[1714] *zluuurrrp*

[imaginaryfriend]

Aug 27, 2016 1:26:28 GMT warrl said:

Aug 26, 2016 20:22:29 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

I took that to mean the geometric center being distant from the center of mass.

Yeah, look at a standard target-shooting arrow. It has essentially nothing for an arrowhead - call that close-enough-to zero weight. It has these feathers at the back, which also weigh near zero. The center of mass is pretty close to the center of its length.

Now look at its surfaces. It's a long skinny shaft, nothing to it, except for the feathers at the back, which add a noticeable chunk of aerodynamic surface about as far from the center of mass as it's possible to get and still be on the arrow. Its geometric center is thereby moved a significant distance behind the center of mass.

A typical hunting arrow has a broadhead which adds both mass and aerodynamic surface to the front... and BIGGER feathers at the back, offsetting the surface of the broadhead.

It seems that arrows are supposed to have the geometric center distant from the center of mass.

So are most other things designed to fly through the air - at least, after you discount any surfaces intended to generate lift.

Overall I agree but the field point's weight is far from irrelevant.