whats the point, I was kinda relieved to see the ending,,ending like it did. That poor sap in the "machine" doesn't have to do that again. Sux to be down there wishing you were up there,,,until you get up there in a pathetic machine lke that,,,then you suddenly with you were down there!
@robonightmare lol finally, it took 4 weeks but someone finally got it hahahaha
@QceanWeaver because shapeshifting technology isn't perfected yet, it's very brittle and slow. Instead of travelling 1000km/h across the country, you'd be traveling at like 200km/h. Antigrav is the only logical successor to jet propulsion but that doesn't exist yet, or at least not for commercial use. I won't say doesn't exist because of those crazy Tesla and Nazi experiments that may have existed.
Acualy it took off with only the flapping. All that went wrong is that no one has figured out how to control an ornithopter when it becomes airborne. Or, rather, there are no good experiments conducted that show a viable way of controlling an ornithopter once in flight.
its not ridiculous, like some other wrote here.. it looks impressive and elegant.. just needs a little bit more work.. its like the ornithopters in Dune... impressive... i wonder, if it ever will be economic reasonable.. maybe one day in future with enhanced materials and knowledge....
the wings pushes the plain back to the ground well birds have another style of flying so they can push the air only under well these plain pushes to air to up and then to under the ornithopter this plain need only push the air under his self. as you can see the ornithopter gets lower if the wings becomes up thats because as i sayd you pushes the air up
I understand that this is a prototype of the transport planned for a manned mission to Titan. The ultra-thick atmosphere and very low gravity of this moon would allow an ornithopter to function pefectly. The prototype I have seen has four wings working (each pair flapping independently) rather than two. I believe the hope is that such a device could be fitted directly to the back of an individual. How I would love to try that!
@ladydigger Not so much when a single spark sets half the hemisphere on fire. Maybe if I could do it on manual power (like the cycle in Rendezvous with Rama) which was designed to reduce friction and heat to an absolute minimum.
@seekortry Ah yes. I forgot about methane atmosphere and sparks. You're right. An explosive mixture!! And again you're correct about perhaps utilising Arthur C Clarke's imagined Rama runabout. I have an urge to dig that book out again and re-read it now!
@ladydigger You still have friction and the issue of oxygen in a methane atmosphere. Then the temperature. You have to heat yourself without exploding. The mechanical gears probably won't work right without some pretty incredible grease. You have less gravity and a more favorable Reynolds number but that is small payment for the downside. I imagine such a machine better operates like a fly than a bird.
that shouldnt even be possible the wings are too short the wings werent moving fast enough and the whole thing looks like its made of canvas and wood highly illogical but what ever blame it on the wind or watever i wouldnt ride in that for my life
Why is it that whenever a plane starts to stall and eventually crashes the guy who shoots the whole event with a camera starts to shake and ruins the whole video ?
birds have flexible wings, allowing them to flap at an angle that thrusts them forward in flight. of course for this you need an airfoil wing, which they have.
their upstroke doesn't "cancel" out their downstroke, because the wings can flex on the upstroke, reducing the upstroke's effect.
Too much loose compartments, if you want to fly using this mechanism, you need to watch birds and other flying creatures, that use horizontal movement of their wings to create an aircushion. In my opinion if you want to fly, use a lightweight structure that includes some kind of skin to create this aircushion, just as birds have. Most birds don't run when they take off, but if people want to take flight with a machine, we need to make speed in order to gain altitude. The wings will do the rest.
Not a true ornithopter if it needs an engine for forward impetus. Birds and r/c ornithopters seem to fly quite well without engines. The rudimentary, highly-stressed flapping mechanism is a recipe for disaster. Why not follow the design of r/c ornithopers, using carbon fibre spars and composite cloth wings?.Until the flapping surfaces are both durable enough to withstand extended use and flexible enough to emulate bird wings, human-carrying ornithopters will remain an unachievable goal.
It don't have control of the wings, they simply 'flap' constantly, maybe must have a control system for how the wings will flap, accordingly the pilot desires or plane position or air flow.
It looks so alien. It's wings move like a bird's, but the fuselage looks like a glider! That thing is scary looking... or at least it will be until we see Ornithopters replacing airplanes.
Again, another moron who can't spell properly or capitalize. Thank you for proving yourself to be a complete idiot. You saved me the trouble of pointing it out for you. ^_^
An ornithopter (from Greek ornithos "bird" and pteron "wing") is an aircraft that flies by flapping its wings. Designers seek to imitate the flapping-wing flight of birds, bats, and insects. (Wiki)
What was the purpose of the Wright Brothers plane? It's a proof of concept. An ornithopter can be built, and this proves it. Ornithopters have many advantages over Airplanes and Helicopters.
Please name the 'advantages' of an Ornithopter. I can't see any stability and the mechanical load is extensive. It's nice that it can fly somehow, but it doesn't seem to be useful in practical applications.
Far superior maneuverability, more efficient at low speeds, quieter, can assist vertical take off and landing. For robotic flyers, they can disguise themselves as birds which is useful for reconnaissance, and spying. Theoretically if it is possible to make a robot out of nanomachines entirely (think of the T-1000), it could also morph into a flyer and fly by flapping its wings. There are more possibilities as well.
"far superior manueverability" if shaking a wing is superior then how come the worlds most agile planes use control surfaces? besides that thing wen't in a straight line then crashed."more efficient at low speeds" there unefficient, period. "quieter", pnuematics/ hydralics/variable gears arent quite. "can assist vertical take off and landing" *cough* *cough* harrier, f-35, v-22 OR a fast helicopter like a ka-50 or a lynx.
and if it was made of nano-machines it would either be too heavy or too fragile to fly, let alone morph. and i don't think birds sound like JCB's due to pnuematics or hydrolics, they don't sound like cessna's either. we already have recon aircraft that are small yet long range so why do we need ones with the disadvantages i just corrected you on??
Birds are more agile than any airplane. So were pterosaurs, bats, and insects. That machine is a crude prototype, and is about as representative of the potential of ornithopters as the Wright Brother's plane was representative of the F-22. No, they are more efficient at low speeds. An advanced ornithopter would be made using more advanced technologies than the ones you listed. A practical ornithopter needs artificial muscles like myomer, and nanotechnology.
Yes, flapping wings can assist in vertical takeoff and landing. If you ever seen a bird takeoff or land, you would know this. How do you know what the characteristics of a nanomachine type device would be like? We haven't made one yet, so the properties are simply unknown at the moment, but the potential exists. Recon aircraft can always be improved upon. Your last comment is pretentious and shows that you are not interested in discussing this in an intelligent manner.
If you wish to discuss ornithopters with me, you must do so in a polite and intelligent manner. If you are rude to me, or act arrogant/pretentious, I'll just ignore you. Simple as that. Act mature, don't act like a child.
your missing the point, ornithopters have no where near the potential at present time as we would like, but at present time we KNOW for a fact anti-gravity is possible, there are many videos and books on the matter and these are completely silent, for a modern aircraft to have the wings of a bird is beyond practicallity using modern technology, chances are the ornithopter won't become what we would hope until well after anti-gravity has been practicallized, "don't act like a child" i'm 14
Yes, obviously we all know that. But that was never the point. Of course ornithopters are not that advanced yet. We also can't build a robot with the same agility and speed of a human at present. But that does not mean it's impossible. It's certainly possible. And no, antigravity is merely hypothetical, and is considered pseudoscience. However ornithopter physics is entirely possible, and requires no new innovations in physics for it to work.
Antigravity and magnetics are 2 of the same thing. using bost-einstien condensates and super fluidic ferrofluid and can create an amplified gravitation field, the technology exists as we can already create superfluids and sustain the state of matter that is a bost-eistien condensate. we have the technology to do this as the technology to do this is already present in such machines as the hadron collider, we don't need to inovate
other that to mas produce super fluids and bost-eistien condensate
First of all, antigravity and magnetics are not the same thing. While it is true there might be a unifying theory of Gravitomagnetism, antigravity and something like magnetic levitation are not the same. As for the rest of your post, I checked wikipedia's article on anti-gravity and it made no mention of using Bose-Einstein Condensates and ferrofluids. I can't really take the word of a 14 year old on this, so you need to provide me a source.
im 14 also. i tend not to belive everything science says is true, because science used to think the world was flat because it was only logical, if world was round all the water would fall off. and yet i also gine every idea or theory equal credit. antigravity could exist, but then again could not
In fact people belived the earth to be flat way before the arrival of modern science. Not even in the middle ages European people thought the earth to be flat, look up (Flat Earth) on wikipedia.
...
And when they did it had much more to do with mythology and religion than anything barely related to science.
ahhh yes...people think there is a huge difference between science and mythologly and religion, actually they think science and religion as opposites, when they are not really. look at it this way:modern science is now our religion.science and religion try to do the same things, explkain things, they both explain the creation.they are both looking for answers.back then their "myths" and "religions" were like their "science", just trying to understand.
@ioan21121221 Wow, you must be the first person to have that observation! Oh, wait, no you're not, many have made that assertion before, and they were all proven wrong. Science adjusts its views based on new evidence, religion DENIES evidence in order to preserve belief. There is also the issue of scientists not collecting "tithes" from their "followers".
@wendighoul i am glad to see that you said "Science adjusts its views based on new evidence" there are too many people out there who are 100 per cent absoluteley sure that what science says is true. i try to explain to them that science changes. i mean we just dont know for sure because they change. so i would disagree with you when you say religion denies evidence. i dont think religion can "deny" evidence. because religion never changes. it just says what happened, with no "evidence".......>
@ioan21121221 I agree that science is not ever 100% correct, but the changes due to new evidence are usually refinements, and rarely means the total rejection of the previous theory. When I said science "denies" evidence, I meant that it really tends to ignore or discount any evidence to the contrary.
@wendighoul yes. i think religion "it really tends to ignore or discount any evidence to the contrary". because it simply cannot process it, it is different to science. wich is why i personally find it odd that people try so hard to fight each other based on science or religion
@ioan21121221 Yes, your point is well taken, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themsleves into.
@ioan21121221 religion changes! Why do you think there are so many Christian faiths? If religion doesnt change, then many religion woold not exist. IM not a religion fanatic, im just pointing out the obvious!
@joeymanny1 yes i agree with you religion does change, and there are many different types. i could say religion does change, but not to scientific evidence, only to say, another prophet coming along. but this is where it gets all confusing to me because i think religion does change to scientific stuff sometimes. i do not understand why there is conflict betwwen people about science and religion. science changes, religion changes.what if one day scientists discover x-tra terrestials
@ioan21121221 ....who are intelligent enogh to have created life on earth, and they look like humans. "god created man in his own image". humans have recently created a new life form by making the dna artificiually. as we get better at creating new life, we will have the power to make new animals, even create an artificial human. one day, the things in the bible might sound like science. and one day humans may have the power to recreate life on earth. so maybe "god" is not an indivudual.
@ioan21121221 who says he is. maybe he is a lot of humans, or aliens, or intelligent extra terrestials. "man" can mean one individual. it can also mean the whole of humankind. maybe there is more than one god. wich will explain how he created stuff so fast. so science and religion, stop fighting each other, cos one day you might be one and the same.
@wendighoul .............>to support what it says. so i do not belive it can be compared to science very easily as it behaves differently it does not look at evidence and think of answers. the answers are just there in the bible and other books.religion doesnent deny evidence it just doesnt listen to it, it cant process it. as for collecting "tithes" from their "followers", i just think that was people exploiting the power thet the bible could give them to make money.
yes flapping wings could provide vtol. like hummingbirds. they flap their wings from side to side for hovering. other birds flap up and down for forward motion. you could make an ornithopter that flaps side to side for vtol, then changes to up and down for forward motion, just changeing the angle of the thrust. like in the harrier jump jet
While you can't deny that was flight.. its wasn't overly successful& detractors could easily suggest that the little fixed wing stops this from being a true ornithopter.
Scale really does seem to be the problem still, radio control models are available up to around 6ft (maybe a liitle more) and fly very well indeed.
Um, I think the point here is that this has never been done before. An aircraft that "flies by flapping" is an historic achievement. Recall that the Wright Brothers crashed a number of aircraft.
There is nothing suggestive of homosexuality in this video at all, so "totally gay" is not an appropriate comment. If the wings were covered in hot pink pleather, that would be a different story.
Sorry, I'm still sticking with the premise that this machine is totally gay. In fact, I took the time to look up "totally gay" in a really old encyclopedia Brittanica. Believe it or not, the only picture it has was one of this totally gay aircraft. So suck my balls, WrittenRomance :)
If you look closely, you can see a small jet engine on the rear of the body to generate forward impetus. The flapping wings might have helped the "ornithopter" get airborne, but without the jet engine, the craft would have simply sat there and flapped its wings.
There is no way on earth a flapping wing craft would be able to generate lift with the efficiency of a conventionally powered airplane. For now the concept remains science fiction.
That is true, however the main problem was the design of the aircraft and of the wings.
Instead of changing the angle of the wings during the up and down strokes to create lift, the designer simply had it go up and down. Thus whatever he would have gain on the down stroke, he lost it all on the up stroke.
the wings probably have a different elastic behaviour on the up stroke as opposed to the down stroke. it's not easy to do on such a large scale, and this is definitely PhD-level work, so I'm sure they've thought of it ;)
Agreed, its very difficult to imitate natural flapping motion. But if they don't get it almost perfect they don't really stand a chance. By not engineering in the flexing on each stroke they have no forward propulsion, which IMO is a non starter. Also it looked like a fairly heavy assembly, which would after little use destroy itself. Still I suppose as long as it lasts to prove feasibility, its ok. Interesting thought.
I think the real problem is scale. The largest flying animal known to man was the Pterosauria, and it is believed to have weighed about 250lbs and required air currents for supplemental lift. This looks to be three times the size and weight or more without the power of both the up and down stroke and dexterity of a flapping animal wing. When we see more organic wing designs, perhaps with flexible elastic skins on lighter UAVs, we'll see the advantages in maneuverability and efficiency.
flapping flight isn't meant to obey aerodynamic "laws" though - those only apply to airfoils, gliding, etc.
there's no analytical method to calculate lift of flapping. it's purely experimental, because the aerodynamics of it is chaotic, turbulent, and there are vortices on every stroke :S
PEOPLE THINK THAT wings flapping up and down make birds go up. they do not! those people are stupid! i am 14 i have realised that wings flapping up and down makes you move horizontal to the up and down motion of flappin wings. birds flap wings up and down, they move forward. hummingbirds, however, move wings from side to side, so they can hover! simple!
and then with birds they flap wings for forward motiuon but the actual shape of the wings provide upthrust, exept in a humming bird because if u look at them in slo mo u can see their wings fapping from side to side. think about it wings flapping up and down are not gona give u upthrust cos u move wings down for upthrust, but then u move em back up again wich cancels that upthrust!
Why do we need babies? (except to reproduce) It's the start of something new and exciting or something. Tried to quote some guys reply to someone who said planes were useless, but failed
lol, what we need.. is a "humming bird" type ornithopter, that can fly super sonic, and hover, changing speeds and turning very quickly. like a humming bird, naw sizzay? roflll||
yes. maybe we could combine all those into oone, so we would have vtol like hummingbird, wich flaps its wings from side to side.then change the angle of the flapping wings in the air for faster, forward flight.
Solidni krap
mutantmutant 2 weeks ago
pretty hardcore landing
RubiksSR71 1 month ago
whats the point, I was kinda relieved to see the ending,,ending like it did. That poor sap in the "machine" doesn't have to do that again. Sux to be down there wishing you were up there,,,until you get up there in a pathetic machine lke that,,,then you suddenly with you were down there!
tailwheelflier 1 month ago
The Libyans from Back to the Future can be seen at 0:23
jessetj9331 1 month ago 3
endo!
dudenpm 2 months ago
The one that controls the spice, controls the universe.
ExploringBeyond 4 months ago
@ExploringBeyond
Clearly, the pilot in this video was not the Kwisatz Haderach. XD
robonightmare 3 months ago
@robonightmare lol finally, it took 4 weeks but someone finally got it hahahaha
@QceanWeaver because shapeshifting technology isn't perfected yet, it's very brittle and slow. Instead of travelling 1000km/h across the country, you'd be traveling at like 200km/h. Antigrav is the only logical successor to jet propulsion but that doesn't exist yet, or at least not for commercial use. I won't say doesn't exist because of those crazy Tesla and Nazi experiments that may have existed.
ExploringBeyond 3 months ago
@ExploringBeyond See this one (its an ornithopter robot):
/watch?v=nnR8fDW3Ilo
TheFinlandnator 1 month ago
lots of armchair engineers here...
Let's see you kids build one if you think this one sucks so much..
teedot 4 months ago
Acualy it took off with only the flapping. All that went wrong is that no one has figured out how to control an ornithopter when it becomes airborne. Or, rather, there are no good experiments conducted that show a viable way of controlling an ornithopter once in flight.
ScientificExploits 5 months ago
@ScientificExploits Look to the birds.
A tilting tail works for them, and maybe a little more graceful flap would help...
Skratche17 4 months ago
@ScientificExploits
Doesn't it have a rudder? Since you're going for birdy-style, you might wanna slap a big ole tail on that thing
Boonze96 3 months ago
splendid job!!!!
aakarsh5292 5 months ago
@atomikus37 Those aren't exactly cost-effective, practical examples
SacredTutu 5 months ago
its not ridiculous, like some other wrote here.. it looks impressive and elegant.. just needs a little bit more work.. its like the ornithopters in Dune... impressive... i wonder, if it ever will be economic reasonable.. maybe one day in future with enhanced materials and knowledge....
i like... :)
jone4s 6 months ago
*i think i can i think i can....oooop no i cant*
StretchReality 6 months ago
I thought aviation had already got through the flappy wing stage in the 1900's...
DerFeindr 6 months ago
It's hard to believe someone spent money on that.
quantumG 7 months ago
Bet it would fly better if stopped the flapping. It flew in spite of the flapping.
BR5499a 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I AM PLANE
jagsonjamie 7 months ago
Problem: Slow wing flapping rate.
xxDanielTM93xx 7 months ago
look.. up in the sky.. it's a bird...it's a plane...wait a sec....WTF is that thing.
wateriswet69 8 months ago 6
I think it flew just because of the speed and not because of the wings movement..
This is just me knowing nothing.. I do not believe that people who built that thing did not know what they did..
Eptapus 8 months ago
Looks unstable and dangerous... and it actually flew!!
MrSuperJoshiboy 8 months ago
the wings pushes the plain back to the ground well birds have another style of flying so they can push the air only under well these plain pushes to air to up and then to under the ornithopter this plain need only push the air under his self. as you can see the ornithopter gets lower if the wings becomes up thats because as i sayd you pushes the air up
akinorhan5 9 months ago
It crashed but it was epic anyway
SirNoodlehe 9 months ago
well... it did fly...
igotbored44 9 months ago
It would be cool if there was like a huge handle you have to pull up and down to get it to fly!
1nspirator 10 months ago
Reminds me of Orville th albatross from the Rescuers trying to take off!
kerbal666 10 months ago
Curse you ACME! You've foiled my plans once more!!!
sandcrawler200 10 months ago
did it crash at the end?
pielover8888 11 months ago
wings should have been separately powered with a more circular flapping motion. maybe even another joint in the wing.
DocUnsane 1 year ago
I'm sorry. I know it's a brilliant scientific innovation, a triumph of engineering, and an impressive feat of piloting skill...
...but it looks fucking ridiculous.
Corinthian404 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
thenameisjulyjones 1 year ago
Comment removed
thenameisjulyjones 1 year ago
when night mares come true!
VRtechman 1 year ago
I BELIEVE I CAN FLY!
dsiman7142 1 year ago
DO A BARREL ROLL!
SPIKEZshuffle 1 year ago
Problem, Physics?
Squirkish 1 year ago
wow humans have finally done what nature did at the beginning of time
mraider94 1 year ago
Looked very awesome.
BehindBen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SPICE MUST FLOW.
Pronesniper 1 year ago
...and this is why ornithopters are not the predominant mode of transportation...
QceanWeaver 1 year ago 7
I like less moving parts better.
coryjeacocke 1 year ago
that doesn't work
addz17 1 year ago
This looks like somethin from that comic Alan Ford
xXxBOLTxX 1 year ago
just put helium in the belly of the plane like birds do with air so they weight less. lol is it so hard :P
akaboy4life 1 year ago
@akaboy4life Should I point out that air in your belly weighs exactly the same as air outside of it?
RunningLemonStudios 1 year ago
@RunningLemonStudios helium is lighter 0,o
akaboy4life 1 year ago
@akaboy4life shut up I could have sworn you said to put air in it! Haha.
RunningLemonStudios 1 year ago
Wow....that looks like the most dangerous thing ever invented! I want one!!!
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
飛んだ！
kuremaClaimer 1 year ago
it was a leonardo da vinci idea ..a few years ago..just before boeing
gianluigixxxx 1 year ago
I hope the technology never reaches Boeing's..
Xiahoud 1 year ago
Todd Reichert created a human powered ornithopter recently.
monica24b 1 year ago 2
drive it off a cliff and u will fly some seconds
jacobroodenburg 1 year ago
Bahahah, awesome... but it looks way inefficient
Pwntzyou 1 year ago
I think it is great.
271828183141592654 1 year ago
That cant be real... can it?
SvenOkonomi 1 year ago
the wing movement really looks like a bird doing it. If it were to work perfectly then it would be quite a experience flying it :)
Kaarel456 1 year ago
those magnificent meeen in her flying machiines!!!!!
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 year ago
I understand that this is a prototype of the transport planned for a manned mission to Titan. The ultra-thick atmosphere and very low gravity of this moon would allow an ornithopter to function pefectly. The prototype I have seen has four wings working (each pair flapping independently) rather than two. I believe the hope is that such a device could be fitted directly to the back of an individual. How I would love to try that!
ladydigger 1 year ago
@ladydigger Not so much when a single spark sets half the hemisphere on fire. Maybe if I could do it on manual power (like the cycle in Rendezvous with Rama) which was designed to reduce friction and heat to an absolute minimum.
seekortry 1 year ago
@seekortry Ah yes. I forgot about methane atmosphere and sparks. You're right. An explosive mixture!! And again you're correct about perhaps utilising Arthur C Clarke's imagined Rama runabout. I have an urge to dig that book out again and re-read it now!
ladydigger 1 year ago
@ladydigger You still have friction and the issue of oxygen in a methane atmosphere. Then the temperature. You have to heat yourself without exploding. The mechanical gears probably won't work right without some pretty incredible grease. You have less gravity and a more favorable Reynolds number but that is small payment for the downside. I imagine such a machine better operates like a fly than a bird.
seekortry 1 year ago
HURR DURR IM A PLAEN
TonyAirlines 1 year ago 53
@TonyAirlines Oh fuck that made me laugh so hard
jigenbakado 4 months ago
fuckin' bee planes
Drewsel 1 year ago
call the vid ,,ornithopter FAIL´´
waddlerobloxxxx 1 year ago
That was awesome!
Newfiepunger 1 year ago 5
muawhahhwwhhwwhhaw :D
iglor0 1 year ago
that shouldnt even be possible the wings are too short the wings werent moving fast enough and the whole thing looks like its made of canvas and wood highly illogical but what ever blame it on the wind or watever i wouldnt ride in that for my life
mylvl200wizardpwnsjk 1 year ago
that gust came out of no where. you know where be awesome to test these, a huge field in the middle of redwoods.
Pimpmastahanhduece 2 years ago
DO SOMETHING MUTTLEY!
NuguSmedley 2 years ago 55
@NuguSmedley LOOL
xypsilonx 1 year ago
Why is it that whenever a plane starts to stall and eventually crashes the guy who shoots the whole event with a camera starts to shake and ruins the whole video ?
chashavko 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hahahahaha so stupid.
Krahl123 2 years ago
birds have flexible wings, allowing them to flap at an angle that thrusts them forward in flight. of course for this you need an airfoil wing, which they have.
their upstroke doesn't "cancel" out their downstroke, because the wings can flex on the upstroke, reducing the upstroke's effect.
bztheman 2 years ago
Bztheman's got it right. a wing without an axial pivot is not going to be able to imitate avian flight
physiist777 2 years ago
Too much loose compartments, if you want to fly using this mechanism, you need to watch birds and other flying creatures, that use horizontal movement of their wings to create an aircushion. In my opinion if you want to fly, use a lightweight structure that includes some kind of skin to create this aircushion, just as birds have. Most birds don't run when they take off, but if people want to take flight with a machine, we need to make speed in order to gain altitude. The wings will do the rest.
metalfrost 2 years ago
majestic
chowweekly 2 years ago
Not a true ornithopter if it needs an engine for forward impetus. Birds and r/c ornithopters seem to fly quite well without engines. The rudimentary, highly-stressed flapping mechanism is a recipe for disaster. Why not follow the design of r/c ornithopers, using carbon fibre spars and composite cloth wings?.Until the flapping surfaces are both durable enough to withstand extended use and flexible enough to emulate bird wings, human-carrying ornithopters will remain an unachievable goal.
Z1Z2Z5Z4 2 years ago 2
Shai hulud its the harkonnens! Get to the Ornithopter!
SuperHakucho 2 years ago
It don't have control of the wings, they simply 'flap' constantly, maybe must have a control system for how the wings will flap, accordingly the pilot desires or plane position or air flow.
viniciuspaulo 2 years ago
How do you know it doesn´t?... were you part of the proyect or what?
xxxkarloxxx 2 years ago
I wanted this to fly so badly.
elkofdeath 2 years ago
One day this will work properly. And then anti gravity will become and we will simply float into the air without the need of anything
JamesGod08 2 years ago
It looks so alien. It's wings move like a bird's, but the fuselage looks like a glider! That thing is scary looking... or at least it will be until we see Ornithopters replacing airplanes.
ANONONJEWTUBE 2 years ago
write brothers would have been the same way about jets.
chrismofer 2 years ago
this is wicked sick
meatwad10 2 years ago
Stabiel is anders :')
jordivdm 2 years ago
i don't know if i understand the purpose of this?
nado411 2 years ago
for lolz
n1patr1ck 2 years ago
Anyone who says "lolz" and can't even capitalize properly is clearly an inbred moron.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
ur comment is not necessary. dont be a douche
meatwad10 2 years ago 2
Again, another moron who can't spell properly or capitalize. Thank you for proving yourself to be a complete idiot. You saved me the trouble of pointing it out for you. ^_^
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
You act like a child
ioan21121221 2 years ago
This is coming from a 14 year old moron. Grow up kid, you are uneducated, and from the looks of it, you are a spammer.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
How old are you?
ioan21121221 2 years ago
How is that your business? In any case, it's on my profile for anyone to see. You want to know? Go and look for yourself.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
An ornithopter (from Greek ornithos "bird" and pteron "wing") is an aircraft that flies by flapping its wings. Designers seek to imitate the flapping-wing flight of birds, bats, and insects. (Wiki)
Neustradammes 2 years ago
I think all failed attempts are the foundation of any future possible success.
youguystube 2 years ago 4
What was the purpose of the Wright Brothers plane? It's a proof of concept. An ornithopter can be built, and this proves it. Ornithopters have many advantages over Airplanes and Helicopters.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
EnigmaHood:
Please name the 'advantages' of an Ornithopter. I can't see any stability and the mechanical load is extensive. It's nice that it can fly somehow, but it doesn't seem to be useful in practical applications.
tausendstein 2 years ago
Far superior maneuverability, more efficient at low speeds, quieter, can assist vertical take off and landing. For robotic flyers, they can disguise themselves as birds which is useful for reconnaissance, and spying. Theoretically if it is possible to make a robot out of nanomachines entirely (think of the T-1000), it could also morph into a flyer and fly by flapping its wings. There are more possibilities as well.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
"far superior manueverability" if shaking a wing is superior then how come the worlds most agile planes use control surfaces? besides that thing wen't in a straight line then crashed."more efficient at low speeds" there unefficient, period. "quieter", pnuematics/ hydralics/variable gears arent quite. "can assist vertical take off and landing" *cough* *cough* harrier, f-35, v-22 OR a fast helicopter like a ka-50 or a lynx.
BaseAurajin 2 years ago
and if it was made of nano-machines it would either be too heavy or too fragile to fly, let alone morph. and i don't think birds sound like JCB's due to pnuematics or hydrolics, they don't sound like cessna's either. we already have recon aircraft that are small yet long range so why do we need ones with the disadvantages i just corrected you on??
BaseAurajin 2 years ago
Birds are more agile than any airplane. So were pterosaurs, bats, and insects. That machine is a crude prototype, and is about as representative of the potential of ornithopters as the Wright Brother's plane was representative of the F-22. No, they are more efficient at low speeds. An advanced ornithopter would be made using more advanced technologies than the ones you listed. A practical ornithopter needs artificial muscles like myomer, and nanotechnology.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
Yes, flapping wings can assist in vertical takeoff and landing. If you ever seen a bird takeoff or land, you would know this. How do you know what the characteristics of a nanomachine type device would be like? We haven't made one yet, so the properties are simply unknown at the moment, but the potential exists. Recon aircraft can always be improved upon. Your last comment is pretentious and shows that you are not interested in discussing this in an intelligent manner.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
If you wish to discuss ornithopters with me, you must do so in a polite and intelligent manner. If you are rude to me, or act arrogant/pretentious, I'll just ignore you. Simple as that. Act mature, don't act like a child.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago 2
your missing the point, ornithopters have no where near the potential at present time as we would like, but at present time we KNOW for a fact anti-gravity is possible, there are many videos and books on the matter and these are completely silent, for a modern aircraft to have the wings of a bird is beyond practicallity using modern technology, chances are the ornithopter won't become what we would hope until well after anti-gravity has been practicallized, "don't act like a child" i'm 14
BaseAurajin 2 years ago
Yes, obviously we all know that. But that was never the point. Of course ornithopters are not that advanced yet. We also can't build a robot with the same agility and speed of a human at present. But that does not mean it's impossible. It's certainly possible. And no, antigravity is merely hypothetical, and is considered pseudoscience. However ornithopter physics is entirely possible, and requires no new innovations in physics for it to work.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
Antigravity and magnetics are 2 of the same thing. using bost-einstien condensates and super fluidic ferrofluid and can create an amplified gravitation field, the technology exists as we can already create superfluids and sustain the state of matter that is a bost-eistien condensate. we have the technology to do this as the technology to do this is already present in such machines as the hadron collider, we don't need to inovate
other that to mas produce super fluids and bost-eistien condensate
BaseAurajin 2 years ago
First of all, antigravity and magnetics are not the same thing. While it is true there might be a unifying theory of Gravitomagnetism, antigravity and something like magnetic levitation are not the same. As for the rest of your post, I checked wikipedia's article on anti-gravity and it made no mention of using Bose-Einstein Condensates and ferrofluids. I can't really take the word of a 14 year old on this, so you need to provide me a source.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
i'll pm a video
BaseAurajin 2 years ago
Alright
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
haha im 14 . everyone was 14 some time.
ioan21121221 2 years ago
yes you need a source.
ioan21121221 2 years ago
im 14 also. i tend not to belive everything science says is true, because science used to think the world was flat because it was only logical, if world was round all the water would fall off. and yet i also gine every idea or theory equal credit. antigravity could exist, but then again could not
ioan21121221 2 years ago
In fact people belived the earth to be flat way before the arrival of modern science. Not even in the middle ages European people thought the earth to be flat, look up (Flat Earth) on wikipedia.
...
And when they did it had much more to do with mythology and religion than anything barely related to science.
IIIRodrigoVegaIII 2 years ago
ahhh yes...people think there is a huge difference between science and mythologly and religion, actually they think science and religion as opposites, when they are not really. look at it this way:modern science is now our religion.science and religion try to do the same things, explkain things, they both explain the creation.they are both looking for answers.back then their "myths" and "religions" were like their "science", just trying to understand.
ioan21121221 2 years ago
@ioan21121221 Wow, you must be the first person to have that observation! Oh, wait, no you're not, many have made that assertion before, and they were all proven wrong. Science adjusts its views based on new evidence, religion DENIES evidence in order to preserve belief. There is also the issue of scientists not collecting "tithes" from their "followers".
wendighoul 1 year ago
@wendighoul i am glad to see that you said "Science adjusts its views based on new evidence" there are too many people out there who are 100 per cent absoluteley sure that what science says is true. i try to explain to them that science changes. i mean we just dont know for sure because they change. so i would disagree with you when you say religion denies evidence. i dont think religion can "deny" evidence. because religion never changes. it just says what happened, with no "evidence".......>
ioan21121221 1 year ago
@ioan21121221 I agree that science is not ever 100% correct, but the changes due to new evidence are usually refinements, and rarely means the total rejection of the previous theory. When I said science "denies" evidence, I meant that it really tends to ignore or discount any evidence to the contrary.
wendighoul 1 year ago
@wendighoul yes. i think religion "it really tends to ignore or discount any evidence to the contrary". because it simply cannot process it, it is different to science. wich is why i personally find it odd that people try so hard to fight each other based on science or religion
ioan21121221 1 year ago
@ioan21121221 Yes, your point is well taken, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themsleves into.
wendighoul 1 year ago
@ioan21121221 religion changes! Why do you think there are so many Christian faiths? If religion doesnt change, then many religion woold not exist. IM not a religion fanatic, im just pointing out the obvious!
joeymanny1 1 year ago
@joeymanny1 yes i agree with you religion does change, and there are many different types. i could say religion does change, but not to scientific evidence, only to say, another prophet coming along. but this is where it gets all confusing to me because i think religion does change to scientific stuff sometimes. i do not understand why there is conflict betwwen people about science and religion. science changes, religion changes.what if one day scientists discover x-tra terrestials
ioan21121221 1 year ago
@ioan21121221 ....who are intelligent enogh to have created life on earth, and they look like humans. "god created man in his own image". humans have recently created a new life form by making the dna artificiually. as we get better at creating new life, we will have the power to make new animals, even create an artificial human. one day, the things in the bible might sound like science. and one day humans may have the power to recreate life on earth. so maybe "god" is not an indivudual.
ioan21121221 1 year ago
@ioan21121221 who says he is. maybe he is a lot of humans, or aliens, or intelligent extra terrestials. "man" can mean one individual. it can also mean the whole of humankind. maybe there is more than one god. wich will explain how he created stuff so fast. so science and religion, stop fighting each other, cos one day you might be one and the same.
ioan21121221 1 year ago
@wendighoul .............>to support what it says. so i do not belive it can be compared to science very easily as it behaves differently it does not look at evidence and think of answers. the answers are just there in the bible and other books.religion doesnent deny evidence it just doesnt listen to it, it cant process it. as for collecting "tithes" from their "followers", i just think that was people exploiting the power thet the bible could give them to make money.
ioan21121221 1 year ago
yes flapping wings could provide vtol. like hummingbirds. they flap their wings from side to side for hovering. other birds flap up and down for forward motion. you could make an ornithopter that flaps side to side for vtol, then changes to up and down for forward motion, just changeing the angle of the thrust. like in the harrier jump jet
ioan21121221 2 years ago
While you can't deny that was flight.. its wasn't overly successful& detractors could easily suggest that the little fixed wing stops this from being a true ornithopter.
Scale really does seem to be the problem still, radio control models are available up to around 6ft (maybe a liitle more) and fly very well indeed.
I'm sure we'll get there at some point..
Pook365 2 years ago
Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines...
chrisnarozny 2 years ago 2
FAIL!!
sonofbeliol 2 years ago
i know a free flight simulator that you can fly one of these in.
its called flightgear.
mrfourtysevenman 2 years ago
Except it's not a simulator, it's arcade at best.
Kanakotka 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
for a definition of "totally gay", see this video
canubelieve 2 years ago
Um, I think the point here is that this has never been done before. An aircraft that "flies by flapping" is an historic achievement. Recall that the Wright Brothers crashed a number of aircraft.
There is nothing suggestive of homosexuality in this video at all, so "totally gay" is not an appropriate comment. If the wings were covered in hot pink pleather, that would be a different story.
Paulinacha 2 years ago 28
@Paulinacha Except the part where this has been done before. Like in 1942.
TheLordoftheCows 1 year ago
@Paulinacha Actually, working ornithopters have been around for a long while, and this one requires a jet to keep ir in the air as well as wings.
arranrhodda 1 year ago
I agree with Paulinacha, stfu
canubelieve
WrittenRomance 2 years ago
Sorry, I'm still sticking with the premise that this machine is totally gay. In fact, I took the time to look up "totally gay" in a really old encyclopedia Brittanica. Believe it or not, the only picture it has was one of this totally gay aircraft. So suck my balls, WrittenRomance :)
canubelieve 2 years ago
You childish little shite!
Pook365 2 years ago
canubelieve,
Glad you liked it!
Ercular 2 years ago
Haha!! Touche! Great comment :)
canubelieve 2 years ago
theres a word for that....
MINT
Kingjables94 2 years ago
muad'dib...
thats really cool
lejwocky 2 years ago
I don't know what all you people are complaining about, you only paid 0 for the damn thing...
EVA01X 2 years ago 2
If you look closely, you can see a small jet engine on the rear of the body to generate forward impetus. The flapping wings might have helped the "ornithopter" get airborne, but without the jet engine, the craft would have simply sat there and flapped its wings.
There is no way on earth a flapping wing craft would be able to generate lift with the efficiency of a conventionally powered airplane. For now the concept remains science fiction.
Z1Z2Z5Z4 2 years ago 4
That is true, however the main problem was the design of the aircraft and of the wings.
Instead of changing the angle of the wings during the up and down strokes to create lift, the designer simply had it go up and down. Thus whatever he would have gain on the down stroke, he lost it all on the up stroke.
nilok7 2 years ago 2
the wings probably have a different elastic behaviour on the up stroke as opposed to the down stroke. it's not easy to do on such a large scale, and this is definitely PhD-level work, so I'm sure they've thought of it ;)
bztheman 2 years ago
Agreed, its very difficult to imitate natural flapping motion. But if they don't get it almost perfect they don't really stand a chance. By not engineering in the flexing on each stroke they have no forward propulsion, which IMO is a non starter. Also it looked like a fairly heavy assembly, which would after little use destroy itself. Still I suppose as long as it lasts to prove feasibility, its ok. Interesting thought.
juzzlookin 2 years ago
I think the real problem is scale. The largest flying animal known to man was the Pterosauria, and it is believed to have weighed about 250lbs and required air currents for supplemental lift. This looks to be three times the size and weight or more without the power of both the up and down stroke and dexterity of a flapping animal wing. When we see more organic wing designs, perhaps with flexible elastic skins on lighter UAVs, we'll see the advantages in maneuverability and efficiency.
DumbDuck44 2 years ago
yes the up down movement is only for forward motion, the actual shape of the wing is what creates upthrust like normal airplane
ioan21121221 2 years ago
i disagree. it is not fiction, you just saw it man.
ioan21121221 2 years ago
I wonder if not an ordinary plane are more energy efficent and reliable? Still werry cool >D
Peetowan 2 years ago
coolest thing I've seen all week
plasticbarf 2 years ago
lol looks insane! and fun 2 pilot haha
D413373R 2 years ago
THE WINGS NEED MORE FLEXIBILITY AND ADD CONTROLABLE FLAPS as it moves it's wings to adjust balance!
This completely disobeys the laws of aerodynamic flight.
Lot's of work needed. That was just a glide..
Helldiver450 2 years ago
flapping flight isn't meant to obey aerodynamic "laws" though - those only apply to airfoils, gliding, etc.
there's no analytical method to calculate lift of flapping. it's purely experimental, because the aerodynamics of it is chaotic, turbulent, and there are vortices on every stroke :S
bztheman 2 years ago
PEOPLE THINK THAT wings flapping up and down make birds go up. they do not! those people are stupid! i am 14 i have realised that wings flapping up and down makes you move horizontal to the up and down motion of flappin wings. birds flap wings up and down, they move forward. hummingbirds, however, move wings from side to side, so they can hover! simple!
ioan21121221 2 years ago
and then with birds they flap wings for forward motiuon but the actual shape of the wings provide upthrust, exept in a humming bird because if u look at them in slo mo u can see their wings fapping from side to side. think about it wings flapping up and down are not gona give u upthrust cos u move wings down for upthrust, but then u move em back up again wich cancels that upthrust!
ioan21121221 2 years ago
THat's freakin awesome.
Still some bugs to work out of course but WOW, I never thought I'd see a flapping wing plane actually fly.
islandfd3s 2 years ago
to think leanardo Da Vinci designed an ornithopter long ago!
Roncace 2 years ago
Ibn Firnas built one long before Da Vinci was born. He supposedly was even able to glide a respectable distance before crashing.
aflanryirl 2 years ago
no! Icarus is the oldest one!
ioan21121221 2 years ago
nice landing
weetsie 2 years ago
I have a real project - for couple of years - I will build a real prototype
just imagine - how it could revolutionise a wole world
ternovoygarri 2 years ago
mais , il a volé!!!!
sepulcrack 3 years ago
i mean no offence to anyone
but
why do we need an ornithopter?
lol
dont we have planes that we can compare to an albatross for range,an eagle for speed and agility,and a chopper to the kingfisher?
sushantmohan 3 years ago
Aerodynamically it is, as far as I know, far more (energy) efficient to fly with "flapping wings" than todays rigid wings or rotaries.
DODwebdotorg 3 years ago
we need a humming bird (ufo's) LOL
ZorackSwim420 3 years ago
Why do we need babies? (except to reproduce) It's the start of something new and exciting or something. Tried to quote some guys reply to someone who said planes were useless, but failed
MohammedAsmahiel 3 years ago
lol, what we need.. is a "humming bird" type ornithopter, that can fly super sonic, and hover, changing speeds and turning very quickly. like a humming bird, naw sizzay? roflll||
ZorackSwim420 2 years ago
yes. maybe we could combine all those into oone, so we would have vtol like hummingbird, wich flaps its wings from side to side.then change the angle of the flapping wings in the air for faster, forward flight.
ioan21121221 2 years ago
Do you know why birds flap their wings? Mother nature was not capable of inventing the rotating propeller. (Not the rotating wheel either)
bjofuruh 3 years ago 3