Talk:Ornithopter

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Class Critique

This article cought my eye because of the recent invention and development in the manned ornithopter flight that occured in 2010. The information in this article is well written but can be expanded on a little bit in some areas more then others. The article can also be better organized to help with the clearity and understanding of the article. The way that the article is organized helps the readers get a basic understanding of the article and the Ornithopter but it isn't till the reader gets half way through the article that things become clearer and make more sense. The article has a few gramatical errors that make the article look unreliable and unprofessional. The sources at the end of the article seem to be reliable and have good information about the ornothopter. The article also left the reader hanging in some areas telling them if they wanted more information, the should search for a certain example. It'd be better to organize the other information into the article so that readers are able to read the article and not have to continue searching in order to gather information. Overall I think this article is well written but because there are aspects that are so new, the article has alot of improvements in it that may help broden out the topic and make it easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10109770231 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real person

Why is Icarus mentioned on this page as if he was a real person? All he is, as far as I know, is a character from Greek mythology. - J.Wallos (2/9/06)

Dear J.Wallos,

Daedalus and Icarus are a myth. Today people ( civilian and military ) is trying to make MAV. But since many years, some researchers are working on the manned. A design powered by a human acting system. If you want to know more, just click on the (laconic) sites up there. Glad to read you. 

Georg.(2/12/06)

Manned ornithopter

An ornithopter is an aircraft that produces all the thrust and most of the lift by the flapping of it's wings alone. The Schmid aircraft only produced the thrust with a [relatively small] set of flapping wings. The lift was produced by a large set of fixed wings. Since the flapping wings were only used for propulsion, this aircraft can not be classified as a true ornithopter and further, this cannot be classified as the first successful flight of a manned ornithopter. These flights should be described factually for what they were....successful flights of a fixed wing aircraft that uses flapping wings instead of a propeller for propulsion. Making attention-getting false claims such as 'the first manned ornithopter' only serves to muddy the waters of history and obscure the true facts.


The reason Schmid's machine is classified as an "ornithopter" is as follows:

Real birds have a flapping front wing and a rear fixed wing. Whether you call it a tail, stabilizer, or whatever, the bird's tail does contribute a significant amount of lift. The body of a bird is shaped for producing lift also. As an ornithopter is an imitation of bird flight, I see no reason why the requirement not to use fixed lifting surfaces should be imposed.

You would be correct to point out that the fixed wing on Schmid's aircraft is much bigger than a bird's tail. However, that is just a quantitative matter. There is no logical dividing line between a bird that has 40% of its lifting surface fixed, versus Schmid's which has about 80% fixed. If a particular aircraft has 50 or 60% fixed, how would you classify that? If you draw a line anywhere, you create the ridiculous situation that two nearly identical aircraft will be differently categorized because of a 1% difference in wing surface allocation.

There is also the idea that an ornithopter must use the same surface to produce both lift and thrust. In Schmid's configuration the flappers could have been tilted to provide no lift, though more likely they did provide some lift, and really we have insufficient information to know for certain what percentage of total lift they did provide. Those of us who build ornithopters know that it is no special challenge for a flapper to produce both lift and thrust. One of the most successful and widely used flapper designs has a flat wing that is symmetrical about the horizontal plane and takes on a positive or negative camber in the up or down stroke due to aeroelastic properties. This basic flapper design produces lift just by virtue of having the correct angle relative to the motion of the aircraft. There is nothing difficult about producing both lift and thrust together, but Schmid's ornithopter does appear to have been designed to enhance the lift production of the flappers as evidenced by their cambered ribs evident in the photos.

There are a few ornithopters in which there is NO fixed wing (tandem flappers mostly) or in which the fixed wing produces a downforce instead of lift. Since neither of these configurations is met by real birds, I don't think we should insist that an ornithopter should be so constrained.


Manned ornithopter

Your comment is perfectly right. Groups of researchers are working in the field of instationery air flow. This aerodynamic allows the flapping wings to create lift and thrust. The result is not assured yet. "Will be a planetary event". Georg. 03/16/06

Intro

An ornithopter is an aircraft that flies by wing-flapping. Many examples exist in nature such as birds, bats, and insects. Man-made ornithopters are usually on the same scale as these flying creatures, though some overscale, manned ornithopters have also been built.

I'm sorry, but the definition of "aircraft" (it's a machine) excludes birds, bats and insects from the definition of an ornithopter. Then "man-made" also is strange, because all machines are man-made, aren't they? These three sentences need a little tweaking. PeepP 20:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dictionary

I'm not the author of " aircraft " . On the other hand, I am favourable to give an exact definition, in a world dictionary, to the object flying by flapping wings, built by the man. Best regards. Georg. 21 March 2006

appears to have held

"Alexander Lippisch appears to have held this point of view" < at the end of the second paragraph, in Ornithopter#Aerodynamics.

  • He appears to have? To whom?
  • Someone should find a quote, and change this sentence to "In [YEAR] Alexander Lippisch held this point of view." or something more appropriate.

VdSV9•♫ 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparision to helicopters

The use of the same surfaces for lift and propulsion has the fundamental advantages that drag-inducing structures are minimized while the volume of air acted on to produce thrust is maximized. [...] From general aerodynamic considerations, ornithopters appear to make more efficient use of power than rotating propeller or jet aircraft do.

Apparently, the same could be said about a helicopter. Could someopne enlighten me (and improve the article) by describing the pros and cons of an ornithopter versus a helicopter? And why an ornithopter might be favorable to a helicopter?

Can an ornithopter produce a vortex ring? --Klaws 06:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithopters have two main advantages over helicopters: they are virtually silent and the ability to glide greatly reduces power consumption. LegendLength (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A practical ornithopter has the potential to be far more manuverable. Consider how manuverable humming birds, flys, and other insects are, simply from flapping their wings. No machine ever created is as agile as that. Potentially they can be faster than helicopters as well if they combined aspects from fixed wing aircraft. I don't see why they can't fix their wings in place and use a jet engine when they want to achieve sustained high speed flight. Malamockq 06:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JULY 8 2006 FLIGHT OF DELAURIER HYBRID AIRCRAFT

Regarding the July 8 2006 flight of the Delaurier ornithopter/fixed wing hybrid aircraft. It did not take off unaided, an auxiliary jet engine was mounted under the fuselage for the purpose of providing the thrust to accelerate to lift off speed in order to avoid using the flapping of the wings [thereby eliminating the severe heaving and pitching of the fuselage which has caused problems throughout the life of the aircraft]. This aircraft had auxiliary fixed wings installed sometime after 2001, it ceased to be an ornithopter and became a flapping/fixed wing hybrid aircraft instead. The July 8 2006 flight was made possible only by the use of these fixed wings and the jet engine [the jet engine is in addition to the gasoline engine which flaps the wings]. In other words, this flight was not the first sustained flight of a piloted ornithopter. This has not yet been done. This kind of sensationalist reporting in an online encyclopedia and in the media distorts the truth and will make it very difficult for future generations to find an accurate, unbiased record of ornithopter history.

Photo of ornithopter

The ornithopter shown in the title photograph appears quite crackpot in design and I believe it is inappropriate as the primary photograph in an article supposedly about the flight and development of working ornithopters. Perhaps it could go in a subsection, but I believe that something more plausible as a working machine should go at the top. My suggestions are Leonardo da Vinci's sketches, scale-model ornithopters shown in flight, or an image from fiction that shows a plausible machine (this could have the advantage of being obviously an ornithopter - many attempted models do not appear to be obviously flapping in still photos). Thoughts, anyone?--EDH 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someone has recently changed the main photo to an animation of a model ornithopter in flight. Much more appropriate.--EDH 04:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I just wanted to explain certain points in my recent edit.

First, I personally feel that "manned" ornithopter was a suitable choice of words, but another user felt strongly about using gender-neutral language. I didn't like to say "piloted" because I didn't want it to be confused with "remotely piloted" and that seemed awkward anyway. So I chose the phrase "person-carrying" instead.

The word "man" has more than one meaning. If used to describe a male individual, it is not gender-neutral. In modern usage, if used to describe the human race (as in "the rights of man"), it is gender-neutral. Anyone who takes offense is being rather small-minded and in willful denial that the word has more than one meaning. 174.24.92.212 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second, Yeti Hunter wanted to convey the idea that an unmanned ornithopter is a model or small-scale representation of a larger manned aircraft. I find this approach unacceptable, because an ornithopter is a model of a bird, not a model of a larger aircraft the way scale model airplanes are. In a few cases, an unmanned small ornithopter is built as a prototype for a proposed or subsequently built manned ornithopter, but that's really not the activity most of us are engaged in. Personally I have no interest in manned flight but I am keen on imitating bird flight more closely. I think most ornithopter builders are like me. I know there are a few who are working on manned projects but even they would agree that an ornithopter is based on bird flight and is not a scale model of anything other than a bird.

I also removed the reference to DeLaurier's crash because it reflects badly on our field and DeLaurier specifically to include that information. I think it sufficiently conveys what happened to say that a 14 sec flight was made.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronister (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 October 2006

According to the definition of an Ornithopter as I understand it, such a machine is an aircraft that achieves flight by the action of wing-flapping. That is, any size of machine that flies (or attempts to fly) in this manner. That's not to say that a small one is imitating a larger one or vice versa, it's still a machine with flapping wings. Clearly small-scale ornithopters have achieved success (often as a result of their resemblance to birds) and large, manned ornithopters have not. However I believe it is inappropriate to assign one type or size of machine greater legitimacy as an "ornithopter", and I certainly wasnt trying to imply anything like that.
Also, on the use of the word "manned", I am of the opinion that "person-carrying" and "flight with person on board" are far more awkward than either of the other options. If you really insist on a gender-neutral term, I see nothing awkward about "Piloted" and "Piloted flight". Cheers -Yeti Hunter.--ABVS 05:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I hope you don't mind, I moved the Design Engineering article to the "external links". To me it seems DeLaurier's own report is the primary source and more suitable as a "reference". I also eliminated the "witnessed and confirmed" wording because no one is going to question DeLaurier's accomplishments. Also I feel it is unfair to earlier work. Lippisch and Schmid flights were certainly witnessed and confirmed in their time. I am actively searching for more documentation on these flights, but such information becomes scattered over time. It simply is not realistic to apply the same standard.

Schmid Flight

The article claims that 15 minute flights were The minimum requirement is at least 15 HP for an ornithopter (or normal aircraft), and that is for level flight only, and presumes perfectly friction free moving parts etc.. The sums are easily done by even novice aero-engineers. ( HOWEVER, consider "Adalbert Schmid flew a motorized, manned ornithopter at Munich-Laim. It was driven by small flapping wings mounted at the sides of the fuselage, behind a larger fixed wing. Fitted with a 3 hp Sachs motorcycle engine, it made flights up to 15 minutes in duration. Schmid later constructed a 10 hp ornithopter based on the Grunau-Baby IIa sailplane, which was flown in 1947. The second aircraft had flapping outer wing panels."

Dear unsigned and undated, the reference in the article seems to be this page at ornithopter.org, and from there Schmid, Adalbert. Weltluftfahrt, volume 1, issue 9, March 1950, page 195. Schmid was clearly <nowik</nowiki>what is interesting is that the machine apparently took off from the ground. If one could get hold of the quoted reference, it would help. --Seejyb 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)This statement sounds a bit put-upon to me, and I don't really see what it adds to an otherwise good article. Would anyone object to my either removing or re-writing it? --ConfuciusOrnis 20:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not remove, but I agree that it should be rewritten. As it stands it sounds a bit like ornithopter fanboys complaining that they're not taken seriously. Perhaps if a reliable source could be found asserting something of the sort (something like "flapping wing craft have long been ridiculed in aviation circles since the success of fixed wing craft") we could include that. Not sure how to word it though.--Yeti Hunter 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposed (Tim-bird)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was: Merge --B. Wolterding 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge the content of Tim-bird into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. While the product "Tim-bird" as such exists, there are not many secondary sources about it, so the short article might be best merged here.

Please add as tim-birds, have been popular since whatever year"). If however it's a brand name, AFD.--Yeti Hunter 07:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's a place for descriptions of the various toy (model) ornithopters. Whether they go an a separate page or are included in the Ornithopter entry I'll leave that to someone else. There are more than one make of these other than Tim-Bird, as I had one of another make when I was a kid, back in the 1970s - I think it may have been Airfix. Ian Dunster 09:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So "Tim-Bird" is a brand name? --Yeti Hunter 04:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent developments

First 4 paragraphs provide unreferenced information. Links to Sage Grouse, Gossamer Albatross, Smithsonian Institution, SRI International, Reciprocating Chemical Muscle, pterosaur, Quetzalcoatlus northropi, Robert C. Michelson do not provide reference to recent developments of ornithopters or ornithopter technology. If proper references can be provided, it would help organize this section chronologically. If there are no supportive references, perhaps the information should not be included. I'm wondering for example about the idea that someone might accomplish something in the future that might be applied in this context should be included. Rogerfgay 13:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency

(Copied from the Science desk:) Unfortunately, the efficiency section is not very accurate. Ornithocopters are not efficient for high-speed flight, as the wing-section required for lift is miniscule already. At supersonic speeds, I believe flight would be impossible for an ornithocopter. Current aircraft are more efficient for their mass and speed than birds are. Comfort has nothing to do with why we don't build ornithocopters, otherwise why wouldn't our reconnaissance drones have flapping wings? It is in fact a "failing" of biology to evolve a species to occupy a high-speed, high-mass, high-altitude niche, because to do so would require some kind of rotary muscle that does not exist in any animal we know of. The phenomenon is similar to why our ships use propellers instead of flippers. In this case, engineering firmly wins out, as many sea animals can compete with the weight and speed of our ships. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary motion could be achieved by cyclical sequential contractions of muscles arranged in ring shape, kinda like a peristaltic loop (there are plenty other ways besides this, this is just the first one that came to my mind); the issue isn't making somthing spin, the issue is making it spin forever in a single direction, regular blood vessels and other tissues would either wrap around or get twisted and quickly rip apart. One possible solution would be if the "propeller" and "axle" were an external "dead" part, kinda like a fingernail or a snail's shell, but not "glued" to any flesh (at least past a certain age; young individuals could have that bodypart encased in some sort of sac to let it grow, and the spinning muscles might remain atrophied until the sac dries and the propeller+axle get free). But of course this isn't the only means of propulsion possible, animals could evolve somthing like a methane fueled jet/rocket engine for example... --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and of course, cephalopods already use waterjet propulsion (no impelers there though). --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamics section

"As demonstrated by birds, flapping wings offer potential advantages in maneuverability and energy savings compared with fixed-wing aircraft." — This directly implies the possiblity that birds could have developed engines over the course of evolution. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 20:32, December 5, 2007

No. It demonstrates that birds show us a lot of maneuverability, compared to man-made aircraft. Whether that is correct or not (if you've seen recent RC aircraft you might be inclined to question it) is another matter. LegendLength (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was most of the old aerodynamics section deleted, and what's this implication that ornithopters are more efficient than propellers about? There perpetually seems to be a lot of bad information in this section, and nobody is citing their references. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a reference to bit about "drag inducing structures are minimised", but it was in russian (with a crude translation) and may have been removed. It was the research of Toporov in the mid 1990s, and it also claimed efficiency of an ideal ornithopter being "close to 1". I'll see if I can track down a link. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Can the picture of the bird be removed; it makes the impression that all ornithopters are based on airplane-designs, which is incorrect (Theo Van Holten has eg made a helicopter-like design called the ornicopter). I would suggest the Theo Van Holten-design as main picture as it is one of the latest and best performing ornithopters.

Are ther ANY REAL Ornithopters/Grouips devoted to same?

Are there ANY real groups devoted just to building flying Ornithopeters? Or ANY REAL FLYING HUMAN CARRYING Ornithopeters flying today Articlr did not say! Lots of research but NO flying ornithopeters now exsist?!Why???VICTORISEDSONANDREJOHSONDDULC (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chinese flight

Whoever wrote it has no idea of what an ornithopter is. Needham said it was a "ornitophter flight", but an the man did not build a machine. He just put himself bird wings and feathers. This is out of place.--Knight1993 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Festo SmartBird ?

Hi!

This new machine could be mentionable (since you mention the toy of WowWee): The Festo SmartBird. It was shown on the Hannover Messe 2011 in Germany. I think its very interesting and promising. Here are two links:

http://www.festo.com/cms/en_corp/11369.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnR8fDW3Ilo&feature=player_embedded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.112.83 (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:UTIAS Ornithopter Flight.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UTIAS Ornithopter Flight.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

A section consisting entirely of entries such as

contributes nothing to the article, and ought to be removed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the principle. Many f&sf novels use ornithopters as background elements--need not be listed here. Haven't read Dune recently so don't know how prominent ornithopters are. However, they are a significant plot element in H G Wells' The War in the Air, so I will add it. Maybe the criterion shouid be 'if ornithopters were removed,would the plot suffer?' NB--articles must be notable, content is not so restricted. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in the article

This paragraph,

In propeller- or jet-driven aircraft, the propeller creates a relatively narrow stream of relatively fast moving air. The energy carried by the air is lost. The same amount of force can be produced by accelerating a larger mass of air to a smaller velocity, for example by using a larger propeller or adding a bypass fan to a jet engine. Use of flapping wings offers even larger displaced air mass, moved at lower velocity, thus improving efficiency.

implies that ornithopters can theoretically be more efficient than fixed-wing aircraft. But a few paragraphs later, the article flatly states that "Flapping wings increase drag and are not as efficient as propeller-powered aircraft."

Hopefully a qualified aerodynamicist can resolve this contradiction. 174.24.92.212 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious physics - paragraph removed

I removed the following paragraph:

In propeller- or jet-driven aircraft, the propeller creates a relatively narrow stream of relatively fast moving air. The energy carried by the air is lost. The same amount of force can be produced by accelerating a larger mass of air to a smaller velocity, for example by using a larger propeller or adding a bypass fan to a jet engine. Use of flapping wings offers even larger displaced air mass, moved at lower velocity, thus improving efficiency.[citation needed]

I think this explanation fundamentally misunderstands Newton's Third Law. The energy of propeller thrust which is "lost" to friction in the air is absolutely necessary, and is always equal to the thrust produced whether at high or low speed. This paragraph does not say why low-speed air displacement is more efficient than high-speed, and also doesn't address the obvious potential for lower efficiency due to the need for the wing to flap upward while it is not producing thrust. Given that it has been unreferenced for over two years, I think it was time for it to go, unless someone can provide a reliable source to support this. -- Beland (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The physics in the section removed is accurate, although poorly worded. The phrase "energy carried by the air" is ambiguous; it does not refer to momentum (vis a vis Newton3) but rather to the entropy generated in acceleration of the air mass. A small air mass accelerated to high velocity loses a greater share of energy to turbulence, heat, sound, etc, as compared to a large mass accelerated a small amount (but having equal momentum to the former case). I'll see if I can find a source specific to ornithopter physics.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lift vs Thrust

"if a static wing is kept at the same angle while moving up and down, it will produce no net lift or thrust."

I disagree. A curved wing displaces a different amount of air, depending on which way it's moving. E.G., a wing that is convex on top and concave on the bottom would generate lift if it were flapping straight up and down. In the same way, it could generate thrust if it were flapping at a fixed angle to the vertical.

"More recent vehicles [...] required the force of another towing vehicle in order to take off, and may not have been capable of generating sufficient thrust for sustained flight."

I'd classify something as "flying" if it's generating enough lift to stay airborne, whether or not it's also generating thrust. So I think the sentence should read "generating enough lift for sustained flight." Steve.Murgaski (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and fixed. And for an example of a fixed-wing ornithopter, see any insect flight. But your example of using a simple airfoil is also a good illustration of how that can work. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Facts Straight in Wing Design Section

I would like to make some changes in the "wing design" section. First off, I don't know why there is a bunch of historical information in a section called "wing design". More importantly, some of the information is known to be false.

1. The first point I would like to revise is that Alphonse Penaud introduced the idea of a powered ornithopter in 1874. We know that Penaud flew a rubber-powered ornithopter in 1874, and this was "powered" in the sense that it was not using the muscles of the operator. However, Penaud was not the FIRST to achieve this. According to Octave Chanute's Progress in Flying Machines, Jobert already flew a similar rubber-powered ornithopter in 1871. Also, Gustav Trouve built a powered ornithopter in 1870, which was not rubber-powered. Therefore I would like to delete the claim that Penaud introduced the idea of a powered ornithopter. It could be expained better as follows: "The idea of a powered ornithopter (not using the muscles of the operator) was introduced c. 1870, with the work of Gustave Trouve, Jobert, and others. [2]" I don't think the statement about toys for children is important. It can be deleted. However, if someone wants to preserve this, it should be said "Some of these models were powered by rubber band, and found use as toys for children since the rubber band power source could not effectively scale up to the size of a manned aircraft."

2. Similarly, it is claimed that DeLaurier in 1991 made the first flight of a remotely piloted ornithopter. We know that Spencer flew a remotely-piloted ornithopter in 1961. We have videos and other references documenting this fact. So I want to delete the false statement, or replace it with a correct statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanchronister (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix

Can the Agile Flight Project Phoenix be mentioned in article ? See http://groups.csail.mit.edu/locomotion/flight.html

KVDP (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft with propellers mounted in tiltable wings

In the Sci-Fi channel production of Dune, Frank Herbert's original ornithopter transportation was replaced with aircraft that had directionally tiltable wings in which were fixed propellers, used for VTOL, then for forward thrust as the short wings were tilted a bit. This same design appeared in the recent Showcase TV adaptation of Childhood's End. Do we have an article on this? I don't even know if such a vehicle is viable, but since the Dune show referred to them as ornithopters, it seems likely that some readers will come to this article looking for information on them, fictional or not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wings flapped? Or just changed their angle of attack for forward flight mode? If the former, it could be included as an example of ornithopters in fiction (could also include Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy). This article used to have such a section (2011 diff); not sure when or why it was removed - perhaps by User:Feezo who voiced his disapproval above? I don't mind such sections, as long as they are kept to a reasonable length and only include "notable" examples - while this is somewhat subjective and debatable, I think it's preferable to outright exclusion. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed the section—I'm not against "in fiction/culture" sections in general, but I don't feel that the "X appeared in Y" list format contributes substantively to articles. I think the cut-off point where fiction/culture sections become "encyclopedic" is when we can cite secondary sources discussing, in this case, the use of ornithopters in such works. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ornithopter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ornithopter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?

Bat wings are fundamentally different from bird wings, and it’s not just because birds have feathers and bats don’t. Generally, when roboticists design bird-inspired or insect-inspired robots, they use rigid approximations of the wings, or perhaps a few different rigid parts flexibly interconnected. Bat wings don’t work like this at all: The underlying structure of a bat’s wing is made up of “a metamorphic musculoskeletal system that has more than 40 degrees of freedom” and includes bones that actively deform during every wing beat. The wing surface itself is an “anisotropic wing membrane skin with adjustable stiffness.” This level of complexity is what gives bats their unrivaled level of agility, according to the researchers, but it also makes bats wicked hard to turn into robots. The dominant degrees of freedom (DOFs) in the bat flight mechanism are identified and incorporated in B2’s design by means of a series of mechanical constraints. These biologically meaningful DOFs include asynchronous and mediolateral movements of the armwings and dorsoventral movements of the legs. Also, he continuous surface and elastic properties of bat skin under wing morphing are realized by an ultrathin (56 micrometers) membranous skin that covers the skeleton of the morphing wings. We have successfully achieved autonomous flight of B2 using a series of virtual constraints to control the articulated, morphing wings .

Copies directly from this site.[1] Granted, it has a citation, but wicked hard isn't an encyclopediac tone. I don't know if I should change this, reword this, delete it? Assistance required for a newbie, please.

References

  1. ^ "Full Page Reload". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Retrieved 2019-12-17.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ornithopter"