On the Aerodynamic Properties of Dixie Kong's Ponytail: Preliminary Findings. A Lecture by Funky Kong, Visiting Speaker
Thank you. That's a generous introduction, most of which is accurate.
I want to start by telling you what this lecture is not. It is not a talk about barrel cannons. I understand several of you were told it might be, given who's speaking, and I want to clear that up early, because I don't want anyone leaving disappointed at the two-hour mark having learned nothing new about propulsion systems, which, again, is not what we're discussing today.
This is a talk about aircraft.
Specifically, it's a talk about an aircraft I have spent several years failing to build, despite having access to one that already exists and works perfectly well without my help. I find that fact embarrassing in a professional sense and fascinating in every other sense, and I've decided the correct response to that combination of feelings is to give a lecture about it at a university, which is either healthy or the opposite of healthy, and I genuinely don't know which, and I'd like to move past it.
I've made my peace with it. I want to tell you it was a hard-won peace, arrived at through rigorous self-examination, but honestly it was more like the peace you make with a wave that's bigger than you expected—you don't fight it, you just accept that the next thirty seconds are not going to go the way you planned, and you try to come up looking dignified. I'd ask you to extend me the same grace.
Let's talk about Dixie Kong.
Most of you know the name. If you don't, I'll assume you've been living somewhere without a newspaper, which I don't say to embarrass you, I say because it's logistically impressive. She's the one who got into Crocodile Isle when the professionals couldn't, brought her boyfriend's uncle home in one piece, and did it all before what I'm told was a fairly significant birthday. There's a statue. I've seen the statue. It's a good likeness, although I have some notes on the proportions of the ponytail, which we'll get to.
The story everyone knows ends with "and then she flew across the gap and saved the day." I'd like to spend the next hour on the word "flew," because I don't think anyone has actually asked what that word is doing in that sentence, and I think that's a mistake, because it turns out to be the only interesting part of the story.
So. You might be wondering how she did it. Ladies and gentlekongs—it comes down to the ponytail.
For our purposes today, what you need to know is that it rotates, and when it rotates, Dixie flies. Not falls carefully. Flies. There is a distinction, and the distinction is the entire subject of this lecture, so I'd like everyone to sit with that for a moment before we go any further, because I promise you it gets less believable from here, not more.
If you look at the slide here, this is Dixie mid-spin, captured from the observation deck at Gangplank Galleon. I want you to notice the rotation is smooth. Not smooth for a biological structure—smooth for any structure. I've spent my career fighting vibration, uneven airflow, torque, the whole list. If you look at this second slide, that's my most recent barrel cannon prototype under equivalent load, and I'd ask you not to compare the two images directly, because I built one of them and I have feelings about it.
There's no wobble in the ponytail. No delay. No visible correction. I direct your attention to the timestamp in the corner, because that's a full four-second hover with zero adjustment, and I want everyone in this room who has ever tried to keep an aircraft level for four seconds without touching anything to appreciate what that means. I see a few nods. Good. That's the correct reaction.
Now. Next slide. This is where it stops being simple.
That's Diddy Kong, and I want to be clear that including him in this presentation was not my original plan. My original plan was to study Dixie in isolation, because Dixie in isolation is already more airframe than I know what to do with. Diddy does not appear in isolation. Diddy appears directly behind her, every time, and I want to walk through why that should not be possible before I tell you that it's happening anyway.
Here is what should occur, physically, if you are a passenger next to a hovering rotor system with no lift-generating mechanism of your own. You should fall. Immediately. There is no version of aerodynamics I was trained in where "standing near something that flies" grants you the ability to also fly. Proximity is not lift. I have said this sentence out loud to colleagues and they have agreed with me, and then I have shown them this footage, and they have stopped agreeing with me, and that has been the general shape of my professional life for the last several months.
If you look at this slide, this is frame-by-frame, and I want you to watch Diddy's position relative to Dixie across eleven consecutive frames. He does not drift. He does not drop half an inch and correct. He does not do any of the small, constant, visible adjusting that literally everything else in the sky has to do to stay in the sky, including birds, including my aircraft, including, on a bad day, other aircraft I have personally piloted. He is simply there. Held. As though the air around Dixie has an opinion about where Diddy goes, and the opinion is "with her."
I want to be honest with you about what that means, because I think it's easy to hear "he's being carried" and picture something modest, like a tow rope, and move on with your day. This is not modest. There is no visible tether. There is no mechanical linkage. There is no observable exchange of force that a wind tunnel would register as anything other than two objects that happen to be in the same airspace, one of which should be falling and is not.
I had a graduate assistant check this for me, because I did not want to be the only person willing to say it out loud: whatever is happening between Dixie and Diddy is not adjacent to known flight mechanics. It's underneath them. And I think that's worth sitting with for a second, because everyone in this room has flown somewhere to be here today, in a machine that took decades of accumulated engineering to make safe, and there is a Kong on Kong Island casually producing the same result with a ponytail and, as far as I can measure, no effort that registers on any instrument I own.
I'll pause here, because I know where several of you are going with your hands right now, and the answer is yes, I did try to find some hidden contribution from him. Posture. Drag reduction. Some instinctive maneuver I wasn't equipped to recognize as an outsider. I spent an embarrassing number of hours on this. I direct your attention to slide seven purely so you can see how many hours, because I annotated the timestamps, and I'm not going to pretend that wasn't a mistake I made in front of a spreadsheet, alone, at night.
There is no hidden contribution. There is also, and I want to stress this because it took me an unreasonable amount of footage to accept it, no contact. Diddy is not gripping her hand. He is not gripping anything. At no point in eleven consecutive frames are his fingers within reach of any part of Dixie Kong. He is simply positioned in the air behind her, the way a satellite is positioned in orbit, except a satellite has physics on its side and Diddy has, as far as I can tell, nothing but confidence.
I want that on the record, because I think it's the part that gets lost fastest, which is that we are not looking at a passenger holding onto a pilot. We are looking at two separate objects in the sky, one of which is producing lift and one of which is simply agreeing to come along—and "agreeing to come along" is not, technically, a method of achieving powered aerial transportation. And yet, as of this slide, it is the only theory left standing.
What's this. A question. Right, I generally ask that we hold questions to the end, I've only got the room until four and I have a lot of slides left—but that's a good one, and it actually leads directly into my next point, so I'll allow it.
The question, for those who didn't hear it, was essentially: if there's no contact and no visible mechanism, how do we know it's Dixie doing anything to him at all? Maybe Diddy's just floating on his own, and Dixie happens to be nearby.
I like this question. I like it because I asked myself the same thing, and I spent a week trying to prove it before I let myself accept the alternative. If Diddy could produce his own lift, independent of her, we'd expect to see it elsewhere. We do not. If you look at slide nine, this is Diddy on his own, no Dixie present, attempting to cross a gap of comparable width. I want you to watch what happens to him.
He falls. Predictably, unremarkably, the way anything without a rotor falls. There's no ambiguity in the footage. Whatever is keeping him in the air two slides ago is not a talent of his own—it only exists when she's there.
Which means the honest way to describe what we're looking at isn't two Kongs flying in formation. It's one aircraft, and one passenger who has figured out, evidently through pure force of trust, how to stand in exactly the right spot to be carried by it.
I went and found Diddy afterward, because I thought he deserved to hear the theory before I put it in a lecture with his name on the slide. I told him, as gently as I know how, that in aviation terms, he is cargo.
He did not take this well. His argument, and I'm quoting him directly here because I wrote it down that night specifically so I wouldn't be tempted to clean it up later, was that "cargo usually doesn't get to choose where it goes." Which is a fair point, and I told him so. I also told him that a great deal of valuable cargo is exactly what it sounds like—important, worth protecting, and generally speaking, not consulted about the flight plan.
He asked whether cargo gets bananas.
I told him I'd review the terminology. I have not yet reviewed the terminology. I don't intend to.
If you look at the next slide, I want to move from the question of whether Dixie is carrying passengers to the question of how much she can carry, because this is where my professional experience stopped being useful to me and started actively working against me. Every aircraft I have ever built has a payload limit. That's not a design flaw, it's a law—more weight requires more lift, and at some point the lift required outpaces what the airframe can generate, and the airframe, generally speaking, lets you know about this on the way down.
I went looking for Dixie's limit. I assumed it existed, because everything I understand about flight insists that it has to. I would like to now introduce you to the reason I no longer assume that.
Next slide, please. This is Kiddy Kong.
I want to give you his measurements, and I want to be upfront that I checked these numbers more than once, because the first time I saw them I assumed I'd made an error, and the second time I saw them I assumed my scale had made an error, and I had the scale recalibrated by someone whose job that actually is, and the third time I saw the numbers they were the same numbers, at which point I stopped assuming anything and just wrote them down.
I have several thoughts about that scale's warranty.
None of them belong in this lecture.
The relevant point is this. Kiddy Kong is, by any reasonable engineering standard, a significant load. Not a person you casually add to an existing flight plan. A person you redesign the flight plan around, assuming you're the sort of engineer who plans, which—and I say this with love for my own profession—Dixie Kong is evidently not.
So I watched it happen. I went to Lake Orangatanga, because that's where I'd been told the two of them cross most often, and I set up equipment I will admit was probably overkill for what I told myself was a routine measurement. I had a stopwatch. I had a rangefinder. I had, if I'm honest, a small speech prepared for my notes about how this was the moment the model finally broke.
I was ready for the model to break. I want that on the record too. I expected reduced altitude. I expected a slower ascent, a shorter glide, some visible strain—the kind of thing you'd see in any aircraft asked to do more than it was built for. I had a whole revised framework ready to write up on the walk home, complete with a section on limitations.
If you look at this slide, that is not what happened.
Dixie adjusted. That's the whole event. I watched it eleven times before I trusted myself to describe it accurately, and I'm going to describe it to you exactly as plainly as I can, because I think dressing it up would undersell it. The rotation increased slightly. The angle shifted, barely. There was, as far as my instruments could detect, a small amount of additional effort—and I want to stress the word small, because I have built machines that shudder audibly under a fraction of that additional load, and Dixie produced hers so quietly I nearly missed it entirely on the first eight viewings.
Then she crossed the gap. With Kiddy Kong. At what my rangefinder tells me was almost exactly the same speed as every other crossing I've clocked.
I have spent my career designing around limits. Every project starts with a limit—how much weight, how much fuel, how much stress before something gives. It's the first number on every one of my blueprints. I am standing in front of you today to report that I watched a Kong casually exceed every limit I would have assigned her, by adjusting, and only adjusting, as though the limit itself was a piece of information nobody had told her to believe in.
I went back to my workshop that week and tried to build it. I want to walk you through that, briefly, because I think failure is underrepresented in these talks and I'd like to correct that personally.
If you look at this next slide, that is my attempt at a mechanical rotor system built to the same specifications I'd measured from Dixie—same rotational speed, same approximate diameter, same lift target. It generated lift. I want to be fair to it. It also generated heat, noise, vibration, and, at the eleven-minute mark, a smell that three separate people in my workshop independently described as "concerning," which is not a word I like hearing three separate times about one machine.
Dixie generates lift with a ponytail. My machine required fuel, moving parts, a cooling system, and an emergency shutoff switch I am, at this point, on a first-name basis with.
I asked her, afterward, how she controls the rotation speed. Her answer was two words. "I just do."
That is not, in any formal sense, an engineering explanation. I want to be clear that I know that. But I'll tell you, I used to surf a fair amount, back before this became my whole personality, and there's a particular wave you catch—maybe one in fifty—where you stop thinking about your feet entirely and your feet just know. You couldn't diagram it for someone else if you tried. I think Dixie's answer was her version of that, and I think it's the correct answer, even though it makes for a very short slide.
I am still a little annoyed by it personally, and I'd like that distinction on the record as well.
Which brings me, more or less, to why I'm standing in front of you today instead of just filing this quietly and getting back to work.
I don't have a mechanism. I want to say that as plainly as I said everything else, because I think it would be easy, standing up here with slides and a rangefinder and a graduate assistant who has by now stopped questioning my requests, to imply I've solved something. I haven't. I can tell you that Dixie Kong generates lift, maintains stability under load, and carries additional passengers without a corresponding increase in visible effort. I cannot tell you how. I have measured the effect exhaustively. I have not measured the cause, because as far as I can determine, the cause does not want to be measured, and has so far declined every method I've thrown at it.
That's not a satisfying place to end a lecture. I'm aware of that. I considered padding this last section out with something more conclusive, and I decided against it, because I think the more useful thing I can hand you today isn't an answer, it's a correction to a question I got wrong for most of my career.
I used to think my job was building things that worked despite the world trying to break them. I've come to think it might actually be noticing when the world's already solved a problem better than I have—the way you learn, eventually, to stop paddling against a current and just let it put you where it's going to put you anyway, because it was always going to win that argument regardless of how hard you paddled. I don't know yet what a rotor system like Dixie's would tell us if we understood it properly. I suspect it would tell us something we don't currently have language for, which is an uncomfortable thing to admit in a room full of people who mostly deal in language that's already been settled.
So. Preliminary findings. That's the honest label for what I've given you today. I have more measurements than answers, and I'd rather stand up here and tell you that directly than dress it up as more than it is.
I'll be continuing this work. I don't know how long it'll take, and I'd rather not guess in front of witnesses. What I can tell you is that I intend to keep watching, and I intend to keep being wrong about what I expect to see, because that's turned out to be the only reliable way I've found to learn anything from her.
I'll take questions now. I'd ask that at least the first one not be about the conditioner. I know someone's been sitting on it since slide four.













