pretender and a liar, now we also know you're an idiot.

---

Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.