Until recently, we would not have believed craft of metal flying through the air. Even airships and balloons were a bit of a surprise to some.

I think that if flying is presented as a done deal, we'll accept it as long as it's consistent with the rest of the story. (It's totally daft, but who doesn't believe that Superman can fly, or that HP can play Quidditch on a broomstick?)

When I read fantasy I want to suspend my disbelief and will do so willingly provided the author doesn't give me a reason not to. Yes, that's a fragile thing, and it's part of the art IMHO.

If it's a fantasy world in the traditional non-technological world, the reason why would never come into question. They're big flying beasties is all. And good eating!

I suppose it's one of man's oldest dreams to fly like the birds. But airplanes don't "fly like the birds" by any means.

With that said it would be interesting to read a story that took some fact in with its fantasy.

That is to say, (using dragons as an example) perhaps the two-ton-lizard-with-wings isn't the best at flying, really more of a glider as opposed to all that swooping and twirling.

That or the lizard can fly at a young age and as it ages and increases in size the wings become less useful. The lizard could go through three stages; flying (the size of a dog), gliding (size of a horse), walking (size of an elephant). At the last stage the wings are old, useless appendages.

My reason for asking is twofold. First, I'm sometimes amazed by the kinds of details that seem to bother people. They might believe in, say, FTL, but not in a weapon that could destroy an entire planet (this example is purely hypothetical! Any resemblance to real or actual opinions is unintentional).

If your rules for magic don't allow for the suspension of physical laws allowing the flight of non-aerodynamic bodies, then large non-aerodynamic creatures shouldn't be able to fly.

When I think about the great fantasy pieces I've read, there's been consistency and realism. If you want a believable setting, then there shouldn't be "exceptions" provided for literary fancy or convenience.

A situation where nobody flies, except for creature / character / object X leads to the big "huh" moment that can throw off the reader. Any time that you choose to ignore the rules of physics, there should be some explanation of how this is done, not necessarily written, but at least in your mind.

Give any creature powerful enough muscles and it can fly. Even a human could fly by flapping his/her arms, if the arms have tough enough skin & bones, and the muscles have enough power.

magic could make bones stronger so they can br lighter.

magic could make the body more energy efficient.

magic provide more energy or power than physics normally possible.

Using those rules, one could not only have "a flying T-Rex with the wings of a Cessna (sic) plane", but one could have a flying person wearing webbed finger gloves.

If, as stated, "the rules of the magic currently do not allow the ability to fly", then the question is, is it that magic allows no direct provision for flight, or no indirect provision. If flight is disallowed in either direct or indirect usage, then you can't have flying beasties who don't adhere to the laws of physics. You can, however, tinker with the laws of physics. A low density world with very light gravity, for example. A world along the lines of Niven's "The Integral Trees"?

If flight through magic is disallowed directly only, then you can have magical flying creatures, violating physical laws, AND you leave open a great story line about people in such a fantasy setting trying to figure out how to fly. Which spells, in which combination...

I wonder when they will build the next zeppelin, and name it Hindenburg II. I should build my own and name it the LED ZEPPELIN, zeppelin.

*****

I need to find some for my plane that I want to build

But should I build my own zeppelin and call it The Led Zeppelin zeppelin

Smaug can fly---did fly---did just as "wetwilly" said.