First Human-Powered Ornithopter 250
spasm writes "A University of Toronto engineering graduate student has made and successfully flown a human-powered flapping-wing aircraft. From the article: 'Todd Reichert, a PhD candidate at the university's Institute of Aerospace Studies, piloted the wing-flapping aircraft, sustaining both altitude and airspeed for 19.3 seconds and covering a distance of 145 metres at an average speed of 25.6 kilometres per hour.'"
Why Still Pursuing This? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Why Still Pursuing This? (Score:5, Interesting)
There you go, it ain't much, but then again creativity is a pretty expensive and scarce commodity.
Re:Why Still Pursuing This? (Score:1, Interesting)
This thing reminds me of a 3D bicycle. Bicycles, even in 2D, are awesome - they don't require any fuel, are relatively light, are good for keeping fit, have low maintainance costs and are generally nice.
I wouldn't say that a analogue for a bicycle IN AIR would be a waste of research, quite the reverse.
It might be a problem setting traffic rules for these things, tho.
Re:Ornithoglider (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that great... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is merely a glider, nothing more. The up-flap cancels out the down-flap as the wings appear to move vertically. All winged animals I'm aware of either twist their wings at angles or fold them, especially on the up-flap, so that most of the powered force is directed to pushing air under the wings on the down flap and the wing simply cuts through the air on the up flap.
Re:Awesome stuff, but it doesn't take off like a b (Score:1, Interesting)
I am not impressed at all because of it. I understand that it needs to get launched some how, but it seems to me that it just glided off the initial tow. It would have probably gone father if it didn't flap the wings. I know my gliders I build RC ones and that flapping would just be consider flutter which actually spoils the lift. The flapping would probably create some lift but at the speeds this one was moving it looks like it just spoils it.
And I don't just build any gliders mine go past 300mph [youtube.com] and in the right conditions I can make ounce 60" bricks fly [youtube.com]
World record has now past 400mph. I haven't been able to build anything tht will structurally handle those speeds just disintegrates on the air.
Why is this considered human powered? (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously. I watched the video. I saw a car towing what appears to be a glider until it was already airborne. After that, I saw the wings flap.... ***slightly*** It did not look like the flapping had anything to do with staying airborne. The flapping continue for a few seconds...***not*** 19.3 seconds. Then the flapping stopped, it glided for a few more seconds and the video ended.
Not trying to be rude...but how does this prove anything? It just looks like another glider.
Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
...we've had flapping-wing aircraft for three-quarters of a century.
Birds flap their wings with a painfully inefficient reciprocating motion, because nature doesn't know how to make one critical component: a rotating joint. We do, so our wing-flappers flap their wings with nice, efficient rotary motion...and we call them helicopters.
rj
Re:Yes, the flapping is keeping it in the air (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you really tell from the video you can determine how long and far he could have flown without the "flapping wings". I would like to see a comparison of this machine with an ordinary glider launched with the same altitude and speed.
Or better yet, the same glider launched with the same altitude and speed, but without the flapping.
Re:Awesome stuff, but it doesn't take off like a b (Score:1, Interesting)
Interesting.
Mine wasn't French we didn't have these behind the Iron curtain, we had to make our own. I "improved" an awful concept drawing form a shitty magazine.
I had fitted it with something like long stork legs on wheels which would detach and remain on the ground on takeoff (too heavy to lift). It would land on its belly (or side, or back, depending on the wind).
Since it was just steel wire, it was easy to fix - pliers, wooden hammer and a few strips of foil ... lots of fun.
Re:Why Still Pursuing This? (Score:3, Interesting)
Human powered flight will be necessary in the future because not everyone has oil and most people won't have access to petrochemicals to power their planes. However, flight consists of 3 aspects: take off, mid-flight manuevering, and landing safely
You forgot to mention useful, meaningful, range, payload and altitude.
The MIT Daedalus [wikipedia.org] managed 71 miles over calm spring Mediterranean waters at 15 to 30 feet.
The Daedalus had its fleet of marine escorts.
But the fundamental reason for building an aircraft is to navigate over terrain - to be truly and freely airborne under ordinary conditions of wind and weather.
Re:Why Still Pursuing This? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a lot of things about rotor aircraft that until recently have been way too complex to model.
How recently? Are we due for a big advance in rotorcraft in the near future due to new understanding, or is this a "we finally know why aspirin works" kind of discovery?
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always wondered about bird vs. helicopter efficiency ... here's one guy's opinion.
http://mb-soft.com/public3/birdeff.html [mb-soft.com]
If true, nature's "painfully inefficient reciprocating motion" leaves our "nice, efficient rotary motion" in the dust.