Soaring vs. Flapping
patrick timony
Does anyone else find it strange that Soaring flight is so rare in
nature but so popular with us for the last 100 years? I've heard that
the Wright Brothers patented Wing Warping (Flapping) and never let
anyone develop planes using Wing Warping flight. Is that true? Does
that explain why the designs up until the time of the Wright Brothers
were all Bird-like flapping designs and after were all fixed wing
soaring designs?
Ron Natalie
"patrick timony" <patric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:79fa7af7.03091...@posting.google.com...
> In another post we were talking about soaring vs. flapping flight.
Yeah, and it had dubious physics.
> Does anyone else find it strange that Soaring flight is so rare in
> nature but so popular with us for the last 100 years?
Nope. Flapping doesn't work even overly well for large birds. And we're
just beginning to understand the principles of the aerodynamics of things
like bees and hummingbirds.
> I've heard that
> the Wright Brothers patented Wing Warping (Flapping) and never let
> anyone develop planes using Wing Warping flight. Is that true?
Bullshit. Wing warping isn't flapping, it was a way to effect directional
changes in flight by changing the shape of the wing. It wasn't either
the propuslive or lifting force. While the Wrights did get a patent on it,
the real reason others didn't follow is that they found that ailerons worked
better.
> Does
> that explain why the designs up until the time of the Wright Brothers
> were all Bird-like flapping designs and after were all fixed wing
> soaring designs?
No, the Wrights gliders and powered planes were not flappers. They were
fixed wing.
David O
patric...@yahoo.com (patrick timony) wrote:
>In another post we were talking about soaring vs. flapping flight.
>Does anyone else find it strange that Soaring flight is so rare in
>nature but so popular with us for the last 100 years?
Actually, soaring flight is quite common in nature.
>I've heard that
>the Wright Brothers patented Wing Warping (Flapping) and never let
>anyone develop planes using Wing Warping flight. Is that true?
The Wrights used wing warping for lateral control, not net lift. Yes,
they did enforce their patent with vigor and largely succeeded in the
USA until WW I, effectively hampering aircraft development. They
claimed their patent covered all methods of lateral control, not just
wing warping.
>Does
>that explain why the designs up until the time of the Wright Brothers
>were all Bird-like flapping designs and after were all fixed wing
>soaring designs?
People made bird-like flapping designs for manned flight because they
saw birds flying and, not knowing any better, thought that was the way
man should fly as well. Interest today in manned ornithopters is
largely academic. Check out this excellent site,
The research section has a number of informative papers on the subject
of "flapping flight". The media section has an interesting video of a
rather large gas engine powered radio controlled ornithopter in
flight. Also in the media section is a video of a manned ornithopter
flight attempt--Project Ornithopter's best effort to date--which
resulted in a few hops of less than one second duration. By the way,
the engine in their manned ornithopter is a 22 hp engine that has
successfully powered conventional fixed-wing airplanes to over 120 mph
in level cruise.
David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
Tim Ward
> Does anyone else find it strange that Soaring flight is so rare in
> nature but so popular with us for the last 100 years?
Where in the world did you get that idea? Soaring flight is _extremely_
common in nature. If you aren't flapping, you aren't expending energy
moving your wings, so you need less food, so you survive longer when food is
tight.
Hummingbirds need to eat a lot more often than turkey vultures.
I've heard that
> the Wright Brothers patented Wing Warping (Flapping) and never let
> anyone develop planes using Wing Warping flight. Is that true?
No. The Wright Brothers discovered and patented the only practical way to
control an airplane. They were perfectly willing to license their patented
invention. Not everyone wanted to pay royalties, so various people tried
"end runs" around the patent. None succeeded.
Their first implementation of roll control twisted the entire wing rather
than using separate control surfaces. But there was no flapping involved.
> Does that explain why the designs up until the time of the Wright Brothers
> were all Bird-like flapping designs and after were all fixed wing
> soaring designs?
Not all designs previous to the Wrights were flapping wing machines.
Where are you hearing this stuff? If it's off a website, by all means give
us a pointer.
Tim Ward
B2431
>In another post we were talking about soaring vs. flapping flight.
He tried this in rec.aviation.military and has had it explained to him what
wing warping is, that many birds do soar and that the military doesn't have
airplanes with flapping wings.
Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
Corrie
They are, however, coming back around to wing-warping. IIRC there's
an F-18 with variable-camber composite wings in test flights now.
Ron Natalie
"Corrie" <cor...@itasca.net> wrote in message news:dda75262.03091...@posting.google.com...
> b2...@aol.com (B2431) wrote in message news:<20030916023123...@mb-m25.aol.com>...
> > >In another post we were talking about soaring vs. flapping flight.
> >
> > He tried this in rec.aviation.military and has had it explained to him what
> > wing warping is, that many birds do soar and that the military doesn't have
> > airplanes with flapping wings.
> They are, however, coming back around to wing-warping. IIRC there's
> an F-18 with variable-camber composite wings in test flights now.
Yep...http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/aeroelastic_wing.html
B2431
>> They are, however, coming back around to wing-warping. IIRC there's
>> an F-18 with variable-camber composite wings in test flights now.
>
>Yep...http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/aeroelastic_wing.html
>
>
Dan, U. S. Airforce, retired
Dave Hyde
> They are, however, coming back around to wing-warping. IIRC there's
> an F-18 with variable-camber composite wings in test flights now.
They're using the existing surfaces with new control laws to
control wing twist (or warping) for stability and control.
One of the mods to allow more twist was to mod the wing back
to the way it was when the airplane first flew in 1979, when
wing flexibility was a problem, not a solution. From the
outside it doesn't look much different from an old Hornet.
Dave 'elastica' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Orval Fairbairn
b2...@aol.com (B2431) wrote:
I wouldn't recommend it, as flutter is a BIG problem with flexible
wings, tails, fins, etc.
The safety issues outweigh any performance gains here for a homebuilt --
especially for a high-performance one.
Keith Park
absolutely necessary. They soar. Flapping is very inefficient. The albatross
can spend weeks aloft without flapping except for take-off.
"patrick timony" <patric...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
79fa7af7.03091...@posting.google.com...
Bill Higdon
lands.
Bill Higdon
Del Rawlins
> Keith, You forgot the "controlled crash" that a Albatross makes when
> it lands.
Well, they *are* seagoing birds.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
patrick timony
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Airforce, retired
> I wouldn't recommend it, as flutter is a BIG problem with flexible
> wings, tails, fins, etc.
>
> The safety issues outweigh any performance gains here for a homebuilt --
> especially for a high-performance one.
I think flexible winged craft could be safer. A really flexible and
evenly-tapered wing, gradated from high to low density toward the
core, would bend to allow its force to be spread over a large enough
area to keep the force constant. A wing suit with both arm and leg
wings would enable a person to "run" through the air, except that the
motion would be closer to doggy paddling. Flying would be easier than
scrambling up a flight of stairs on all fours. See the
"SphericonWing" design at my webpage:
http://patricktimony.tvheaven.com/photo3.html
Patrick Timony
Dave Hyde
> I think flexible winged craft could be safer.
Most wings flex to some extent, and the flexibility
serves the structural purpose you mentioned. There's
a big difference between flex for load alleviation
and flex for control, however.
Dave 'flex2rigid' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Morgans
Kid, get your HEAD OUT OF THE CLOWDS. Man does not have enough strength to
support or directly control flight loads. If he did, someone else would
have done it by now.
This is a sophisticated group, with much knowledge and experience on making
flying machines, and man's muscles are used via mechanical advantage only,
to direct flight, not support or sustain it.
Make a deal with yourself. Build an airplane or two, then try building
whatever you want to dream up. Then, you will clearly see what the problems
and solutions are.
--
Jim in NC
nafod40
> "patrick timony"...
>>I think flexible winged craft could be safer. A really flexible and
>>evenly-tapered wing, gradated from high to low density toward the
>>core, would bend to allow its force to be spread over a large enough
>>area to keep the force constant. A wing suit with both arm and leg
>>wings would enable a person to "run" through the air, except that the
>>motion would be closer to doggy paddling.
>
> support or directly control flight loads. If he did, someone else would
> have done it by now.
>
> This is a sophisticated group, with much knowledge and experience on making
> flying machines, and man's muscles are used via mechanical advantage only,
> to direct flight, not support or sustain it.
Yea, and man doesn't have enough muscle to lift a thousand pounds of
dirt in one load, which is why he invented the backhoe.
You could make a man-powered suit with power assist, ala power steering,
power brakes, or any other number of analogies. It just takes smaller
power sources and actuators, and we're moving in that direction. Keep
the dream alive.
Here's a sort of rigid/flexible concept that works now.
http://www.freewing.com/
Mike "never say never" Y.
Morgans
"nafod40" <may...@SPAMAWAY.psu.edu> wrote >
> Yea, and man doesn't have enough muscle to lift a thousand pounds of
> dirt in one load, which is why he invented the backhoe.
>
> You could make a man-powered suit with power assist, ala power steering,
> power brakes, or any other number of analogies. It just takes smaller
> power sources and actuators, and we're moving in that direction. Keep
> the dream alive.
>
> Here's a sort of rigid/flexible concept that works now.
> http://www.freewing.com/
>
> Mike "never say never" Y.
Let's see, if we have a power steering type assist, and then we need power
to run the assist, then that means we need a power source, like an engine.
Do we still have man powered flight?
NOPE
By the way, anyone seen one of those man powered, power assisted flying
units at your airport? Come on now, there must be at least one out there
somewhere.
--
Jim in NC
Corrie
solid. (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphericon.html) It rolls in a
straight line by wobbling from side to side along its continuous face.
An interesting novelty, with perhaps some utility in mechanical
devices - wobbling bearings, maybe? But an efficient propulsor? Just
because something is a neat shape doesn't make it deeply meaningful or
wonderfully useful.
There was a similar situation in the late 30's early 40's with the
"Davis wing". Davis designed an airfoil based on some obscure and
difficult geometric mathematics - a curve described by a point on a
circle as it rolls along a line that's... eh, I forget. It was
complicated. But convincing, if confusing. Davis' dazzling/baffling
mathematical presentations convinced Consolidated to use the airfoil
for the B-24 Liberator.
It turned out that the airfoil was a very close approximation to a
laminar-flow design. That combined with the high aspect ratio of the
B-24's wing gave the machine its excellent performance. It also
turned out in the final analysis that the mathematics were bunk.
There was no connection between Davis' derivations and aeronautical
reality. (See the excellent book, "What Engineers Know and How They
Know It" for the full story.) Davis lucked out, is all.
The wing drawings and doodles on your website look as though you've
been inspired by the graceful, undulating movements of rays, squid,
and other sea creatures. The big difference between them and your
concept is that the ocean denizens have neutral bouyancy. They need
expend no energy overcoming gravity. The design would be very
interesting in a microgravity environment.
patric...@yahoo.com (patrick timony) wrote in message news:<79fa7af7.03091...@posting.google.com>...
Eric Miller
> solid. (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphericon.html) It rolls in a
> straight line by wobbling from side to side along its continuous face.
> An interesting novelty, with perhaps some utility in mechanical
> devices - wobbling bearings, maybe? But an efficient propulsor? Just
> because something is a neat shape doesn't make it deeply meaningful or
> wonderfully useful.
I don't want to stifle creativity... but this was my first reaction too.
Especially when I saw the seemingly random inclusion of the golden mean as
one of the concepts.
> The wing drawings and doodles on your website look as though you've
> been inspired by the graceful, undulating movements of rays, squid,
> and other sea creatures. The big difference between them and your
> concept is that the ocean denizens have neutral bouyancy. They need
> expend no energy overcoming gravity. The design would be very
> interesting in a microgravity environment.
Again, my first thought.
Water and air are both fluids, but with densities of different magnitudes.
I'd think that you'd want to develop your idea to work in water before you
tried the thinner and vastly more difficult fluid of air.
If air were more dense or gravity was less...
BTW I remember something similar in a Heinlein book, maybe "The Moon Is A
Harsh Mistress".
And finally, remember that people said that heavier than air flight was
impossible and then the Wright Brother's flew.
Simple cause and effect! So, this isn't criticism... it's ensuring your
success!
Eric
Eric Miller
wasn't out of control and just about to crash... hard.
Unless inducing an epilectic fit was a pre-requisite for flight =D
Eric
Tim Ward
"Eric Miller" <emil...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:kXQab.46231$BS1.20...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> I don't want to stifle creativity... but this was my first reaction too.
> Especially when I saw the seemingly random inclusion of the golden mean as
> one of the concepts.
> Eric
I'd like to point out something often forgotten...
Before you can "think outside the box", you have to have some idea of where
the box is.
Tim Ward
Orval Fairbairn
"Tim Ward" <tjw...@pe.net> wrote:
Not only that, but you have to know what is INSIDE the box, too!
Corrie
> On 17 Sep 2003 07:09 PM, Bill Higdon posted the following:
> > Keith, You forgot the "controlled crash" that a Albatross makes when
> > it lands.
>
> Well, they *are* seagoing birds.
And they're clearly designed to take the punishment. Grumman builds
'em strong. ;-p
Corrie
> Water and air are both fluids, but with densities of different magnitudes.
> I'd think that you'd want to develop your idea to work in water before you
> tried the thinner and vastly more difficult fluid of air.
>
> If air were more dense or gravity was less...
> BTW I remember something similar in a Heinlein book, maybe "The Moon Is A
> Harsh Mistress".
I knew I'd come across it somewhere!
Corrie
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Robert Heinlein, "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
Robert Bonomi
Corrie <cor...@itasca.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Eric Miller" <emil...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:<kXQab.46231$BS1.20...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>> Water and air are both fluids, but with densities of different magnitudes.
>> I'd think that you'd want to develop your idea to work in water before you
>> tried the thinner and vastly more difficult fluid of air.
>>
>> If air were more dense or gravity was less...
>> BTW I remember something similar in a Heinlein book, maybe "The Moon Is A
>> Harsh Mistress".
>
>I knew I'd come across it somewhere!
Heinlein's most detailed discussion of man-powered flight is in "Podkayne of
Mars". The Icarus variety -- i.e. strap on wings that you flap.
There's an interesting aside in "Killer Station" by Martin Caiden, regarding
the manouvering difficulties of flapping flight in a virtually zero-g
environment. Also, in Clarke's "Rendevous with Rama" regarding a man-powered
propeller-driven craft, being operated inside Rama.
Eric Miller
> "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
> butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
> accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
> give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
> problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
> efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
> - Robert Heinlein, "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
One of the best quotes ever :-)
Along with the near corollary:
An expert (specialist) is someone who knows more and more about less and
less until they know absolutely everything about nothing at all!
Eric
Tim Ward
"Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@c-ns.> wrote in message
news:CEbbb.48040$Aq2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> In article <dda75262.03092...@posting.google.com>,
> Corrie <cor...@itasca.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Eric Miller" <emil...@usa.net> wrote in message
> >news:<kXQab.46231$BS1.20...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >
> >> Water and air are both fluids, but with densities of different
magnitudes.
> >> I'd think that you'd want to develop your idea to work in water before
you
> >> tried the thinner and vastly more difficult fluid of air.
> >>
> >> If air were more dense or gravity was less...
> >> BTW I remember something similar in a Heinlein book, maybe "The Moon Is
A
> >> Harsh Mistress".
> >
> >I knew I'd come across it somewhere!
>
> Heinlein's most detailed discussion of man-powered flight is in "Podkayne
of
> Mars". The Icarus variety -- i.e. strap on wings that you flap.
ITYM "The Menace from Earth". A short story generally found in the
compilation of the same name.
Still, Holly Jones does bear some resemblance to Podkayne...
Tim Ward
Patrick Timony
> the box is.
What box?
Patrick
Patrick Timony
> solid.
I meant for the design to use only the edges of a sphericon, connected
by a springy structure that would allow them to be scissored back and
forth. The structure could be draped in foam the way different shaped
bubble wands hold minimal surface bubbles.
perhaps some utility in mechanical
> devices - wobbling bearings, maybe?
I built this machine (sphericon machine)
http://patricktimony.tvheaven.com/photo.html
on a 3D printer. When you spin the central rod it makes the handles
wobble back and forth which could be turned into pistoning. I thought
it might be useful in a conventional ornithopter but I'm sure theres a
gear out there that does this already.
Model Flyer
>
> Along with the near corollary:
>
> An expert (specialist) is someone who knows more and more about
less and
> less until they know absolutely everything about nothing at all!
>
Eric, that couldn't be truer, I know everything about the screw I'm
holding in my hand, I know it length, diameter, pitch of thread, even
the material it's made out of, however, I know absolutly nothing
about where the damned thing goes!!!!!!
--
.
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place
> Eric
>
>
Patrick Timony
> one of the concepts.
I got this shape from looking at oar blade designs. See:
http://www.concept2.com/products/oars/oartesting2.asp
Also it's easy to test using cardboard. A 3x5 rectangle just feels
like the best air scoop - it catches the most air.
> I'd think that you'd want to develop your idea to work in water before you
> tried the thinner and vastly more difficult fluid of air.
I think a ray-shaped diving suit, made of sealed foam and with
knife-like but really controlable edges would move really well.
patrick timony
I agree. I was thinking in terms of the evolution of flight or of
propulsion - that soaring would be further down the line than flapping
(undulating), and thus rarer, because everything had to flap before it
could soar.
>Wing warping isn't flapping, it was a way to effect directional
>changes in flight by changing the shape of the wing.
Wing warping is the very beginning of flapping. At this wing warping
page: http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/warp.html if you move the java
applet slider back and forth you can see how wing warping could be
propulsive. That's the same motion that many animals use to propel
themselves; they don't separate the steering from the acceleration,
it's just one fluid motion.
>Yes, they did enforce their patent with vigor and largely succeeded
in the
>USA until WW I, effectively hampering aircraft development.
>ailerons worked better.
It sounds like this patent forced the industry to build bigger faster
planes that soar instead of smaller and slower planes that warp or
flap.
>People made bird-like flapping designs for manned flight because they
>saw birds flying and thought that was the way man should fly as well.
That makes sense. I trust Leonardo. I have a feeling that he didn't
think any wrong thoughts. He wasn't a speculator as much as an
instrument that allows you to see possibilities. And his designs and
Otto Leilenthal's are so beautiful compared to anything since, they
must be right.
Patrick Timony
Eric Miller
news:sRmbb.32629$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>
> Eric, that couldn't be truer, I know everything about the screw I'm
> holding in my hand, I know it length, diameter, pitch of thread, even
> the material it's made out of, however, I know absolutly nothing
> about where the damned thing goes!!!!!!
> --
> Jonathan Lowe
So basically, what you're saying and what I'm hearing is... you're screwed!
Eric <big grin>
Eric Miller
> I think a ray-shaped diving suit, made of sealed foam and with
> knife-like but really controlable edges would move really well.
What you (or I) think doesn't matter... that's why we experiment!
Eric
Eric Miller
> That makes sense. I trust Leonardo. I have a feeling that he didn't
> think any wrong thoughts. He wasn't a speculator as much as an
> instrument that allows you to see possibilities. And his designs and
> Otto Leilenthal's are so beautiful compared to anything since, they
> must be right.
Functional and useful has a beauty all its own.
Beauty plus useless is still useless =D
Remember, Leo never got off the ground and Otto provided incorrect
coefficients of lift (which is why the Wrights had to build a wind tunnel)
AND he died in a crash after too few (very short) gliding flights.
As someone else recently quoted Igor Sikorsky here on RAH: "There are good
designers with bad designs and bad designers with good designs. If we all
flew our own designs, there would soon be only good designers with good
designs." Survival of the fittest with a vengeance!
BTW did anyone else catch the First in Flight special showing (and still
being re-shown) on the Discovery Channel?
Apparently the Wrights' propellers were 80% efficient in converting engine
HP into thrust compared to the 40% of their contemporaries.
Meanwhile, modern propellers are only 85% efficient. I find that to be
absolutely mind-blowing.
Eric
Gig Giacona
> BTW did anyone else catch the First in Flight special showing (and still
> being re-shown) on the Discovery Channel?
> Apparently the Wrights' propellers were 80% efficient in converting engine
> HP into thrust compared to the 40% of their contemporaries.
> Meanwhile, modern propellers are only 85% efficient. I find that to be
> absolutely mind-blowing.
>
Yes I saw that this weekend and my mind was equally blown. Not only that but
my wife, who was in the room but not watching the show and has very little
interest in aircraft other than where I'm going to take her once mine is
finished, was equally impressed with that factoid.
Corrie
> >soaring flight is quite common in nature.
>
> I agree. I was thinking in terms of the evolution of flight or of
> propulsion - that soaring would be further down the line than flapping
> (undulating), and thus rarer, because everything had to flap before it
> could soar.
If you believe the paleontologists, they say that the pterodons did
not flap - they dropped from cliffs and soared. Archaeopterix may
have flapped, but it didn't have much of a breastbone to support
flapping muscles.
> >Wing warping isn't flapping, it was a way to effect directional
> >changes in flight by changing the shape of the wing.
>
> Wing warping is the very beginning of flapping. At this wing warping
> page: http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/warp.html if you move the java
> applet slider back and forth you can see how wing warping could be
> propulsive. That's the same motion that many animals use to propel
> themselves; they don't separate the steering from the acceleration,
> it's just one fluid motion.
That's an inaccurate simplification. To provide lift and propulsion,
the wing has to move back and down, not just twist about its axis.
Basic physics.
> >Yes, they did enforce their patent with vigor and largely succeeded
> in the
> >USA until WW I, effectively hampering aircraft development.
>
> >ailerons worked better.
>
> It sounds like this patent forced the industry to build bigger faster
> planes that soar instead of smaller and slower planes that warp or
> flap.
Nonsense. Their vigorous enforcement spurred the development of
ailerons, not gliders.
> >People made bird-like flapping designs for manned flight because they
> >saw birds flying and thought that was the way man should fly as well.
>
> That makes sense. I trust Leonardo. I have a feeling that he didn't
> think any wrong thoughts. He wasn't a speculator as much as an
> instrument that allows you to see possibilities. And his designs and
> Otto Leilenthal's are so beautiful compared to anything since, they
> must be right.
As t'was said: Beautiful plus useless equals useless. Leo's
aeronautical designs show a fine ignorance of the hard realities of
power loading. His helicopter and ornithopter may be pretty, but they
cannot be made to work as designed. Physics trumps beauty *every*
time. Just look at the F-4, B-52, and A-10. Ugly as a pimple on a
warthog's butt. But they WORK.
Bob Kuykendall
> ...
> Beautiful plus useless equals useless...
You just made this thread worth my time. Thanks!
Big John
Your sure thinking out of the box
You should put some of your talents to the anti-gravity problem.
Big John
On 18 Sep 2003 14:28:46 -0700, patric...@yahoo.com (patrick
timony) wrote:
----clip----
I wouldn't recommend it, as flutter is a BIG problem with flexible
wings, tails, fins, etc.
The safety issues outweigh any performance gains here for a homebuilt
Eric Miller
"Bob Kuykendall" <b...@hpaircraft.com> wrote
> Earlier, cor...@itasca.net (Corrie) wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Beautiful plus useless equals useless...
>
> You just made this thread worth my time. Thanks!
>
I don't get no respect!
<sniff>
Eric
Bob Kuykendall
> I don't get no respect!
Oops, my bad. I see in reviewing this thread that you deserve credit for:
> > Beautiful plus useless equals useless...
Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
Mike
that a college class had built it to meet a challenge of flying a 1/4
mile (or thereabouts) course. It looked like a giant ultralight with a
huge wingspan and was powered by a man (in very good shape) using a
pedal system to drive the propeller. Totally impractical as a flying
machine, but interesting anyway. Perhaps someone in the group will
remember more about this accomplishment.
Mike
Orval Fairbairn
air...@msn.com (Mike) wrote:
About 20 years ago I helped (in a very small way) on the Icarus Project,
which was the successful man-powered flight from Crete to Santorini, a
distance of about 70 miles.
Unfortunately, the craft was lost in the surf on a nude beach at
Santorini, so only a few artifacts survie. I saw a couple of them in a
display case at Silver Hill a couple of years ago.
Eric Miller
news:723febc.03092...@posting.google.com...
You're thinking about the Gossamer Condor, which won the Kremer 50,000 pound
prize for flying over a figure 8 course 1977, followed by the 1979 crossing
of the English Channel to win the Kremer 100,000 pound prize by the Gossamer
Albatross.
Both were designed by Paul MacCready Jr and piloted by Bryan Allen.
Only impractical in that Bryan Allen was a trained cyclist whereas most of
us are not.
Both amazing design and athletic feats.
At the time of the challenge, the Gossamer Condor weighed 70 pounds, the
pilot weighed 137 pounds.
Wing span: 96 feet
Wing area: 760 sq ft.
Aspect ratio: 12.8
The wings were covered with 1/2 mil mylar sheet on top and 1/4 mil mylar
sheets on the bottom.
Canard area 93 sq ft.
Length: 30 ft.
Height 18 ft.
Prop diameter: 12 ft.
The total flight path was 1.35 miles, while the Kremer circuit itself was
1.15 miles flown in 6 minutes and 22.5 seconds for an average speed of 10.82
miles per hour.
Don't have the figures for the Gossamer Albatross handy right now.
Eric
Robert Bonomi
There's the "Gossamer Albatross", that, in 1979 managed a *man*powered*
flight across the English Channel. details available via google.
Orval Fairbairn
bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
In addition, there was the Daedalus, which flew man-powered, from Crete
to Santorini. I knew some of the principals and even did a little work
on it. These guys were mostly MIT grads an really had their low-speed
aero in hand. Unfortunately, all that is left of the craft is in a small
display case at Silver Hill (pedals, gearbox and a few miscellaneous
pieces), as the craft landed in the surf at a nude beach and broke apart.
patrick timony
>> nature but so popular with us for the last 100 years?
>Nope. Flapping doesn't work even overly well for large birds. And
we're
>just beginning to understand the principles of the aerodynamics of
things
>like bees and hummingbirds.
What about clouds. I've heard that some clouds weigh 500,000 pounds.
They are probably held together by surface tension. The roiling
motion of clouds I bet is related to undulation for propulsion. What
we need is a material somewhere between bone and water vapor = foam.
>> I've heard that
>> the Wright Brothers patented Wing Warping (Flapping) and never let
>> anyone develop planes using Wing Warping flight. Is that true?
>Bullshit. Wing warping isn't flapping, it was a way to effect
directional >changes in flight by changing the shape of the wing. It
wasn't either the >propuslive or lifting force. While the Wrights did
get a patent on it, the >real reason others didn't follow is that they
found that ailerons worked >better.
If ailerons are so great then why don't birds have them? For that
matter why don't any animals have wheels? Because wheels try to
pretend friction doesen't exist and end up not being able to account
for their actions: How many times did you go around Mr. Wheel? I
don't know. Wings and joints spread friction around democratically so
that every particle gets some.
>> Does
>> that explain why the designs up until the time of the Wright
Brothers
>> were all Bird-like flapping designs and after were all fixed wing
>> soaring designs?
>No, the Wrights gliders and powered planes were not flappers. They
were
>fixed wing.
But when the trailing edge of the fixed wing warps the net movement is
down and forwards - so there is a tiny bit of propulsion backwards.
>Yea, and man doesn't have enough muscle to lift a thousand pounds of
>dirt in one load, which is why he invented the backhoe.
Clouds lift themselves and they don't have any propulsion.
>Specialization is for insects."
I love it.
>Soaring is not rare in nature. Birds, especially big birds flap only
when
>absolutely necessary.
Soaring is rarer than undulating. Soaring is like rolling - it tries
to deny friction. Undulation makes use of friction.
Patrick Timony
Ron Natalie
"patrick timony" <patric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:79fa7af7.03093...@posting.google.com...
> What about clouds. I've heard that some clouds weigh 500,000 pounds.
> They are probably held together by surface tension.
You need to spend a little time doing some research rather than guessing
your principles of physics. Clouds are not "held together" at all.
> The roiling motion of clouds I bet is related to undulation for propulsion.
Nonsense.
> If ailerons are so great then why don't birds have them? For that
> matter why don't any animals have wheels? Because wheels try to
> pretend friction doesen't exist and end up not being able to account
> for their actions:
The above is complete nonsense. Wheels don't "pretend" anything.
And you seem to be completely ignorant of what wing warping is.
Wing warping is not propulsion or lift. It's a control mechanism,
as are ailerons. It's not flapping.
> How many times did you go around Mr. Wheel? I
> don't know.
"I don't know" is a fairly good description of you knowledge of everything.
> But when the trailing edge of the fixed wing warps the net movement is
> down and forwards - so there is a tiny bit of propulsion backwards.
We call that drag (adverse yaw). But you can warp the wings on the Wright flyer
and it's not going anywhere. It's not "flapping"
> Clouds lift themselves and they don't have any propulsion.
Clouds do not lift themselves.
nafod40
> "patrick timony"...
>
>>Clouds lift themselves and they don't have any propulsion.
>
>
> Clouds do not lift themselves.
Momma sez "clouds are lifted by happy rays of sunshine!" That's what
momma sez.
Hey, flapping HAS been patented. Read it and weep. Wished I'd thought of
it first.
http://www.nawcad.navy.mil/techtransfer/view_patent.cfm?patent_number=5884872
Eric Miller
> The roiling motion of clouds I bet is related to undulation for
propulsion.
I'll take that bet :p
> If ailerons are so great then why don't birds have them?
Because nature hasn't invented the piano hinge yet!
> Wings and joints spread friction around democratically so
> that every particle gets some.
Democratically huh? Just when and where do they vote? And what political
party are they members of?
> But when the trailing edge of the fixed wing warps the net movement is
> down and forwards - so there is a tiny bit of propulsion backwards.
Adverse yaw and drag... always working against the direction of motion...
won't ever get you where you wanna go.
> Soaring is like rolling - it tries to deny friction.
The same way you try to deny the laws of physics and aerodynamics?
Eric
B2431
They don't? Look at a hawk's wing in flight. See the long feathers on the
trailing edge of the wings? They function as ailerons.
Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
Corrie
Bird wings are enormously complex structures. Heck, FEATHERS are
incredibly complicated - look at one under a good lens sometime, or
look up some photomicrographs. Very clever design.
Ailerons are mechanically MUCH simpler. Nature doesn't always choose
simple over efficient.
b2...@aol.com (B2431) wrote in message news:<20031003123737...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
Ernest Christley
>>>If ailerons are so great then why don't birds have them?
Heh, how about,"If the wheel is so great then why don't cheetahs have
them?" Or how's this, "If hydraulic pistons are so great then why don't
elephants have them?"
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber