Who needs a quad-copter when you can FLY LIKE A BIRD?

H

HHL

Veteran
Man has tried this for so long that I can't even believe that it's real!!?? Is this a HOAX?? (If so...apologies to all)



Who's the first one to buy from DVXUser? I nominate Barry....or maybe Kholi? :evil:

I wonder if it comes with a crotch mount for your camera? :nads:

Hmmm....time will tell! Enjoy guys and have fun!!!
 
Isn't it great to live in a time when THIS JUST MIGHT BE POSSIBLE. And for film makers (like the folks on DVXUser)....we know that even if it's NOT POSSIBLE....

IT IS POSSIBLE....to create special effects realistic enough to convince everyone that IT IS REAL.

Time to MAN UP!

Put your name and reputation on the line:

Real or HOAX? (This could get embarrassing!)

Aaaaand!

ps...HX9 and a belt mount for the camera. (I'm not sure there is such a thing, oh well, it would fit right in with the wings?)



What camera will YOU USE to shoot on this bad boy if it is real!!!??? (lol!)

I guess I'd better start out: I'm going "OUT ON A LIMB"...pun intended....and I'll say that THIS IS REAL! (lol!)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...ium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=twitterclickthru

MAN UP!!!!
 
This looks perfectly legitimate with one big problem. He did not build up take off speed before going into a climb. STOL with the added weight of a human and an increased power system (compared to RC models that can do this) is at best difficult. I would need to see the math behind it to say for sure. I also don't like his landing. Instead of gliding to the ground he managed to change the angle of the wings in such a way that they acted as air brakes during the last bit of the descent, which adds a whole dynamic to the control mechanism that seems a bit far fetched, especially for a first attempt. The wings also may not be under full load during flight from looking at it, but I'm not watching it at full resolution and I don't know how the underlying supports are designed. Ornithopters have been piloted before and while this would be an extreme improvement on the design it wouldn't be the first. The Snowbird would be the first, but that was towed up.

Even with all that, I'm not exactly going to say fake. Instead, I'm going to say that we're not seeing everything at play. If he had a proper wind and ran at an incline that we may not be able to see this could be augmented gliding. I think it's fake in that the wings aren't doing very much and the take off ability is greatly exaggerated here.

I've never flown an ornithopter or a glider, so I don't pretend to be an expert on how they work. I'm not even an expert on fixed wings, but I have enough experience with them to create a moderately informed opinion.
 
Last edited:
Also, when I watched it there was an ad at the top for Android by Virgin. They'd be the company I'd expect to fund this kind of marketing campaign. Which is almost as interesting as the proposed device itself.

Sorry that seems to in bold. I don't know what my cat hit when she walked over the keyboard just now.
 
Cassius said:
Also, when I watched it there was an ad at the top for Android by Virgin. They'd be the company I'd expect to fund this kind of marketing campaign. Which is almost as interesting as the proposed device itself.

Sorry that seems to in bold. I don't know what my cat hit when she walked over the keyboard just now.
Click to expand...

Ad campaign is a worthy offender for sure. Could very well be.....
 
Cassius said:
This looks perfectly legitimate with one big problem. He did not build up take off speed before going into a climb. STOL with the added weight of a human and an increased power system (compared to RC models that can do this) is at best difficult. I would need to see the math behind it to say for sure. I also don't like his landing. Instead of gliding to the ground he managed to change the angle of the wings in such a way that they acted as air brakes during the last bit of the descent, which adds a whole dynamic to the control mechanism that seems a bit far fetched, especially for a first attempt. The wings also may not be under full load during flight from looking at it, but I'm not watching it at full resolution and I don't know how the underlying supports are designed. Ornithopters have been piloted before and while this would be an extreme improvement on the design it wouldn't be the first. The Snowbird would be the first, but that was towed up.

Even with all that, I'm not exactly going to say fake. Instead, I'm going to say that we're not seeing everything at play. If he had a proper wind and ran at an incline that we may not be able to see this could be augmented gliding. I think it's fake in that the wings aren't doing very much and the take off ability is greatly exaggerated here.

I've never flown an ornithopter or a glider, so I don't pretend to be an expert on how they work. I'm not even an expert on fixed wings, but I have enough experience with them to create a moderately informed opinion.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha! You're doing the same thing as me. Nah...this isn't possible. No way....but then again, I've seen COUNTLESS people get SLAMMED doing nothing more than flying a KITE.


Aaaaaaand...kite surfing. CRAZY wipe outs here. I know that we're talking about someone creating the proper amount of lift with NO APPARENT WIND...(like in there video)...but...I'm just not CERTAIN that it's NOT POSSIBLE. Lol!


 
Last edited:
OK, OK....so in the right conditions, there is no question that a "kite" can CERTAINLY lift a human WITH EASE. I know that doesn't mean that this joker has done the "human winged flight" thingy....but here's another dumb human flying crazy high with a kite.

 
OK....so I don't think this is real. I do think that it is POSSIBLE in the right conditions (which makes it like hand gliding or kite surfing or anything else). In the first video, I hear "wind"....but I don't think it's enough....(to lift a human).....and it doesn't seem like the mechanism is good enough to lift ALONE without wind assistance.

So....I'm changing my vote (lol): This vid (the first one) is a hoax in my opinion. With enough wind, I'll happily change my vote. Cheers!
 
Interesting. First of all aerodynamics is not something I know too much about, although as a life sciences undergrad I did study a bit about bird, bat and insect flight. I'm also a very experienced naturalist, a good observer, especially of animal behaviour. Something doesn't quite look right to me with the take off and climb. I'm used to watching heavy birds like Mute Swans take off and normally they have to get a fair bit of speed up before they can climb like that. Birds don't normally get in air and then just down stroke to climb at low forward speed, especially heavy ones. The other thing is that we don't really get a clear view of is the whole sequence of events from the same angle. The editing makes it difficult to follow the whole flight and difficult to know whether we are actually watching a continuous sequence of events. Likewise the GoPro insert in the bottom right obscures a lot of the view.

Having now watched it a few times I think I can spot apparent discrepancies in the footage, which appears to indicate that it was not all of the same sequence of events, but I can't be certain because of the blurry footage and how short the clips are. First of all there are clearly differences in shadows and the strength of light in the video. It could just be clouds over the sun, but the shadows cast by trees appear and disappear. Likewise from the start you would expect the shadows to be pointing towards the camera person to the right, but in their footage the shadows look a different angle pointing to their right. A bigger discrepancy is that the head cam aerial footage appears to show the pilot almost over the path following it to the right. Whereas the camera from behind appears to show the flight path well to the left of the path. For most of the sequence the camera angle from the rear, and flight path is aligned with the tower block in the distance, but when it's coming into land, the camera position appears to have shifted well to the left. You can see some tire tracks on the grass from the aerial footage, and they seem to meet the path only in the distance. The head cam appears to show the landing not far from where the tire tracks meet the path. However the rear camera appear to show the landing well before that point, apparently adjacent to the line of bushes to the left.

Given all that I am a bit sceptical that we are seeing what the video purports to show. I might be well wrong and it could just be all because of the blurry wideangle footage. However, I'm just saying what I saw in the footage, and I'm not trying to speculate too much about what I didn't see or what it means. Single continuous footage from one camera would have made it easier to follow the sequence of events. I'm a natural sceptic, but an open minded one. Please note how I say appears, as appearances can be deceptive.
 
Th motion blur on the wings makes it look 99.9% fake. Go look at other "actual" attempts from other folks actually trying it and compare the motion blur of the flapping. Great idea but to trained eyes, definitely fake. Humans are too heavy and if we had wings we'll def need 100x the energy to keep afloat.
 
It's fake. I can tell by the pixels.

But really, it doesn't look even look kinda airworthy. The wings do not move NEARLY enough to generate lift and then minimize drag. Watch any bird, you'll see how much they have to flap and twist just to get off the ground. You don't simply flap wings up and down and magically rise. Then the previously mentioned problems with airspeed, movement, edits, etc.

Also, this has been tried for centuries. If someone was going to figure it out, I don't think it would be some random dudes in a field :tongue:
 
Last edited:
btw. Whilst I'm breaking my rules about speculation, the tire tracks on the grass and where the head cam footage appears to be following the path maybe significant.
 
I can't believe this doesn't outright set off more dvxuser's bullshit detectors. Like it never occurred to anyone to attach some wings to their back and try to fly before this guy, or that the right technique was the only thing holding anyone back. You would have to generate a ridiculous amount of force with your arms and have a 40ft wingspan with weightless wings to achieve what that video is purporting. There's a reason why every human powered aircraft has involved some sort of alternative mechanism (like pedals) to power the wings. Think about how light a bird is relative to it's wingspan, and they still have pectoral muscles that make up 35% of their mass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top