Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 128 +-   Flapping NAV Performs Controlled Hovering Flight on Wednesday July 01 2009, @12:58PM

Posted by timothy on Wednesday July 01 2009, @12:58PM
from the ornithopters-are-just-hovering-in-the-wings dept.
transportation
robot
technology
An anonymous reader writes "AeroVironment, Inc. was awarded a Phase II contract extension in April from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to design and build a flying prototype for the Nano Air Vehicle (NAV) program. As part of this program AV has accomplished a technical milestone never before achieved: the controlled hovering flight of an air vehicle system with two flapping wings (video) that carries its own energy source and uses only the flapping wings for propulsion and control. Two wings for propulsion and control, nothing else."
story

Related Stories

Submission: Flapping NAV Performs Controlled Hovering Flight by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Flapping NAV Performs Controlled Hovering Flight 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Apparently... (Score:4, Funny)

    by d474 (695126) on Wednesday July 01 2009, @01:06PM (#28546159)
    ...their website is being served off of the flapping bird robot, and said robot has crashed.

    They can make flapping wing flying robots, but can't make a slashdot proof webserver, meh.

  • Slashdotted!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by anonymousNR (1254032) on Wednesday July 01 2009, @01:07PM (#28546167) Homepage
    here's a link to another article which atleast has a computer generated image [firetrench.com]

  • Ornithopter (Score:5, Informative)

    by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Wednesday July 01 2009, @01:10PM (#28546249) Journal

    Shouldn't this sort of thing be called an Ornithopter [wikipedia.org]?

    • US.mil: "Those terrorists will cower before our hornicopters.. orniopters.. morningchoppers. Goddamit. Private Geek, say that word at the end of my sentences from now on."

      Nah, won't work.

  • They need to get one of those flapping NAV's to fan off their server and cool it down.

  • Youtube (Score:5, Informative)

    by reg106 (256893) on Wednesday July 01 2009, @01:14PM (#28546325)
    Here is an AeroVironment NAV video [youtube.com] on YouTube. Not sure if it's the same one, but it was uploaded today...
  • Where's the Laserbeak tag? Or at least Lazerbeak, depending on which geek you ask.

  • When can I buy a ridable griffon/dragon? (Score:3, Funny)

    by seanalltogether (1071602) on Wednesday July 01 2009, @01:19PM (#28546423)
    Dear engineering community, that's all I've ever wanted from you in life, please make it happen.

  • Clocks (Score:3, Funny)

    by the_Bionic_lemming (446569) on Wednesday July 01 2009, @01:24PM (#28546521)

    This just in, Prototype lost to clock with bacteria digester system.

    PETA responded with applause.

    • Prototype lost to clock with bacteria digester system

      Which then exploded after ingesting the high-density Lithium batteries...

  • I thought . . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544) * on Wednesday July 01 2009, @01:27PM (#28546577)

    it was pretty cool.

    There will be hummingbird looking things flying in and out of your nearest neighborhood crime syndicate office monitoring their activities.

    Who needs wiretapping now?

    Oh, and I think hummingbirds have prior art.

  • As part of this program AV has accomplished a technical milestone never before achieved: the controlled hovering flight of an air vehicle system with two flapping wings that carries its own energy source and uses only the flapping wings for propulsion and control.

    By man or something man-made perhaps. Now if you'll excuse me, my Hummingbird [wikipedia.org] is bored...

  • FTA, emphasis mine:

    "The goals of the NAV program -- namely to develop an approximately 10 gram aircraft that can hover for extended periods, can fly at forward speeds up to 10 meters per second, can withstand 2.5 meter per second wind gusts, can operate inside buildings, and have up to a kilometer command and control range -- will stretch our understanding of flight at these small sizes and require novel technology development." 2.5 m/s wind gust == ~5.6 mph wind gust. For outdoor use, that seems like a pr

    • Should have read:

      FTA, emphasis mine:

      "The goals of the NAV program -- namely to develop an approximately 10 gram aircraft that can hover for extended periods, can fly at forward speeds up to 10 meters per second, can withstand 2.5 meter per second wind gusts, can operate inside buildings, and have up to a kilometer command and control range -- will stretch our understanding of flight at these small sizes and require novel technology development." 2.5 m/s wind gust == ~5.6 mph wind gust. For outdoor use,

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by oodaloop (1229816)
        The part that got me was 10 meters per second. That seems pretty damn fast to me for something that small that beats its wings.

        • That's about 22 miles per hour, or a little slower than a hummingbird. Which is indeed pretty impressive.

        • There are commercial helicopter-design UAVs weighing 15g that achieve that... about the size of a pack of cigarettes.

          So this would be competitive with that in terms of speed.

          Given that there are natural flapping-wing "designs" that achieve 25 M/s at a weight of 2.5 g (some hummingbirds), there's no reason why we shouldn't set a goal of 10 M/s at 10 g.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by maxume (22995)

        It depends on what withstand means. I've watched lots of dragonflies (and other insects) fly around in stronger winds than that, gusts too. If they mean stay in the air and mostly on course, it should at least be possible, if they mean stay in one place, probably not.

      • Actually compared to the small helicopters that I've tried, being able to fly in 5 mph wind would be quite nice. These things get seriously screwed up with a very slight breeze (I'm guessing well under 5 mph, though I'm not certain). The air coming out of my heater vent near the ceiling nearly crashes it from across the room, where I can't even feel the air anymore.

  • Advantages vs. traditional rotating wing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dfay (75405) on Wednesday July 01 2009, @01:31PM (#28546671)

    To any familiar with this company or this line of research in general:

    What are the advantages of the ornithopter design over a traditional helicopter design? Why is DARPA interested?

    Yes, I did read the article... and I understand what DARPA is interested in getting out of a small UAV that can hover. What I don't understand is why a normal helicopter design couldn't suit all of these needs better and cheaper.

    Regardless of the answer, it's a very cool project. Obviously very worthwhile just from the point-of-view of the scientific and engineering advances.

    • Helicopters are LOUD

      Winged vehicles can glide (among other things) making them far more stealthy in small forms.

      • ...or the more ideal, but far less attainable, comparison: a biological helicopter

        I'm not one to throw out the word "impossible" very quickly, since people who have used that word have been proven wrong so many times in the past. However, I read an argument back in...Jr. High?...that claimed that a truly rotational structure on a biological organism was at the very least highly improbable. There aren't biological structures that can rotate infinitely, because biological mechanisms require plumbing (blood, etc.) and muscle attach points on both halves of the rotating structu

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by evilviper (135110)

          There aren't biological structures that can rotate infinitely, because biological mechanisms require plumbing (blood, etc.) and muscle attach points on both halves of the rotating structure.

          You need to take a good long look at your own shoulders...

          No, not really a free-rotating structure, but more than close enough to be re-purposed into driving a rotor or propeller.

          • Did you take a look at how the shoulder works? Attach an airfoil to your arm notice that at some point during the "rotation" the rotor blade will shift from aligned with the relative wind to perpendicular to the relative wind. Not terribly efficient for generating lift...certainly not "close enough to be repurposed."

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by UncleTogie (1004853)

          I'm not one to throw out the word "impossible" very quickly, since people who have used that word have been proven wrong so many times in the past. However, I read an argument back in...Jr. High?...that claimed that a truly rotational structure on a biological organism was at the very least highly improbable. There aren't biological structures that can rotate infinitely, because biological mechanisms require plumbing (blood, etc.) and muscle attach points on both halves of the rotating structure.

          How far down the size scale are you looking?

          Take a peek at this [asm.org] and see if it's what you're thinking of.

      • Countering the rotational force of the rotors isn't that difficult. I used to have a free-flight model helicopter which used the rotational force of the rotors to provide additional lift. A standard model airplane propeller was attached to the crankshaft of the engine as in a normal model airplane. The base of the engine was mounted to a set of larger propeller blades, like you would typically find on a helicopter. As the engine rotated the model airplane propeller, the reaction of that force rotated th
  • What does this have to do with Norton Anti-Virus?

    • It should be readily apparent that there's a massive difference between a manned aircraft and a 10g robot. It's not about "thinking of it before", DARPA isn't sponsoring a competition to see who can think of an ornithopter first. It's about execution.

  • > Two wings for propulsion and control, nothing else.
    (emphasis mine)

    Even hummingbirds have tails. A bee might be a better example, but they have four wings, as do butterflies.

  • WowWee's Bat and Dragon also hover on wings. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Wednesday July 01 2009, @02:11PM (#28547363) Homepage

    This is almost as good as WowWee's Bat and Dragon [wowwee.com]. They're little, they fly with moving wings, and they can hover. $39.99. Available wherever toys are sold [amazon.com]. That's the entry-level product; the next step up, the Green Dragonfly [wowwee.com], is an indoor/outdoor R/C ornithopter capable of hovering.

    Those models doesn't have any onboard intelligence, but some of the other WowWee flying machines have collision avoidance. WowWee has a whole line of flying and robotic toys, and they deliver impressive technology at prices well under $100. Maybe DARPA should outsource.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bughunter (10093)
      "Almost as good?" Hardly. The WowWee toys fly with moving wings, yes, but they're more glider than ornithopter, and require a rudder. The Aerovironment NAV is a true ornithopter, the flapping movement of its wings provides all lift and thrust and 3-axis control. But because this is slashdot, you're excused for opining out of ignorance, even when it could be cured by RTFA.

  • >> Flapping NAV Performs Controlled Hovering Flight

    da Vinci... is that you?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dotancohen (1015143)

      People can't drive cars so now we give the same people flying cars...

      Flying cars? It's a nano flying vehicle, not a nanny flying vehicle.

      • Flying cars? It's a nano flying vehicle

        I thought it was a Nanu flying vehicle, which would be large and egg-shapped, and capable of interplanetary flight (at least one-way from the planet Ork). Last I heard there were issues with the landing sequence, though. Not sure if there's a RC, or if they're working on another public beta.

        I could have misread, though.

    • Apparently, iCantSpell can't read either. It's called a Nano Air Vehicle for a reason; because it's small.
Search
"Benson, you are so free of the ravages of intelligence" -- Time Bandits

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.