I hate to be the one to tell you this, but all flight is ballistic

HN is filled with morons. At least you all self-identify.

You're completely wrong. There's nothing ballistic about laminar flow.

What does laminar flow have to do with it? Ballistic just means that there is no active propulsion.

I'm not saying it is ballistic, it clearly isn't if it is steered in flight.

I just don't know how "laminar" ended up in there, it is impossible to believe that these thrusters are not causing turbulence.

Ballistic means it follows a ballistic trajectory, as in it is governed by gravity and inertia. Flight is typically governed by aerodynamic forces and ballistic trajectories are normally considered undesirable by pilots and passengers alike.

"Ballistic just means that there is no active propulsion."

"Ballistic means it follows a ballistic trajectory, as in it is governed by gravity and inertia."

If we're being pedantic about explicitly not-the-point of my post, drag is an aerodynamic force and included in ballistic calculations. And gliders are not ballistic and are not under active propulsion.

Cool.

Now that we've cleared up that we can both understand definitions, try doing "There's nothing ballistic about laminar flow."

I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by laminar flow. Do you mean, specifically laminar flow over an airfoil, vs turbulent flow? I don’t see how this makes a distinction relevant to ballistics?

Read the post I originally replied to. I can't anymore.