Found a page that has at least a 3-D render of the device.

http://ftnews.firetrench.com/?p=14229

Not sure if thats the final design, or an early concept render.

Posted at 1:01 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Brian

Seems like there may have been inspiration from hummingbirds in the wing orientation?

Posted at 1:26 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Akoi Meexx

looks like it works great if you dont have any of that pesky air moving around by itself – you know: wind, or hvac systems – notice all the plastic presumably to stop air movement.

this is where attempts like this seem very cool on the surface – until you see a bee, dragonfly, hummingbird, etc, flying outside with such ease. nature holds all trump cards.

Posted at 1:41 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by bingobango

@bingobango

It took nature millions, even billions(depending on when you start counting), of years to come up with tiny flying creatures.
Lets say in the wide scope of things, this project started with the Wright brother’s, which is a little more than a century ago.

I’d say humanity holds the winning hand here.

Posted at 2:06 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Jeeves

too cute, i want one

Posted at 2:17 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by vikki

yeah.. all kids of trump cards… like a tail….

Posted at 2:22 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Vash_Sin

give it a small gps reader, it can deliver messages.

Posted at 4:11 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by sunjester

my question is, what advantages do ornithopters have over a standard heli? i fly radio controlled helicopters, and have a couple r/c ornithopters. I have a heli that is about the same size as that, yet it is much more controllable, and can handle a bit of wind. I fail to see the point, other than the neato factor of a hovering ornithopter.

Posted at 5:10 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Jive

Here comes the meshing of technology a biology. I now won’t be able to tell if this hummingbird is real or is a robot. Great!

Posted at 5:39 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by 36chambers

@ jive

Your helis are more controllable, but are also a much simple design, spinning wings the pitch.

a stander heli in nothing has to do with evolution of flight, you can just extend heli tech to a certain point, were the ornithopters resemble the technique used by insects, insects crash and don’t fall, they can fly fast or hover slow, change direction in a blink of an eye, this is great news, and in some time or in many years to come it will help in the evolution of flight and better understanding of aerodynamics…

Posted at 6:48 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by m1ke

ornithopters will help in aerodynamic research, and from there in better and more efficient wing forms for planes and helicopters..

Posted at 6:55 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by m1ke

but can it twitter?

Posted at 8:28 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Brad (halconnen)

@brad: yeah, I wonder why they muted the audio track…?

Posted at 9:43 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Kyle McDonald

I found a pic at http://www.avav.com/uas/adc/nano/

No mechanical details, but by the looks of it, I’d be willing to bet that the wings themselves provide no more control than throttle.

I would venture to guess that it uses some sort of internal pendulum to control CG, and an internal dual axis gyro controlling it with a R/C override.

Just a guess.

Posted at 10:45 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Godd

@jive

The tendency for flighted vehicles is the more unstable the craft the more overall maneuverability the craft has.

In R/C planes & helis, sport planes are far less stable than trainers and helis are less stable than sport planes.

Posted at 10:50 pm on Jul 1st, 2009 by Godd

“The tendency for flighted vehicles is the more unstable the craft the more overall maneuverability the craft has.”

I guess that makes sense and also seems like a bit of chaos theory could apply.

Posted at 5:21 am on Jul 2nd, 2009 by lessermilton

@ godd: Throttle? You intend to say for thrust.

For the rest of you – as already mentioned this is great for aerodynamic research; the closer we get to nature’s flight (or any) techniques, the better we understand how to improve our own.

because we do all agree: nature kicks man’s ass at engineering. so man has a tendency to try and learn from nature’s ridiculous talent.

It’s fantastic. Once we figure out how to make an engine that natively reciprocates (take out the crankshaft and hook directly into the piston?), there might even be room for competition between types.

perhaps an engine that natively reciprocates would need two fuels, one that combusts quickly and one that does it slowly; then if you had a simple weighted piston with combustion chambers above and below, you could speed or slow the ‘flapping’ of wings by varying the mixture of fuels in each trip of the piston.

Posted at 8:38 am on Jul 2nd, 2009 by Dan Fruzzetti

@godd looks like they took down that picture…

is there a battery on that thing? or is it tethered.. i can’t make it out from the video.

Posted at 10:21 am on Jul 2nd, 2009 by cclaan

@cclaan

Damn, it was pretty nifty looking. Like a big headed Humming Bird with plumage.

And yeah, it was battery powered. Most likely Li-po. For obvious reasons. Ha.

@Dan Fruzzetti

Ha, sorry. I’m used to gas powered propulsion. (i.e. controls for increasing/decreasing throttle as to a direct relationship to increasing/decreasing thrust). But you understood what I meant to say.

Posted at 8:24 pm on Jul 2nd, 2009 by Godd

Also, the pic isn’t down. The birdy looking thing is the craft. Just with camouflage. Ha

Also, one would think that a reciprocating motor, you’d lose alot of energy. Specifically one half. You’d have to not only power the piston in one direction but slow it down from the opposite direction. With a cranked motor, you only have to supply energy to maintain the rotation. You still have loss from the reciprocation of the crank, but with the design they use, all of that goes to thrust.

Posted at 8:36 pm on Jul 2nd, 2009 by Godd

@godd:

absolutely understood what you meant to say, but in case others didn’t i wanted to clarify it. i think you have a point about reciprocation as opposed to rotary motors, but i had a couple thoughts on that.

first, you can use a solenoid or an electric motor arranged like a voice coil for excursion to get the reciprocating motion you want.

second, a simple sliding mechanism can be used to convert rotary motion into reciprocating motion (as the reverse happens in your gas engine, it should be pretty easy to see). you’re right, though, that you’re going to lose some of that motor efficiency as not as much of the output will be converted to thrust.

At the same time, clever use of the wings could up the efficiency pretty well — think like swimming. The wings would twist during the wing recovery phase so they gave almost no downward thrust.

I’m still waiting to see when they can add a second joint in the wing more like a bird – they’re not just for folding the wings up!

Posted at 12:43 pm on Jul 4th, 2009 by Dan Fruzzetti

Well, this enterprise makes some war artifacts, see their page. I don’t like this, and I don’t think that a site that shows hacks open designs and this kind of things must promote this.
I don’t like things to kill other people, even if it’s a little plane to spy the “enemy”, it is designed as a war artifact. I must repeat, see their page.

Regards.

Posted at 2:23 pm on Jul 8th, 2009 by Dieggo Bouvier

@Dieggo:

The internet you just posted on was created from funds that were dispersed by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a US department of defense agency, the same agency that funded this work. If you don’t see the peacetime implications and uses of this technology (along with the internet), at least the US military does…

Posted at 12:35 pm on Nov 11th, 2009 by GeneralERA