Da Vinci's Ornithopter Prepares For a Test Flight

Dirak writes "Over 500 years ago, Leonardo da Vinci conceptualized a self-powered flying machine that would achieve both lift and thrust with flapping wings alone and named it the "ornithopter". Hot on the heels of the 100th Anniversary of the Wright Brothers flight, and the recent X prize, a team of scientists from University of Toronto's Institute for Aerospace have taken on this challenge to make Leonardo's dream a reality."

Comments

This group has tried before, IIRC

[jd]

The machine nearly shook itself to pieces. Since the attempt was covered by Slashdot, I'm surprised no posters have mentioned the earlier attempt. If they've fixed the structural issues, this should be a fascinating demonstration.

Yes, "modern" technology is more efficient, but this does a great deal to teach us about structural engineering in highly unconventional designs. I doubt Ornithopters will ever be popular (except maybe as a sideshow at larger fairs and airshows) but as a case study for engineers... It would be superb!

Engineers at schools, colleges and even some Universities tend to build "nice, safe" projects. Stuff that teaches you how to bolt things together - if you're lucky. A good project should be hard enough that engineers are going to fail at least once, because you learn far more by failing - and more again by catching problems before they turn into failure.

It is obvious now that Ornithopers are hard engineering problems. As such, even if they have no other value, they would make superb educational devices.

Inventions like this are never wasted - only opportunities can be wasted.

Re:This group has tried before, IIRC

[jd]

Exactly. And while a lot is known about both theory and practice of conventional aircraft wings, rather less is known about, say, insect wings. It's only recently that people started putting butterflies in wind-tunnels, for example. And those are vastly simpler than, say, a dragonfly, which can hover or fly backwards perfectly well.

Our understanding of larger animals isn't a whole lot better. Sure, we know the muscles involved in a hummingbird's amazing flying abilities, or those of kestrals. (Again, both of these can hover and fly backwards.) We can run simulations on computers to see air-flow. Well, if you happen to have a spare super-computer in the attic, that is.

But the actual mechanics of such systems? To the point where an engineer could go out and build a duplicate? Even a small robotic device, such as the spy drones you mentioned? Maybe, but I'd be impressed if they could achieve a fraction of the efficiency of nature, at this point, or a fraction of the aerodynamic flexibility.

Even if the DoD or some other TLA'ed Government agency could do it, I believe that these are perfect engineering problems for all engineers at all educational levels, precisely because of the "weird mechanisms" involved. Low-altitude hot air balloons are trivial. Straight-wing gliders are nearly trivial, once you know the shape of an aerofoil.

Insects and some of the stranger birds... Ah, now that kind of engineering is really tough.

Re:Yesterday's tomorrow?

[nine-times]

True. The beliefs that people of the past were primative know-nothings and that we are now on the verge of knowing everything are both highly overrated.

Re:Leonardo, not Da Vinci

[The One and Only]

You name another notable historical individual known as "Da Vinci" and I'll grant your point.

Re:Yesterday's tomorrow?

[Merkuri22]

A wheel on an axle is notoriously more efficient than these "legs" things.

Until you try to go up stairs. DARPA is working on building dog-like robots with legs to carry a soldier's gear. Wheels are good only on flat surfaces. Ever try to push a wheelchair up a rocky slope? They make wheelchair ramps for a reason. Sometimes nature DOES get it right.