First Human Powered Ornithopter

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tom De Moor wrote:


Alan, thanks for the links provided. This craft's claimn is to have
maintained altitude and airspeed for 19.3 seconds, as the videos show, and
that is certianly a notable step. Auto-tow for them versus a rail and
falling weight for the Wrights, fairenough. Good baby-steps, and nothing at
all to be discounted. This is not a finished projec is it?

I think that the "Figure eight around two pylons one-half mile apart,
starting and finishing at 3 meters altitude" that the Gossamer Condor did
for the Kremer prize they won in 1977 would be a good measure of flight, and
it will take a lot of engineering and experimentation to achieve that for an
ornithopter , as it did for the Gossamer bunch. What a goal ! But I'll bet
some ingenious soul is already working at that.

Flash

In article ,
says...

A man-carry engine-powered ornithopter has already been done.




I suppose you refer to 'The (Canadian) Flapper'. But this ornithopter
needed jet assistance / a pusher propellor and a second wing to get
airborn.

There is quite a possibility that the Flapper would also take off
without its wings flapping. In that scenario the flapping can hardly be
described as sustained flight.

Tom De Moor

In article ,
Tom De Moor wrote:

In article ,
says...

A man-carry engine-powered ornithopter has already been done.




I suppose you refer to 'The (Canadian) Flapper'. But this ornithopter
needed jet assistance / a pusher propellor and a second wing to get
airborn.

No, it didn't. It needed a tow.


There is quite a possibility that the Flapper would also take off
without its wings flapping. In that scenario the flapping can hardly be
described as sustained flight.

The Wright Flyer needed a run down a hill. Was that not sustained flight?

If you fire a Super Hornet off an aircraft carrier to get it up to
speed, does that mean that it's not sustained flight when it maintains
airspeed and altitude on its own?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

In article ,
says...

There is quite a possibility that the Flapper would also take off
without its wings flapping. In that scenario the flapping can hardly be
described as sustained flight.

The Wright Flyer needed a run down a hill. Was that not sustained flight?

If you fire a Super Hornet off an aircraft carrier to get it up to
speed, does that mean that it's not sustained flight when it maintains
airspeed and altitude on its own?


Sustained flight as an aircraft =/= sustained flight as 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.

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.

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.

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.

Tom De Moor

In article ,
Tom De Moor wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is quite a possibility that the Flapper would also take off
without its wings flapping. In that scenario the flapping can hardly be
described as sustained flight.

The Wright Flyer needed a run down a hill. Was that not sustained flight?

If you fire a Super Hornet off an aircraft carrier to get it up to
speed, does that mean that it's not sustained flight when it maintains
airspeed and altitude on its own?


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?


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.


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.


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...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

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

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

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

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'

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?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

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

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