![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
says... Sustained flight as an aircraft =/= sustained flight as an ornithopter Why? Why would the definition of "sustained flight" change depending on the type of craft? Because the subject is not sustained flight but sustained flight by an ORNITHOPTER The Wright Flyer is not an ornithopter but an airplane/glider. The Flapper (jet powered or propellor pushed) was claimed to maintain flight / propulsion by the sole use of flapping wings. There was neither a jet nor a propellor involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qS7oN-3tA 'unless your eyes are cheated by some spell' It is not certain that it achieved that because it is quite likely that the lift originated from the small wing combined with the flapping wing wether the big wing was flapping or not. So it is not certain that the flapping did contribute to lift generation. There was no other source of thrust involved. See above Otherwise building an ornithopter would be quite ease: take a glider and when in flight open the canopy and flap your arms. The glider won't fall (immédiately) out the sky but I suspect that the armflapping will add nothing but drag. That won't meet the definition of "sustained flight" even if you don't flap, because a glider cannot maintain both altitude and airspeed simultaneously. In fact the first claims for ornithopter were following this method by iirc the same German engineer who develloped the Messcherschmidt Comet. He added clapping paddles to a glider. I'm sorry, but you're veering into weird, here... http://www.ornithopter.org/a.schmid.shtml Tom De Moor |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Tom De Moor wrote: In article , says... Sustained flight as an aircraft =/= sustained flight as an ornithopter Why? Why would the definition of "sustained flight" change depending on the type of craft? Because the subject is not sustained flight but sustained flight by an ORNITHOPTER So why does that change the definition of "sustained flight"? Try an answer that is not begging the question this time. The Wright Flyer is not an ornithopter but an airplane/glider. The Flapper (jet powered or propellor pushed) was claimed to maintain flight / propulsion by the sole use of flapping wings. There was neither a jet nor a propellor involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1 Right. Where's the jet or the propeller? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qS7oN-3tA Again, where? 'unless your eyes are cheated by some spell' Sorry, but it's not there. It is not certain that it achieved that because it is quite likely that the lift originated from the small wing combined with the flapping wing wether the big wing was flapping or not. So it is not certain that the flapping did contribute to lift generation. There was no other source of thrust involved. See above I did see. Moreover, I looked. You should try it. Otherwise building an ornithopter would be quite ease: take a glider and when in flight open the canopy and flap your arms. The glider won't fall (immédiately) out the sky but I suspect that the armflapping will add nothing but drag. That won't meet the definition of "sustained flight" even if you don't flap, because a glider cannot maintain both altitude and airspeed simultaneously. In fact the first claims for ornithopter were following this method by iirc the same German engineer who develloped the Messcherschmidt Comet. He added clapping paddles to a glider. I'm sorry, but you're veering into weird, here... http://www.ornithopter.org/a.schmid.shtml Yup. "Sustained flight" requires constant altitude and airspeed. The Comet didn't meet the second criterion. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/11/2010 1:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1 http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from a standing start. Where's the jet or propellor? First read the article and then look closely at the pix. The article mentions it and it's clearly visible in the pix if you're looking for it. Also 300 meters isn't much of a flight. If it had flown a loop around the field, it would be more believable... As it has been mentioned before, you're acting as if you have a personal stake in this and it seems more and more like that every time you post... Tony |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
TonyW wrote: On 10/11/2010 1:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1 http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from a standing start. Where's the jet or propellor? First read the article and then look closely at the pix. The article mentions it and it's clearly visible in the pix if you're looking for it. Also 300 meters isn't much of a flight. If it had flown a loop around the field, it would be more believable... The "article" is a page on Wikipedia that anyone can edit. The first flight of the Wright Flyer was only 36 meters and was only accomplished by taking off with gravity assist. Deslaurier's craft took off from a level runway. As it has been mentioned before, you're acting as if you have a personal stake in this and it seems more and more like that every time you post... LOL -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/11/2010 3:30 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
In , wrote: On 10/11/2010 1:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1 http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from a standing start. Where's the jet or propellor? First read the article and then look closely at the pix. The article mentions it and it's clearly visible in the pix if you're looking for it. Also 300 meters isn't much of a flight. If it had flown a loop around the field, it would be more believable... The "article" is a page on Wikipedia that anyone can edit. The first flight of the Wright Flyer was only 36 meters and was only accomplished by taking off with gravity assist. Deslaurier's craft took off from a level runway. As it has been mentioned before, you're acting as if you have a personal stake in this and it seems more and more like that every time you post... LOL You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the latter than the former... Tony |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
TonyW wrote: On 10/11/2010 3:30 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , wrote: On 10/11/2010 1:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1 http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from a standing start. Where's the jet or propellor? First read the article and then look closely at the pix. The article mentions it and it's clearly visible in the pix if you're looking for it. Also 300 meters isn't much of a flight. If it had flown a loop around the field, it would be more believable... The "article" is a page on Wikipedia that anyone can edit. The first flight of the Wright Flyer was only 36 meters and was only accomplished by taking off with gravity assist. Deslaurier's craft took off from a level runway. As it has been mentioned before, you're acting as if you have a personal stake in this and it seems more and more like that every time you post... LOL You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the latter than the former... I have a stake in facts and truth, Tony. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/11/2010 5:15 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the latter than the former... I have a stake in facts and truth, Tony. I'm more inclined to believe you're trolling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
World Record for first human powered ornithopter sustained flight | Paul Remde | Soaring | 10 | September 24th 10 05:48 PM |
Human Powered Flight, pt 2 - Japan 12.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | January 11th 09 01:21 PM |
Human-powered gliders | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 6 | February 3rd 07 05:42 PM |
human powered flight | patrick timony | Home Built | 10 | September 16th 03 03:38 AM |
Illusive elastic powered Ornithopter | Mike Hindle | Home Built | 6 | September 15th 03 03:32 PM |