Soaring vs. Flapping

OK, how long before we can employ this in homebuilt aircraft?

Dan, U. S. Airforce, retired

I wouldn't recommend it, as flutter is a BIG problem with flexible
wings, tails, fins, etc.

The safety issues outweigh any performance gains here for a homebuilt --
especially for a high-performance one.

I think flexible winged craft could be safer. A really flexible and
evenly-tapered wing, gradated from high to low density toward the
core, would bend to allow its force to be spread over a large enough
area to keep the force constant. A wing suit with both arm and leg
wings would enable a person to "run" through the air, except that the
motion would be closer to doggy paddling. Flying would be easier than
scrambling up a flight of stairs on all fours. See the
"SphericonWing" design at my webpage:
http://patricktimony.tvheaven.com/photo3.html

Patrick Timony

patrick timony wrote:

I think flexible winged craft could be safer.

Most wings flex to some extent, and the flexibility
serves the structural purpose you mentioned. There's
a big difference between flex for load alleviation
and flex for control, however.

Dave 'flex2rigid' Hyde

"patrick timony" wrote in message
om...
OK, how long before we can employ this in homebuilt aircraft?

Dan, U. S. Airforce, retired

I wouldn't recommend it, as flutter is a BIG problem with flexible
wings, tails, fins, etc.

The safety issues outweigh any performance gains here for a homebuilt --
especially for a high-performance one.

I think flexible winged craft could be safer. A really flexible and
evenly-tapered wing, gradated from high to low density toward the
core, would bend to allow its force to be spread over a large enough
area to keep the force constant. A wing suit with both arm and leg
wings would enable a person to "run" through the air, except that the
motion would be closer to doggy paddling. Flying would be easier than
scrambling up a flight of stairs on all fours. See the
"SphericonWing" design at my webpage:
http://patricktimony.tvheaven.com/photo3.html

Patrick Timony

Kid, get your HEAD OUT OF THE CLOWDS. Man does not have enough strength to
support or directly control flight loads. If he did, someone else would
have done it by now.

This is a sophisticated group, with much knowledge and experience on making
flying machines, and man's muscles are used via mechanical advantage only,
to direct flight, not support or sustain it.

Make a deal with yourself. Build an airplane or two, then try building
whatever you want to dream up. Then, you will clearly see what the problems
and solutions are.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"patrick timony"...
I think flexible winged craft could be safer. A really flexible and
evenly-tapered wing, gradated from high to low density toward the
core, would bend to allow its force to be spread over a large enough
area to keep the force constant. A wing suit with both arm and leg
wings would enable a person to "run" through the air, except that the
motion would be closer to doggy paddling.

Kid, get your HEAD OUT OF THE CLOWDS. Man does not have enough strength to
support or directly control flight loads. If he did, someone else would
have done it by now.

This is a sophisticated group, with much knowledge and experience on making
flying machines, and man's muscles are used via mechanical advantage only,
to direct flight, not support or sustain it.

Yea, and man doesn't have enough muscle to lift a thousand pounds of
dirt in one load, which is why he invented the backhoe.

You could make a man-powered suit with power assist, ala power steering,
power brakes, or any other number of analogies. It just takes smaller
power sources and actuators, and we're moving in that direction. Keep
the dream alive.

Here's a sort of rigid/flexible concept that works now.
http://www.freewing.com/

Mike "never say never" Y.

"nafod40" wrote
Yea, and man doesn't have enough muscle to lift a thousand pounds of
dirt in one load, which is why he invented the backhoe.

You could make a man-powered suit with power assist, ala power steering,
power brakes, or any other number of analogies. It just takes smaller
power sources and actuators, and we're moving in that direction. Keep
the dream alive.

Here's a sort of rigid/flexible concept that works now.
http://www.freewing.com/

Mike "never say never" Y.

Let's see, if we have a power steering type assist, and then we need power
to run the assist, then that means we need a power source, like an engine.
Do we still have man powered flight?

NOPE

By the way, anyone seen one of those man powered, power assisted flying
units at your airport? Come on now, there must be at least one out there
somewhere.
--
Jim in NC

"I think there is a man powered airplane somewhere. I remember reading
that a college class had built it to meet a challenge of flying a 1/4
mile (or thereabouts) course. It looked like a giant ultralight with a
huge wingspan and was powered by a man (in very good shape) using a
pedal system to drive the propeller. Totally impractical as a flying
machine, but interesting anyway. Perhaps someone in the group will
remember more about this accomplishment.
Mike

One issue with your wing design is that the sphericon is a geometric
solid. (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphericon.html) It rolls in a
straight line by wobbling from side to side along its continuous face.
An interesting novelty, with perhaps some utility in mechanical
devices - wobbling bearings, maybe? But an efficient propulsor? Just
because something is a neat shape doesn't make it deeply meaningful or
wonderfully useful.

There was a similar situation in the late 30's early 40's with the
"Davis wing". Davis designed an airfoil based on some obscure and
difficult geometric mathematics - a curve described by a point on a
circle as it rolls along a line that's... eh, I forget. It was
complicated. But convincing, if confusing. Davis' dazzling/baffling
mathematical presentations convinced Consolidated to use the airfoil
for the B-24 Liberator.

It turned out that the airfoil was a very close approximation to a
laminar-flow design. That combined with the high aspect ratio of the
B-24's wing gave the machine its excellent performance. It also
turned out in the final analysis that the mathematics were bunk.
There was no connection between Davis' derivations and aeronautical
reality. (See the excellent book, "What Engineers Know and How They
Know It" for the full story.) Davis lucked out, is all.

The wing drawings and doodles on your website look as though you've
been inspired by the graceful, undulating movements of rays, squid,
and other sea creatures. The big difference between them and your
concept is that the ocean denizens have neutral bouyancy. They need
expend no energy overcoming gravity. The design would be very
interesting in a microgravity environment.


(patrick timony) wrote in message . com...
OK, how long before we can employ this in homebuilt aircraft?

Dan, U. S. Airforce, retired

I wouldn't recommend it, as flutter is a BIG problem with flexible
wings, tails, fins, etc.

The safety issues outweigh any performance gains here for a homebuilt --
especially for a high-performance one.

I think flexible winged craft could be safer. A really flexible and
evenly-tapered wing, gradated from high to low density toward the
core, would bend to allow its force to be spread over a large enough
area to keep the force constant. A wing suit with both arm and leg
wings would enable a person to "run" through the air, except that the
motion would be closer to doggy paddling. Flying would be easier than
scrambling up a flight of stairs on all fours. See the
"SphericonWing" design at my webpage:
http://patricktimony.tvheaven.com/photo3.html

Patrick Timony

P.S. It would also help if all the sketches didn't look like the "flier"
wasn't out of control and just about to crash... hard.
Unless inducing an epilectic fit was a pre-requisite for flight =D

Eric

One issue with your wing design is that the sphericon is a geometric
solid.

I meant for the design to use only the edges of a sphericon, connected
by a springy structure that would allow them to be scissored back and
forth. The structure could be draped in foam the way different shaped
bubble wands hold minimal surface bubbles.

perhaps some utility in mechanical
devices - wobbling bearings, maybe?

I built this machine (sphericon machine)
http://patricktimony.tvheaven.com/photo.html
on a 3D printer. When you spin the central rod it makes the handles
wobble back and forth which could be turned into pistoning. I thought
it might be useful in a conventional ornithopter but I'm sure theres a
gear out there that does this already.

Does anyone else find it strange that Soaring flight is so rare in
nature but so popular with us for the last 100 years?

Nope. Flapping doesn't work even overly well for large birds. And
we're
just beginning to understand the principles of the aerodynamics of
things
like bees and hummingbirds.

What about clouds. I've heard that some clouds weigh 500,000 pounds.
They are probably held together by surface tension. The roiling
motion of clouds I bet is related to undulation for propulsion. What
we need is a material somewhere between bone and water vapor = foam.

I've heard that
the Wright Brothers patented Wing Warping (Flapping) and never let
anyone develop planes using Wing Warping flight. Is that true?

Bull****. Wing warping isn't flapping, it was a way to effect
directional changes in flight by changing the shape of the wing. It
wasn't either the propuslive or lifting force. While the Wrights did
get a patent on it, the real reason others didn't follow is that they
found that ailerons worked better.

If ailerons are so great then why don't birds have them? For that
matter why don't any animals have wheels? Because wheels try to
pretend friction doesen't exist and end up not being able to account
for their actions: How many times did you go around Mr. Wheel? I
don't know. Wings and joints spread friction around democratically so
that every particle gets some.

Does
that explain why the designs up until the time of the Wright
Brothers
were all Bird-like flapping designs and after were all fixed wing
soaring designs?

No, the Wrights gliders and powered planes were not flappers. They
were
fixed wing.

But when the trailing edge of the fixed wing warps the net movement is
down and forwards - so there is a tiny bit of propulsion backwards.

Yea, and man doesn't have enough muscle to lift a thousand pounds of
dirt in one load, which is why he invented the backhoe.

Clouds lift themselves and they don't have any propulsion.

Specialization is for insects."

I love it.

Soaring is not rare in nature. Birds, especially big birds flap only
when
absolutely necessary.

Soaring is rarer than undulating. Soaring is like rolling - it tries
to deny friction. Undulation makes use of friction.

Patrick Timony