Human powered Ornithopter

"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond) 03/07/2019 at 09:31 • Filed to: None

5

7

Snowbird. Out of the University of Toronto. Basically repeating leg presses to flap the wings. I’m pretty amazed by the weight/span achievement here. I’m also amazed what PhD candidates can acc omplish if their projects are properly funded. Go schools!

ttyymmnn > Grindintosecond 03/07/2019 at 10:36

2

Plane weighs less than pilot. Neat.

Building to the edge of failure. Sounds like F1.

Looks like once it’s towed to altitude, flapping only prolongs the descent. Later he says that they achieved 19 seconds seconds of “sustained” flight.

You know me, I’m an airplane guy. And I’m fascinated by the technological advances made over the years of aviation. (You can hear the “but” coming.) But I have to wonder what is the point of all of this . Yes, it’s a remarkable achievement in lightweight construction. Yes, they did something that nobody has ever done. Yes, the aerodynamics to make it work at all are fascinating. But why? To get a world record? How does this achievement advance aviation science?

T o be perfectly clear, I am not a curmudgeon, and I do appreciate doing things just to show they can be done. But I’d also like to know about future applications of a flapping plane.

Also, I think that towing it into the air is a bit of a cheat (others will also rightly point out that the Wright Brothers used a catapult) . The last really successful human-powered aircraft, the Gossamer Albatross , was able to take off and fly across the English Channel all with human power.

I am not a curmudgeon!

Grindintosecond > ttyymmnn 03/07/2019 at 11:03

2

This shows two things:

1. A flying ornithopter is possible, but requires WAY more work and fitness than previously thought . Pointing to how much more of each would be required to operate out of ground effect, turn. go anywhere with it . Proving the superior engineering of birds over people. IF he weighed half as much due to better muscle distribution and hollow bones, the craft would work better but then ultimately he would jus t be a very large bird and the hell with school and building things.

2. To point out the greater values of getting a PhD other than just getting one and saying you have it and need a great job because of brains. B ut coming out of that program having proven you can also thrive while thinking outside a box, can really deep dive into unknown ‘impossible’ areas of complex mechanics (Think of how to quantify spanwise loadings , alterations to lift and drag chart curves of a continuiously variable surface flapping wing and the lift distributions associated ) and come out with something actually useful no matter what the boss man gives you to work on. He just came out of the University with that degree and PROOF he can do the job whatever it is. That’s selling yourself and marketing yourself, not just getting the degree.

Ash78, voting early and often > ttyymmnn 03/07/2019 at 11:05

0

Further, any proper sailplane (even much heavier ones) can stay aloft almost indefinitely once towed. So based on this, it’s actually at a disadvantage to an aircraft with no propulsion at all?

Confused, not a dick. I promise.

ttyymmnn > Grindintosecond 03/07/2019 at 11:16

0

Well said. 

ttyymmnn > Ash78, voting early and often 03/07/2019 at 11:19

1

As I’ve told my trumpet students, there is a difference between being critical and criticizing. Analyzing something critically gives us information we can use to make something better. Criticizing just makes a judgment and provides no information. So you could say, “This is the stupidest thing ever,” but that doesn’t help. Or, you could say, “This is a pretty fantastic achievement, but I see some limitations. Such as.....”

Trouble is, being critical is way harder than criticizing. 

Ash78, voting early and often > ttyymmnn 03/07/2019 at 11:23

0

I’m often accused of sounding too negative when offering critique or feedback. My view is that EVERY idea sounds good at first glance, otherwise people wouldn’t have shared it. So your options are either being a sycophantic cheerleader (useless flattery) or helping the person improve their idea by predicting the problems or issues that need to be overcome. In my world (analyst) that’s just the normal position; however, to most people it sounds like you’re raining on their parade.

ttyymmnn > Ash78, voting early and often 03/07/2019 at 11:33

0

My last trumpet teacher was perhaps one of the greatest pedagogues of our generation. And he had a way of giving you his unvarnished opinion on something you just played in a way that both avuncular and absolutely spot on. So much so that most of his students collected and catalogued the things he said to them, myself included. Such as:

Now Tim, there are two ways you can play this. You can be musical and phrase and up and down and all, or you can be a monotonous bore. Tim, you’re being a monotonous bore.

Tim, I don’t think you want to play that as if Hitler just walked in the room.

Tim, I think we can call what you made there a noise , but we couldn ’t really call it a note .

As a doctoral student, and an adult, I just laughed , because everything he said was absolutely true and brilliantly perspicacious. Younger students, particularly undergraduates, were often intimidated by it, or resented it. You won’t get very far in life if you are always intimidated or upset by people who disagree with you, or who are able to point out genuine flaws in your thinking. It’s called learning .