Slashdot Mirror
Studies In Ornithopters
weileong writes "This should be of especial interest to fans of Frank Herbert's Dune (or maybe only those who preferred House Atreides) - a genuine, flexible, flapping-capable winged aircraft (by which I don't mean passenger-carrying. Yet.) has been produced by the University of Toronto's Institute for Aerospace Studies and SRI International (Washington Post article, free reg required). Advantages include everything from low speed control to efficiency. Once these things really hit "real world" usage, the V-22 Osprey really HAS no reason to exist (and all the army personnel at risk of dying in one should rejoice)."
Any man made material exposed that kind of movement is going develop weaknesses (stress cracks) over time. I can see this usefull on a micro level, but to actually carry passengers ...
Once these things really hit "real world" usage, the V-22 Osprey really HAS no reason to exist (and all the army personnel at risk of dying in one should rejoice)."
You're assuming that a military ornithopter transport would be safer than the Osprey. A bit of a leap of faith seeing as it hasn't even got past the university project stage.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
How come stories about cool things like this never have any pictures?? I really want to see the little machine!
Googling...
Could this be it?
Martin
Remember Edgar Rice Burrough's Mars books?
It's the Marines that use the Osprey, not the Army.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
No need for the V22? Hardly.
:oD
The V22 is _finally_ getting to the mature design stage. They removed the problems that killed people (mostly, no a/c is perfect) like the inability to handle the loss of ground effect under one rotor.
Now they have an a/c which can not only take off vertically (or very sharply with high load), fly at 400mph and carry a ton of stuff. For it's role it beats the shit out of any helicopter (fast enough to do the job more fuel efficient, heavier loads,) and and cargo plane (no need for a JATO unit, can't run a C5 off a carrier).
This new technology is (like the tilt rotor concept was) unproven, and requires a complex set of engineering decisions to be made to get it to fly safley (like the tilt rotor). In 20 years, with a few deaths, it might be great - but the tilt rotor is here now.
FWIW there is now a commercial version of the V22 in prototype, the BA commuter aircraft. Small enough to land on helipads, but fast enough for intercity (and in Europe) international work. There have also been plans for a gunship version of the V22, with a massive rotary cannon and the ability to fly very slow it's even going to make the A-10 look a bit lightweight
Beep beep.
Is there a way to mod the last half of this article -1 offtopic? Training and testing accidents are the norm for any new plane or helicopter, especially something as innovative as the Osprey. Look at how many people died to make the Harrier. A google search for Harrier deaths will reveal plenty of evidence if you don't believe me. I'm sure plenty will die trying to get ornithopters off the ground (if they ever get built).
Holy crap I knew the story was old. Slow news day? This verges on antiquity with a 2001 story date. Maybe the slashdot editors could rename the tagline - "No Gnus is nerd Gnus"
Here is the original slashdot story.
Here is a link to the ornithopter website.
This article has a picture of the ornithopter:
Mentor Micro-Air Vehicle
Wow, it looks weird.
"centuries of evolution have produced structures and systems that work very well." Centuries of evolution on Earth have produced structures and systems that work very well on Earth. People have spent decades, possibly centuries, developing flapping-wing vehicles that, even now, barely fly on Earth, and someone wants to send them to Mars in 6 years (2009)? I think a sailplane-like vehicle would still be much more effective.
10 Bits= $.25
100 Bits= $.50
110 Bits= $.75
1000 Bits= 1 byte
he might have noted that there are no plans to build larger versions of these things. The entire point is small "insect sized" spy drones.
Various small ornithopers have been built. You can even buy toy windup versions. In small sizes they work.
They do not scale. There is no known way to make them scale. Neither the physics nor the engineering support the idea of producing large amounts of lift be rapidly anad violently flapping around large inertial masses.
Not to mention the fact that in the large scale the problem has been solved already with the rotating wing.
I haven't a clue how thousands of pounds of rapidly flapping metal could be deemed to be potentially safer than the Osprey, particulary given the sorts of mechanisms that would be required to drive them.
KFG
An excellent Magic card, too! 0/2 flying artifact creature for 0.
As a blocker, it can't be beat.
The Osprey's had trouble for a reason--it's horribly complex, and there's never been an aircraft like it before (outside the X-planes, that is). An aircraft that transitions from a conventional airplane to a would-be helicopter has a lot of control issues to work out.
The poster's theory that the ornithopter will somehow make this superfluous is a bit ludicrous. An ornithopter large enough to carry troops will likely be even more complex. Taking the output from a turbine engine and gearing it down to spin a prop is trivial--we've been doing it for decades. Even with the complicated transmissions and crosslinks and control systems on the V-22, it's still basically just a combinatinon and evolution of previous aircraft.
Taking output from a turbine and translating it to drive a piston is another matter. It can be done, of course, but entails much higher losses. The researcher says enormous amounts of energy are required for the small one, and it's, um, small.
The strength of the parts is another issue. Making wings and linkages that will drive them is going to be a challenge. As will performance after an engine failure.
Don't get me wrong, this is quite an achievement. For the unmanned aerial vehicle trade. I don't think we'll have the technology to make a troop transport, or even a one-man aircraft, out of an ornithopter for a long time.
Trying to foist this as a replacement for the Osprey is a bit ludicrous. Replacing a complicated aircraft with a more complicated one does not lend itself to safety or reliability, right out of the box.
she says, "centuries of evolution have produced structures and systems that work very well."
Centuries of evolution?
Wow! They've found a young-earth darwinist! : )
You can't take the sky from me...
> the V-22 Osprey really HAS no reason to exist
Ridiculous comparison, this technology is designed to build micro-drones while the Osprey is supposed to lift tons of armament and passengers !
http://www.transparency.org
Maybe they don't want to produce it because of pressure from the U.S.
Dare I say Avro Arrow?
The Avro Arrow was a plane produced by Canada that was years ahead of its time. Unfortunately, because of the immense pressure from the U.S. (they didn't want Canada to sell the technology to other countries), the project got shut down.
Yes, there's a little more to it than that, but that's the basic jist.
Read more about the Avro Arrow and the politics behind it at wikipedia.
Your argument is all and well, except that aircraft ARE virtually perfect- it's the ones that are NOT perfect that we hear about. Second, when an aircraft is NOT perfect, you're supposed to fix it. The contractor involved and the armed forces instead outright lied through their teeth and ignored the problems while soldiers continued to die. Lastly, the problems were far more extensive than just one issue with ground effect.
There have also been plans for a gunship version of the V22, with a massive rotary cannon and the ability to fly very slow it's even going to make the A-10 look a bit lightweight
One of the warthog's best features is its heavy armour- some jokingly call it the 'flying bathtub' because of the cockpit reenforcement. I believe most hydraulic and electrical systems are also heavily armoured. It takes more than just a plane to make an effective way to shoot at people. Nevermind that the V22 looks to be completely intolerant of failure in either engine- and as any pilot knows, twin engined planes have twice as many engine failures because, surprise, you've got two of 'em :-) I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how someone would eject from the V22 without standing a good chance of being sliced to pieces.
As for the original poster's comment that this will replace the V22- I hardly see how. Ever notice that 'Ornithopters' in nature don't really exist above a dozen pounds or so? Sure, we had some big flying dinosaurs a while back, but even those weren't nearly big enough to weigh as much as a small plane.
Please help metamoderate.
I'm sorry , but just as wheels are far more efficient running along smooth roads and rails than any combination of legs would be then
flight using fixed wings wings far more efficient than flapping for the sort of aircraft capable of carrying people or cargo. People should bear in mind
that just because nature comes up with a particular solution does NOT mean its the best one. Wings only exist in nature because continuous rotary motion using vertibrate
muscle - bone structure is simply impossible therefor the next best thing evolved - backwards and forwards motion of wings. Evolution comes up with the "good enough" solution , not the best.
A certain idiot who shall remain nameless left this out of his post...
Ornithopter.Net
I think these are the same UofT guys who built the smaller model mentioned in the article.
It was perfectly happy to let me read the article as a 101-year old though...
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
ornithopter.org
Ornithopters do and will work. Materials fatigue, control issues, mechanical design, aerodynamic optimization are are solvable problems. Flapping flight exploits some important aerodynamic properties that provide much higher lift than is possible with fixed wings with steady-flow. Unsteady flow aerodynamics explains the very successful flight abilities of the Bumblebee, despite the assumption-laden proofs against this fuzzy little nectar collecter.
But whether ornithopers will ever carry humans in any quantity is doubtful because the ride will, to say the least, be sickeningly bumpy. The unsteady flows over the flapping wings mean cyclic forces on the fuselage and cyclic accelerations for the passengers. The ride will be much much worse than that of a helicopter and more like the ride in a small boat riding a very rough swell. Other flapping organism don't mind the vibration and cyclic motion of flight as they are evolved to tolerate it. In contrast the human propioception system will definitely hurl when subjected to the "graceful" up and down motion of a large-scale flapping machine.
Ornithopters will make really cool recon drones, whether over battlefields or Mars, but they will make horrible passenger vehicles
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The article was crystal clear on this.
Quote: "Mentor came into being in response to a vision of a "fly-on-the-wall spy"
Quote: "stealth "micro-air vehicles"
Quote: "Flapping wings offer several advantages over the fixed wings of today's reconnaissance drones"
Quote: "long toyed with many scenarios, including one in which soldiers would deploy a swarm of camera-equipped robotic insects to probe inaccessible terrain."
Quote: "... ah, the hell with it! Go ahead and talk about your flying cars as long as you like.
Is it fascism yet?
..they should rename the 'thopter from "Mentor" to "Mentat".
The Avro Arrow was a plane produced by Canada that was years ahead of its time. Unfortunately, because of the immense pressure from the U.S. (they didn't want Canada to sell the technology to other countries), the project got shut down.
From the article you linked to:
As costs rose, other divisions of the armed forces saw their own budgets cut, and even groups inside the RCAF in charge of European operations were worried that there would be no money left over for a new tactical fighter needed there. In-fighting soon reached the top of the military. In August 1958 the CSC advised the government to cancel the Arrow, and buy two Bomarc and 100 interceptors from the US, as well as constructing two SAGE control installations in Canada.
The Avro Arrow was an interceptor designed at a time when everybody else was shifting to missles for anti-bomber defense. The plane's expense threatened funding for other programs, so it was killed in budgetary battles.
Then there's this:
The US is also often blamed for the demise, often with claims that the US aerospace industry was upset about the 'upstarts' in Canada that were making them look foolish, or alternately that they were hunting for Avro employees. A cursory examination of the historical record shows the falsity of this claim. Quite to the contratry, the US military was distressed at the prospect of losing a first-rate staff in their own North American ally, and even considered buying 50 Arrows to give back to the RCAF in order to ensure production.
I know it's fashionable to blame the Americans for everything. Don't get me wrong, I find it quite entertaining. But you shouldn't be too quick to rule out the Freemasons or the Illuminati, or perhaps even something so mundane as internal politics.
I don't know who the flaming moron is who wrote this article, but they are woefully ignorant of...my god, they're just woefull ignorant.
For starters, the US Army does not have any personnel at risk from the V-22 Osprey, because the US Army is forbidden by Congressional Mandate from operating fixed-wing aircraft. The US Marine Corps is spearheading the operational deployment of the Osprey. Also, the US Navy and Air Force are evaluating prototypes.
The next idiocy is the implication (likely based in outright aviation ignorance) that the V-22 is at all an unsafe aircraft, or even more outlandish - that an untested and infinitely more complex aircraft design is going to be safer. The V-22 Osprey has an outstanding record for a fixed-wing VSTOL aircraft, and considering it is a new type of VSTOL (of which none have every peen deployed, and only a small series of research prototypes have been based on), it is without saying that thus far the aircraft has peformed very well.
That one insipid litany of ignorance ruined what would have otherwise been a decent article - except that really, Slashdot has been going down the tubes when it comes to "quality" articles for a while now. If you get that many submissions in a day, you'd think you could weed out the pedestrian ones like this, or at least trim the fat off the meat.
Some grip on reality is needed here. Especially for any article with a quote like, "It dawned on me that the key to survival and victory in today's battlefield is information," said Garcia That pearl of wisdom has been around in written form since Sun Tzu so what vaccuum has this person been working in? That aside look at the various conceptual flaws in the article.
"nature can provide ready-made solutions." is a comment made in many fields including computer science. The problem is that nature developed solutions for a carbon based lifeform. Imitations in silicon, steel, polymers cannot hope to achieve the same results. Flocks of birds do fly but they also eat and their cells reproduce and die. Steel and silicon simply dissipate energy (with nothing close to a Krebs cycle for renewal) and wear out (since repair or replacement of steel or silicon is hideously demanding of energy). So on a very fundamental level, solutions found in nature do not completely translate to the current materials of technology. You can get aspects of them, like the imitation of flapping flight, but not the whole package.
But lest you think, "Fine. We'll go with _some_ of the benefits." Think: what are they? The article says Flapping wings allow insects and birds to fly at low speeds, hover, make sharp turns and even fly backward. The latter cite trying to imitate a hummingbird's flight. A hummingbird's flight can already be imitated by helicopters and even the V-22 Osprey. But both the helicopter and the Osprey achieve the desired result (within bounds dictated by inertia and thrust-to-weight ratios) with a structure evolved for maximum efficiency given the materials i.e. the propeller. Even if you are utterly fanatic and feel that flapping is the way to go, consider further the imitation of a hummingbird. The birds virtually eat constantly. In fact, you could argue that the researchers haven't looked to nature very closely for their solutions. Even if you could translate the physical properties of a hummingbird to a machine, nature itself demonstrates that the energy requirements are huge for that type of flight. At least the researchers acknowledge this at the end of the article but the impression is more that it is an afterthought rather than an evident truth even before the research had started.
And is the flapping flight really the goal of ornithopters in this article? In this article it's a flock of small, lightweight robots hovering over Martian land rovers and guiding them to places of interest that seems to be the pitch. So what advantage do ornithopters have over other "eye in the sky" objects like helicopters, blimps, gliders, or high power satellite cameras? There don't seem to be any.
At this point one might even ask, how appropriate is a solution inspired by nature (on Earth) to the environment on Mars? Environments on Earth that are similar to Mars don't have an abundance of life because there isn't much to support the energy requirements of life. Therefore a solution based on "nature" is arguably inappropriate.
And finally, Mars exploration has top priority at the CSA. Sorry but Canada officially bowed out of its option to participate in the Mars exploration program via lack of federal funding. Maybe some Canadian companies will keep their hand in without the CSA but odds are NASA will buy American, and why not?
(As for the submitter's comments, let's put on our thinking caps people. What kind of ride would people in the hull of a flapping aircraft get? Replacement for the Osprey indeed!)
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Intercept Technologies also has a working ornithopter. It was featured on TechTV, and a number of other places earlier this year. It looks a lot cooler too ;)
http://www.intercept-technologies.com/index2.html
These are small military machines. Their purpose is to enhance our ability to kill people that piss us off.
The martian exploration stuff is flim flam, because, as they themselves say, this is about the most inefficient way we could possible devise of flying about. Efficient flying animals hardly flap their wings at all. In contrast Hummingbirds drink eighty seven times their own weight in a cocktail of cocaine and Red Bull each day just to stay alive. And if you're not sure of my grasp of mathematics or biology there, consider that the alternative is believing someone who says "centuries of evolution have produced structures and systems that work very well".
Ornithopters are essentially cool-but-useless at the human scale. Yes, everyone said the Wright brothers were crazy too, but the thing is, the Wright brothers looked at ways of improving on the results of (literally hundreds of years of!) random evolution. Merely mimicking it just seems to produce a lot of problems, and fixing them appears to give a solution that's worse than what we already have.
Good luck to the people that get to play with these, but really, we should just stick to the much more credible miniature black helicopters.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Yeah - and the fact that "army personnel" could care less: the V-22 is flown by the Marines exclusively. And if one doesn't think there's a difference, head off to the bar nearest the local Marine base. I'm sure someone will provide enlightenment.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson