Ornithopter Flight - YouTube
It works, why not exploit the tech for personal travel? If ornithopters aren't advanced enough now, why not get it there?
Pros:
°studies show that if done properly it can be more energy efficient then turbine.
°annoying flapping rocking motion can be countered through added alternating wings
Cons:
°not very advanced currently
°not high altitude friendly (not completely sure on this one)
We all want to fly like a bird, I suggest replace the jet pack dream or a two/three winged back pack.
Anyone have ideas on this subject?
>>920193
The thing about orinthopters is they're not able to fly above the sand storms. Then you have to put on your still suit and make sure you have enough thumpers to evade the worms.
>>920195
Not trying to be rude but I really don't know what you said
>>920195
I guess fly on a clear day? I wouldn't want to go in the air if it looked like it was going to be hell on earth anyway
>>920196
in-joke, dont worry bout it
>>920198
crikey
>>920193
Because you have to be a pilot to fly one.
Flying cars will happen but they'll be driverless.
>>920207
>implying one couldn't get a pilots license
Better to just get a human powered blimp. Much safer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c9xUVjfcZM
>>920216
I'd still try it to be honest, probably when I accept death
>>920215
Speaking as someone a checkride away from one, I can tell you it's not just a matter of "getting" one. Shit's expensive and mentally challenging.
>>920193
>°not high altitude friendly
Define high altitude numerically.
>>920238
I don't know what the number is specifically, but definitely lower then the jet stream
>>920193
>We all want to fly like a bird
Yeah I want to be a nimble bird not a giant un manoeuvrable bird.
>>920403
Squak yall.
Agreed though. Ideally it could be Something like the size of a backpack, with wingspan of arm length, give or take a few inches. In a perfect world to be honest. With Most ornithopter situations, it all boils down to wing span being too large and heavy and high enough flap rate, is needed to generate enough lift. So, maybe, cut the wing span by half and add a second pair of half winged wings to the backpack. So that the total wing span is still equal to sufficient lift and less effort is made to generate proper flapping, because less mass from each individual wing. This is making me hungry...
>>920403
And a added note. I've been doing research on this for a while now, and basically came to the wing type would be like a fly, a fruit fly. Mostly for its short wing span. With that, banking would be easier, less mass of wing to flap for the motor, and still keeping a generally easy design. Although, being that it would be less area of wing to push though the air, the rate of flapping would have to be higher. Hopefully the simple design would keep it nice and light.
>>920195
t. Paul Muad'Dib
>>920230
I wouldn't expect less. But I do know in some states in the US, small air crafts are allowed in the air as long as they don't reach a specific weight limit. I don't know what state but I do remember seeing that somewhere
>>920407
Why would an Atreides say that? It sounds more like something Father Lankester Merrin would say.
>>920615
Noted, all things considered the math isn't to the scale yet, honestly I made a quick guess on size of wings, but they will be stocky. I want to aim for high flap rates to reduce the needed size for wing span. General rule is 'the larger the wings are the lower flap rate is needed' and vice versa. I know this all sounds like a troll but I'm dead set on this. I know how unlikely this can actually work and I also know the resources aren't ready for this kind of thing (like batteries). Oh and I forgot to add. This entire thing is electric (I'll wait for the sages) but I want it to be electric because it's less weight on the craft. With internal combustion systems, you have to use heavy metals, multiple fluid tanks, and on top of that batteries. So I wouldn't be too pressed for that type of motor anytime soon. Even considering that successful ornithopter flights in the past has been with internal combustion systems already, but that was a long time ago. I've prepared a small group of answers to general questions if anyone wants to criticize. At this point of my project I need other point of views to cover all my bases of possible flaws.
>>920961
>I want it to be electric because it's less weight on the craft. With internal combustion systems, you have to use heavy metals, multiple fluid tanks, and on top of that batteries.
Internal combustion engines offer a way better power to weight ratio compared to electric engines, because batteries have much less energy density than gasoline. So an equivelent power pack that must run for a given time will always be heavier if it's electric.
You are literally retarded.
>>920404
>half winged wings
>>920985
Typo. Half length wings
>>920984
That's what I'm looking for in this thread. But I can only half agree with you on that. It's mostly Depending on the model of the engine both electric and gas. I have seen a lot of gas engines that are small and light with good power output, but, I don't want to go that route. It may not work as well as gas but I want it to just work. More like a proof of concept. Although at this point I don't know what kind of motor I would use because I still don't know the probable total weigh of it yet.
>>920961
Christ, there is so much wrong here.
>stocky wings
"what is aspect ratio, Trebek?"
>I want to aim for high flap rates to reduce the needed size for wing span.
For a given pass flow rate, it is always more efficient to accelerate a larger swept area to a lower velocity than a smaller swept area to a higher velocity. Consider why helicopter rotors are large diameter, and why jet-turbine powered helicopters don't simply ditch the rotor and fly around by pointing their jets downward.
Also, higher speed reciprocating motion is less efficient, and high acceleration (at either ends of the flap cycles results in high forces which takes far more engineering rigor. Also very difficult to do with lightweight aerostructures. Aeroelasticity is a real problem you will encounter.
Look at insects/birds - the larger they are, the slower the wing motion is. You are a far heavier object, the wings must have much more area, and will move slower yet.
What you're discussing is entirely, 100% not feasible for something large enough to carry a person.
>electric
>less weight
all my keks
Yes, a model scale, electric is higher power density. But gasoline is far more energy dense and power dense than batteries, and as the required energy output goes up, it more than makes up for the extra overhead and equipment required.
Single-person craft are small enough that electric motors can work, but - assuming we were talking about something that could really work and not a 10-year-olds daydream - gasoline will result in more duration/range for a given weight.
>>921150
You are pure, unadultered ignorance.
>>920195
t. Harkonnen
>>921239
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Larger wing are is a obvious must. I understand why the Canadian man powered ornithopter was so huge, other then the fact that it had less power output. With that said, I'll drop the electric rout. If I really want this to work then I'm willing to make the changes needed to make it happen. But sense we already covered the big essentials, what about the connection between the motor and wings. I've been stuck on that for a while. I've seen designs for different types of gear boxes but, symmetrical flapping is the usual problem. This is the BASIC idea of what I have in mind of what I want to have in the craft. I've always heard that if something is simple in design, then it would be less likely to fail (or something like that). And ya I'm ignorant as fuck, that's why I'm trying to get some answers here and not go off crying while sacking some disk and using my tears as lube while getting ass fucked by the hulk. I want this shit to happen and I'm gonna go though what ever it takes to make this shit happen. Call me ignorant, retarded, 10 years old, or out right faggot shit sucker. I don't give a fuck as long as I get the feed back I need. Also pic related
>>921698
Sorry for the typos in this one, auto correct. I'm sure you guys get what I'm trying to say here. Also this is what I have as a plan B is the first design wouldn't work out. Considering lubricant would be a likely issue for the worm. Keep in mind these designs do have original names but I call them some else to help me remember.
>>921698
>I want this shit to happen and I'm gonna go though what ever it takes to make this shit happen.
It won't, stop losing your time. You couldn't even make a helicopter, and you're trying to build something that is way, way more complicated than that. You couldn't do it even with huge funding, access to cutting-edge materials and a brilliant mind. This thread is retarded. Soon:
>how do I make mecha? xDD
>>921749
http://www.ornithopter.org/history.manned.shtml
Educate your self >>921749
Did you know that helicopters came from ornithopters, specifically it came from the dragon fly.
>It won't, stop losing your time.
What does it matter to you what I do with my time anyway. Shit like that is the kind of stuff emo pessimistic bitches say when they can do something.
>You couldn't even make a helicopter, and you're trying to build something that is way, way more complicated than that.
I'm up to try at least, and if it's 'way, way more complicated then that' then there is also a way way more simple way to do it also, you just need to understand the concept.
>You couldn't do it even with huge funding, access to cutting-edge materials and a brilliant mind.
I'd hate to see what you consider cutting-edge.
Huge funding? Like big money amount? Like this many dollars? Is like like a box of chocolates?
The brilliant mind I'd agree with kinda, but a brilliant mind is a persistent mind. It's also one with imagination with willingness to learn.
Mechs are useless
>>921941
>What does it matter to you what I do with my time anyway.
You're the one who posted asking for ideas.
>if it's 'way, way more complicated then that' then there is also a way way more simple way to do it also
You literally said "if it's complicated it means it's simple". You're quite the mongolic retard, aren't you?
>you just need to understand the concept.
You didn't even have a clue on how to power the thing. Stop shitposting.
There's plenty of reasons why flapping wings aren't used. They require heavy, complex, expensive gearboxes. And you simply can't make flapping wings big enough to be useful with the current materials.
Please, enlighten us with some drawings. That's the first step.
>>921950
My personal drawings are to my own. And I'll rephrase the whole complicated bit for you to get what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to work with the minimum to get the basics, then start to worry about the complex part of the situation later. Every complicated thing had a simple basic concepts. The motors were what I wanted to get get help with, I did have a clue, but I wanted an answer, that is backed with reason. Not just ideological bigotry. I posted to get some outside opinions on the craft. Not about how I want to use my time to develop it, get it? As far as the materials go. I've already posted a link showing materials use that was complex and heavy, yet still flew. And that came from a point in time before you were even born. I'm pretty sure humanity didn't work backwards with technology. Consider the documented history as my drawings, because that is what this is based on. Successful flight with conventional marketed resources. Like a cross eyed moron flashing his dick to traffic, you ignore the proof shown to you and keep up with the same tired questions as if you didn't even hear them. You can ask your teacher at high school if you can barrow the computer so you can Google it for your self if you don't believe me, kid
>>921954
If you're so confident start buying parts and posting a build log. You're going to have to go through multiple prototypes anyways.
>>921968
im getting no where here. the entire point i made this post was to cover some aspects of the craft, im not going to start investing into something that i don't fully understand yet. thats stupid
>>921968
>prototype
yes,,, yes!
,as for power,, how about minny ornothopters?, tie pigeons all over the "wing?
,,,feed them hotchilie,, and lite the farts.
>>921973
oooo, comeon!,, use cardboard and string,, lift a cato start?, its ok to use electric, and run a wire fortests.
>>921973
You are also stupid.
>>921998
I'm not the guy you think I am. I'm just calling you stupid. Maybe you should spend $100 just to make an RC orni before you convince yourself you can scale anything to any way you like and ignore the reasons things are the way they are.
>>922000
just like a model air plane, or maybe a helicopter, could even be a toy boat. but the cutting-edge know how, materials and brilliant minds in all the world couldn't make those actually work, right?
>>921954
>My personal drawings are to my own.
So you don't have any.
>get the basics, then start to worry about the complex part of the situation later
So you're doing it backwards.
>Consider the documented history as my drawings, because that is what this is based on.
All you have is smoke, and you asked a mongolian cartoon image board for ideas. I don't believe your creation has a bright future.
>you ignore the proof shown to you and keep up with the same tired questions as if you didn't even hear them
What proof? And I don't ask questions, I just say you're retarded.
>>922021
If you're so confident you can make it work, do it. Show us.
Except you won't, because you're stupid.
>>922021
>just like a model air plane, or maybe a helicopter, could even be a toy boat.
You have to start somewhere
>but the cutting-edge know how, materials and brilliant minds in all the world couldn't make those actually work, right?
But that's not you, evidently, so maybe you should shut up.
I'd be amused enough to humor your retarded questions if you at least put some money into building some RC models. As it is, you're just shooting your mouth off, making baseless assertions that you can do something, and just insulting anyone that points out barriers that prevent you from fulfilling your dreams, like lack of IQ points.
>>921749
>It won't, stop losing your time.
It could, if anon took time (years) to learn how planes fly and how wings generate lift, find a team of qualified persons to help him and get some money to do it.
What we know won't ever happen.
>>920408
Ultra-lights have to be really, really light in order for them to qualify as such, and they're not allowed to have more than 5 gallons of fuel capacity. Essentially, they're the jetskis of the aviation world; useless in a utilitarian sense, but fun toys for people who know what the fuck they're doing.
>>920198
Duncan Idaho was the best pilot in the Duke's service. And a good friend.
>>922366
>Duncan Idaho
A dime a dozen
>>922155
You know what... You have a point, I should start with something. Trial and error. We'll see if I have a clue about what I'm talking about by actually doing it. I've been reading on this for over three years trying to imagine though paper if it would work, but what would be the point if I don't actually do it. I'm going to try from small then work my way up
>>922542
>for over three years
And you don't have a single drawing, let alone a model. Amazing.
>>922572
I'm not worried about what you consider the truth but I do have a few pages of drawings and writing
>>922542
>I've been reading on this for over three years
And haven't even built a scale model, prototypes of mechanisms, or even started study the real math and engineering, etc.
AKA you've been daydreaming.
>>922704
>I do have a few pages of drawings and writing
Which of course you won't show us. What a surprise.
>>922366
but that spice beer tho
>>922961
With all honesty, why should I when this entire thread has been nothing but smart ass replies by jackasses
Test
