ACH An ornithoptor flies by 1901

WI someone had managed to make a flapping wing flying machine pre the Wrights.

Would it have in fact retarded aviation, it looks like the obvious solution but I, I assume, it is likely to be less efficient than the machnies that developed inth e 20th century.

Was it a technological possibility?
 
Nope. Flapping wings are a pain in the butt to analyze even today--its a major area of research for my advisor--compared to the relatively well-understood fixed-wing gliders that were being done at the time by people like Lilienthal. In a lot of ways, what the Wrights were succesful in doing was taking the fundementals esablished by gliders, finding an error in the underlying mathematics such as they were understood then, and then succesfully sticking an engine and three-axis control system onto the same kind of gliders everyone else was already using.
 
Nope. Flapping wings are a pain in the butt to analyze even today--its a major area of research for my advisor--compared to the relatively well-understood fixed-wing gliders that were being done at the time by people like Lilienthal. In a lot of ways, what the Wrights were succesful in doing was taking the fundementals esablished by gliders, finding an error in the underlying mathematics such as they were understood then, and then succesfully sticking an engine and three-axis control system onto the same kind of gliders everyone else was already using.

Yeah, I tend to agree that the theory behind flapping wings is too complex to allow ornithopters to replace fixed-wing aircraft, especially in the early 1900's. There is potentially a future for ornithopters as MAVs, but, even if engineers and physicists could successfully work out the theory and math behind man-powered flapping flight, I doubt it would ever be able to achieve the performance of fixed-wing aircraft, anyway.

However, in my Arboreal project (plug), I have sapient gibbons learning how to develop pre-industrial ornithopters from hang gliders. This is banking on the optimistic assumption that exceptional gibbon athletes could generate enough power with their arms to power short flights, with the aid of catapults for lift off. Here is the post I wrote on the topic: would you mind terribly giving me a critique, since you seem to have some access to insider knowledge?
 
Yeah, I tend to agree that the theory behind flapping wings is too complex to allow ornithopters to replace fixed-wing aircraft, especially in the early 1900's. There is potentially a future for ornithopters as MAVs, but, even if engineers and physicists could successfully work out the theory and math behind man-powered flapping flight, I doubt it would ever be able to achieve the performance of fixed-wing aircraft, anyway.

However, in my Arboreal project (plug), I have sapient gibbons learning how to develop pre-industrial ornithopters from hang gliders. This is banking on the optimistic assumption that exceptional gibbon athletes could generate enough power with their arms to power short flights, with the aid of catapults for lift off. Here is the post I wrote on the topic: would you mind terribly giving me a critique, since you seem to have some access to insider knowledge?
Sure. Basically, a flapping-wing design takes all the analytical complexity and interrelations of normal fixed-wing flight (aerodynamics of the wing cross-section and three-dimensional effects of things like aspect ratio, applying thrust for forward flight, placement of tails or other surfaces relative to the center of gravity to ensure stability--longitudnal, lateral, and several other types--then some control in all three axes of flight) and adds all kinds of other things that have to be done right--the optimum stroke motion of the wing in pitch, plunge, and sweep to minimize drag and power input while maximizing lift, compensating for and keeping stability during the stroke....it's a big, big deal, and even with the most sophisticanted computer analyses and wind tunnel tests, we haven't answered any of the questions. To answer those question well enough for an ornithopter with none of those tools....it's very challenging to imagine. It's a lot easier to move from gliders to motorized (perhaps with pilot-powered props and such) while retaining the fixed wings--fewer new things, and smaller leaps where they exist.
 
Sure. Basically, a flapping-wing design takes all the analytical complexity and interrelations of normal fixed-wing flight (aerodynamics of the wing cross-section and three-dimensional effects of things like aspect ratio, applying thrust for forward flight, placement of tails or other surfaces relative to the center of gravity to ensure stability--longitudnal, lateral, and several other types--then some control in all three axes of flight) and adds all kinds of other things that have to be done right--the optimum stroke motion of the wing in pitch, plunge, and sweep to minimize drag and power input while maximizing lift, compensating for and keeping stability during the stroke....it's a big, big deal, and even with the most sophisticanted computer analyses and wind tunnel tests, we haven't answered any of the questions. To answer those question well enough for an ornithopter with none of those tools....it's very challenging to imagine. It's a lot easier to move from gliders to motorized (perhaps with pilot-powered props and such) while retaining the fixed wings--fewer new things, and smaller leaps where they exist.

Wow, are the prospects really that bad? I was under the impression that small-scale, RC ornithopters were relatively simple and had looser requirements, but that the aerodynamics get dodgy at scales large enough for manned flights. I guess I also assumed that gibbons fit in the "small-scale" range, and that they wouldn't have developed the concept of a propeller in time. I just figured that, with the power-to-weight ratio out of the way, mimicking birds and bats would be enough to at least get the ball rolling.

-----

Also, what are the current ideas about performance potential in ornithopters? I kind of suspect that there would be a relatively low performance ceiling because of the huge mass of the moving parts, which would mean poor speed and range. So, even if an ornithopter could have been invented in the early 1900's, it would probably just be superseded relatively quickly by fixed-wing aircraft, and aviation history would continue pretty much as it did in OTL.
 
However, in my Arboreal project (plug), I have sapient gibbons learning how to develop pre-industrial ornithopters from hang gliders. This is banking on the optimistic assumption that exceptional gibbon athletes could generate enough power with their arms to power short flights, with the aid of catapults for lift off.

Problem is that gibbons are not really small animals and their upper torso, while well adapted to brachiation, would not be that much better suited for flapping artificial wings than humans, It's not arm strength but the chest muscles that you need for flight.

Now here's a SF solution. Invent a machine that scales humans down to the size of grasshoppers. With bone strength and dense muscles evolved to carry the weight of full-size people now in a much lighter creature the size of your pinky finger, man-powered flight might be possible... assuming that the tiny people's overdeveloped muscles didn't dislocate their arms or tear their chest open with the first flap. Or, go for a massive geological POD (ASB, really), featuring an earth with more oxygen, far less gravity, and an overall denser atmosphere.
 
The major problem with ornithopters is not aerodynamic or power-related. It is structural. A condor cannot flap it's wings as fast as a hummingbird. They would break.
 

Kissinger

Banned
Anyway all the Wrights did was make control the main point, everyone thought "POWER" Jeremy CLarkson style plus using good mathematics to discover the realities of flight.
 
Problem is that gibbons are not really small animals and their upper torso, while well adapted to brachiation, would not be that much better suited for flapping artificial wings than humans, It's not arm strength but the chest muscles that you need for flight.

I don't think I agree with you here. The difference in strength between humans and apes seems to be more due to a difference in motor neurons than in the size and capacity of the muscles. Their nervous system allows much larger exertion of the muscles (but at the cost of fine-motor skills), and not just the arm muscles, but also the chest and leg muscles.

True, the math is still highly optimistic, but the gibbon is clearly better suited for ornithopter flight than the human.

Now here's a SF solution. Invent a machine that scales humans down to the size of grasshoppers. With bone strength and dense muscles evolved to carry the weight of full-size people now in a much lighter creature the size of your pinky finger, man-powered flight might be possible... assuming that the tiny people's overdeveloped muscles didn't dislocate their arms or tear their chest open with the first flap.

Will the material properties be transferrable, though? It's commonly claimed that, if spider silk lines were the width of a pencil, they would be able to stop a jet liner. But, spider silk derives its stopping power from chemical principles that can't operate in objects the width of a pencil.

Or, go for a massive geological POD (ASB, really), featuring an earth with more oxygen, far less gravity, and an overall denser atmosphere.

I do a lot of SF world-building. It's pretty easy to take this route, because if you want something to happen, you can just write in whatever adaptations you need to make it happen. It certainly is fun, but it's less fulfilling, in my mind.

-----

I'm going to stop responding to gibbon-related questions here, because it's not my thread: but I'd love it if people wanted to discuss gibbon-powered ornithopters on my Arboreal thread.
 
Top