Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Copying Flight Of Birds  
User currently offlineFlexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

While I'm no expert on biology I wouldn't be surprised if the way birds fly - using the wings for both propulsion and lift - is more efficient than the way we humans came up with - take a fixed wing and attach a propulsion system to it.

So, has there ever been an airplane that used a similar system as birds and did it ever succesfully fly?

[Edited 2008-11-09 12:17:57]

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2397 times:



Quoting Flexo (Thread starter):
While I'm no expert on biology I wouldn't be surprised if the way birds fly - using the wings for both propulsion and lift - is more efficient than the way we humans came up with - take a fixed wing and attach a propulsion system to it.

I'll take a stab at this and say your assumption is wrong. In birds the muscles are the power source in and of themselves. We humans have no such power source, so to fly like a bird we would have to harness a power source and then use a series of pulleys and all manner of things to flap the wing. Every step along the way we would be giving up efficiency.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10104 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):

I'll take a stab at this and say your assumption is wrong. In birds the muscles are the power source in and of themselves. We humans have no such power source, so to fly like a bird we would have to harness a power source and then use a series of pulleys and all manner of things to flap the wing. Every step along the way we would be giving up efficiency.

Well, I doubt his basic assumption is wrong. Birds, far as I've heard, are incredibly efficient fliers.

And, humans can indeed use their muscles as a power source. There are, after all, human-powered aircraft. But using our muscles to power wings in the same way as a bird is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Various people have tried over history to strap on flapping wings, or to make various contraptions that use flapping wings. It hasn't ever worked particularly well, to my knowledge.

Birds' bone structures are incredibly lightweight, which definitely aids them in flying.

I think, in general, it will probably never be feasible to design a flying machine where the wings provide both lift and thrust. Birds have quite a lot of flexibility to adjust their wings and tail in flight, to achieve whatever they are trying to achieve at any given moment. I don't actually know how one would categorize the static and dynamic stability of a bird in flight, but I'd guess they would tend toward neutrally stable - toward areas where humans are only able to fly with the help of FBW.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

Look up "ornithopter" on youtube. There are quite a few examples of examples that can't quite get it right.

User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2380 times:



Quoting Flexo (Thread starter):
using the wings for both propulsion and lift - is more efficient than the way we humans came up with - take a fixed wing and attach a propulsion system to it.

So, has there ever been an airplane that used a similar system as birds and did it ever succesfully fly?

If you want to stretch it a bit, technically helicopters do use their wings (blades) for both lift and propulsion. It does make for a very useful and versatile machine; however, as far as both maintenance and fuel burn go, generally a fixed wing aircraft of comparable size and capacity will be cheaper and more efficient to operate.


CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2376 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 2):
Well, I doubt his basic assumption is wrong. Birds, far as I've heard, are incredibly efficient fliers.

I should have been clearer.. I meant for humans. As in what is efficient for them won't work nearly as well for us, because we don't have giant muscle motors you can put in a wing.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 2):

And, humans can indeed use their muscles as a power source. There are, after all, human-powered aircraft.

I didn't mean it quite as literally, but having said that, good luck getting across the pond with one of those  Wink

Also, we often forget, I can't think of a single bird that can fly 8000nm on one tank of 'gas'. Our inefficient way of getting around the skies also has advantages. I would be extremely curious to see how long a bird could fly if for example the muscles and bones weren't self repairing (which they will likely never be on something we build.. let's leave out nanotech for now please  Wink ). Alot of what birds can do works because they are living organisms and would likely not work nearly as well if made out of metal (or some other inanimate material).

Using a hummingbird as an example (chosen specifically for their long range flights.. and the fact I could find data online);

A bird that weighs 4grams, consumes 12kcal to fly a distance of 800km in 10 hours.

That equates to; 50208 joules of energy or; 12,552 joules/gram which further boils down to; 15.69 joules/gram/km (phew!).

Now (and apologies for the randomness of the data, again I'm going on what's available, taken from Air France - KLM Sustainability Report 2005/2006), KLM's flight ops in 2005/2006 was 127.6 million giga joules.

For this they carried 11,489 million ton/KM of traffic (it's hard to tell if that includes the weight of the airframe, fuel, etc., but I doubt it does).

So boiling all that down; 1MT = 1,000,000 grams.. so let's cancel that and the million in the GJ yielding;

11,489 million gram kilometers would consume 127.6 giga joules. (I GJ is 1e^9 J)

Dividing a by b, yields: 11.11 joules/gram/kilometer.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that for average mission profiles, today's aircraft are not all that bad. Now I've double checked the math, but I might have missed something.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25653 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2363 times:



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 5):
I can't think of a single bird that can fly 8000nm on one tank of 'gas'.

Soime come pretty close.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27322698/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen.../2008/oct/22/wildlife-conservation


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2360 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
Soime come pretty close.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27322698/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ation

Impressive. But also (and I'm really not disparaging birds here, honest!), much easier at 7days vs. 16 hours. (Drag increase being non-linear and all). Still I couldn't even think of walking 7000km, let alone running it.  Smile



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

Great thread.

- Muscles. Artificial muscles are being developed. That is organic constructs that contract and relax on command. Early days though and still very small. Mechanical solutions with pulleys and so forth can work, but have issues compared to the "smoothness" of turbines.
- Adaptable wing. As mentioned birds reconfigure their airfoils continually, both for flapping (power) and for control. The wings can thus adapt readily to various flight regimes. Granted, aircraft don't need to change speeds as often as birds, but this is still and issue. There are experiments with adaptable airfoils (beyond the current high lift devices) but we are far from a wing that is completely morphable and instantly responsive.
- Payload. This might be the killer for practical applications. Birds aren't very efficient cargo carriers. Many of them barely have excess lift beyond their own body weight.
- Movement and vibrations. Birds have evolved to handle erratic movement patterns and vibrations. Humans and their machinery might find it hard to take these movements. At the very least fatigue life would be a consideration.


I think we will see the morphing wing first, as this could give enormous efficiency gains. Flapping for power is possible, but turbines are probably a better solution unless the application is very specialized, for example tiny spy drones disguised to look like insects and birds.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2316 times:



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
Well, I doubt his basic assumption is wrong. Birds, far as I've heard, are incredibly efficient fliers.

They're really efficient in their niche, and from mechanical power input to thrust but they're awful at overall efficiency...that's why birds have to eat so much, basically all the time. A turbine cycle is something like 30-40% efficient on the thermodynamics side, and somewhere in the 85-95% on the mechanical-to-thrust side.

Birds are very good at the latter, but the conversion from food energy to mechanical energy is a lot worse in biological organisms than in jet engines.

A bird also physically can't fly at airliner speeds...if we took airliner technology and scaled it down to bird speeds we'd have absurd efficiency.

Birds don't have the benefit of rotary joints...if they did, you'd probably see propulsion systems more akin to what we use. There are some marine microorganisms that do have a "bearing" and use spinning propulsion rather than flapping. Birds also have something that we are just starting to touch...a fully adapative wing with a very fast, very accurate, learning control system.

Tom.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2314 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
Adaptable wing. As mentioned birds reconfigure their airfoils continually, both for flapping (power) and for control. The wings can thus adapt readily to various flight regimes. Granted, aircraft don't need to change speeds as often as birds, but this is still and issue. There are experiments with adaptable airfoils (beyond the current high lift devices) but we are far from a wing that is completely morphable and instantly responsive.

Agreed, this is the most 'interessting' area of development. Flapping for propulsion (unless, as you say for very specific profiles) is actually less efficient using the numbers I could find online (see above, as compared to your average turbine powered AC, and the numbers probably look even better for turbine powered craft if I had bothered figuring out AC + Fuel weight).

One area birds do have an advantage though is that for long flights they burn fat, and (again from what I could find online) it takes 3G of hydrocarbon based fuel to equal the energy in 1.3G of fat. So from an energy density standpoint, the fuel tank on birds is vastly superior to our current tech.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2313 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
They're really efficient in their niche, and from mechanical power input to thrust but they're awful at overall efficiency...that's why birds have to eat so much, basically all the time. A turbine cycle is something like 30-40% efficient on the thermodynamics side, and somewhere in the 85-95% on the mechanical-to-thrust side.

Wrong person quoted Tom :P

I actually think aircraft are more efficient (energy used vs. work done) than birds, based on what I could find online (and the disregards the actual conversion from source fuel to work energy... my numbers are just energy burn).



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Another interesting aerial organism is the bat. It flies on the same principles as a bird, but unless my guess is wrong the wing is less adaptable. There are no feathers to spread on the up stroke, for example. Mechanically less complex, if you will. Perhaps easier to model. AFAIK current flapping wing experiments have more bat-like "solid" wings than bird-like "feathered" wings.

I recently had a chance to sit right next to a bat at the Bali Zoo. My first impression after saying "cooool" was that there was a LOT of wing and quite a small body. Much more wing compared to your typical. Granted, I've only seen the one, but I think bats are less efficient fliers overall-

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 10):

One area birds do have an advantage though is that for long flights they burn fat, and (again from what I could find online) it takes 3G of hydrocarbon based fuel to equal the energy in 1.3G of fat. So from an energy density standpoint, the fuel tank on birds is vastly superior to our current tech.

Yepp. Fat is an incredibly good energy store. Not very practical for "faster burn" I guess.  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2297 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

The real question is, how would a bird perform on the conveyor belt?

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2286 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):
Granted, I've only seen the one, but I think bats are less efficient fliers overall-

I would have agreed with you, until I went to look it up:

Quote:
Bat wings are highly articulated, with more than two dozen independent joints and a thin flexible membrane covering them.

...

Quote:
Birds and insects can fold and rotate their wings during flight, but bats have many more options. Their flexible skin can catch the air and generate lift or reduce drag in many different ways. During straightforward flight, the wing is mostly extended for the down stroke, but the wing surface curves much more than a bird’s does – giving bats greater lift for less energy. During the up stroke, the bats fold the wings much closer to their bodies than other flying animals, potentially reducing the drag they experience. The wing’s extraordinary flexibility also allows the animals to make 180-degree turns in a distance of less than half a wingspan.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070118161402.htm

Quite an interesting read actually, especially with the vortex information. If I'm reading that right the vortex is moved rather radically during the up stroke which would reduce drag significantlly.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 13):
The real question is, how would a bird perform on the conveyor belt?

2H4

Generally speaking, it would be so bewildered by it moving backward that before it knew what was going on, the poor bird would have been flung off the belt, landing badly with a concussion. Quicker thinking, more intelligent birds would have read a thread on a popular aviation website discussing this and seen a show on TV regarding taking off from a conveyor belt and would have opened (or should it be extended) its wings before realising that it was a futile manoeuvre as it has legs, not wheels and would still be flung off regardless.

The pigeon, however, will merely beat its wings at the merest movement of the belt and flutter off.

 Big grin



Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

Very interesting Osiris30!

Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 15):
Quicker thinking, more intelligent birds would have read a thread on a popular aviation website discussing this and seen a show on TV regarding taking off from a conveyor belt and would have opened (or should it be extended) its wings before realising that it was a futile manoeuvre as it has legs, not wheels and would still be flung off regardless.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2179 times:



Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 15):
Quicker thinking, more intelligent birds would have read a thread on a popular aviation website discussing this and seen a show on TV regarding taking off from a conveyor belt and would have opened (or should it be extended) its wings before realising that it was a futile manoeuvre as it has legs,

Nah I gotta disagree... the smart bird would just turn around and spread its wings  Wink



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10104 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 13):
The real question is, how would a bird perform on the conveyor belt?



Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 15):
The pigeon, however, will merely beat its wings at the merest movement of the belt and flutter off.

I don't know how the pigeons would do, but I think I'd hate to be the one who has to clean off the conveyor belt after they've been on it.....



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

This is all very interesting indeed. Nice reference re: bats there Osiris - thank you.

Figured I'd throw this into the mix;

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo.../read.main/228245/?threadid=228245

It's a long thread, but there's some interesting stuff in there - especially from Doclightning - about the structure (and efficiency or otherwise) of a bird's chosen aerodynamic behaviours.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2125 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 13):
The real question is, how would a bird perform on the conveyor belt?

Terribly - it doesn't have wheels, although it can power its feet whereas an aircraft doesn't drive its wheels.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Copying Flight Of Birds
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Virgin America Flight Crews posted Sun Nov 2 2008 09:46:33 by JETBLUEATASW
Same Flight Plan, Different Waypoints. Why? posted Fri Oct 31 2008 12:09:03 by Rotation18L
Flight Deck Colour Code. posted Fri Oct 24 2008 03:52:47 by HAWK21M
Do Winglets Affect Sideslipping/crosswind Flight? posted Mon Oct 20 2008 12:22:47 by Happy-flier
Stress On A/C From Simulated Weightless Flight posted Wed Oct 8 2008 16:17:44 by FlyASAGuy2005
Flight Deck Upgrades posted Thu Oct 2 2008 11:43:46 by Nycbjr
Does VSI Fluctuate In Level Flight? posted Wed Oct 1 2008 10:56:15 by Woody71
JAL Flight reported UFO's posted Sat Sep 20 2008 21:14:34 by Blackbird
Findings Of Radome Damage [Flight 478] posted Wed Sep 10 2008 07:56:00 by HAWK21M
Continental Flight 49 Routing Question posted Fri Aug 29 2008 13:11:27 by Fsnuffer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format