Human Bird Wings: Real or Fake?

There were several reasons posted as to why it's fake:

1) Not enough speed/flapping to be physically possible
Show me the evidence that its not. You can't just use the example that a hang glider has to travel faster than that, because a flapping wing generates significantly different lift coefficients to stationary wings. I wanna see the numbers to say it can't do it, not just "it doesn't look fast enough".
2) Camera height doesn't match on the split screen parts
3) Camera never moves to either side verifying that it is real
4) Clearly is CGI (to me, anyway)
I've watched it a few times and in the split screen part I really can't see how high he is clearly from either camera. Do you think the headcam rises too fast or something?

If you think it looks like CGI I'll just have to believe you... I don't really know anything about that.
 
He'd have to look like Arnold Swarzenegger to even consider this being possible. Also the wings would have to be a lot bigger to cover his body weight.
 
Show me the evidence that its not. You can't just use the example that a hang glider has to travel faster than that, because a flapping wing generates significantly different lift coefficients to stationary wings. I wanna see the numbers to say it can't do it, not just "it doesn't look fast enough".
I've watched it a few times and in the split screen part I really can't see how high he is clearly from either camera. Do you think the headcam rises too fast or something?

If you think it looks like CGI I'll just have to believe you... I don't really know anything about that.

My issue with the helmet cam is that it's perspective doesn't bounce around nearly enough compared to what we see from the side cam at takeoff. He's really getting shaken around right at takeoff and we see a relatively smooth lift off transition from the helmet cam...as if it's being recorded from a fixed wing craft rather than a flappy winged craft.

As for the people talking about a headwind, I don't see anyone's hair blowing around in the video, so I think this was done on a relatively calm day (as you'd want for a test flight, no need to complicate matters with wind gusts and a totally new control paradigm).
 
He'd have to look like Arnold Swarzenegger to even consider this being possible. Also the wings would have to be a lot bigger to cover his body weight.

Arnie wouldn't come close to being able to provide the power for it... hence why they used motors :p

Wing size, well, from the videos the wings look about 7-8m span and 1.5m chord. The largest bird which was thought to have flown was 70kg, 7m span and 1.1m chord (Argentavis), it was thought to have glided and would have needed a hefty run up to take off (possibly down a hill) and estimates have it requiring 600W to sustain level flapping flight. The Argentavis, however, didn't have the weight saving benefits of carbon fibre and 2000W electric motors strapped to its back.
 
My issue with the helmet cam is that it's perspective doesn't bounce around nearly enough compared to what we see from the side cam at takeoff. He's really getting shaken around right at takeoff and we see a relatively smooth lift off transition from the helmet cam...as if it's being recorded from a fixed wing craft rather than a flappy winged craft.

Mmmm, yeah ok, maybe. It does look like from the sidecam he's pitching his head back and forth a lot that you don't see on the GoPro. You would expect it to be less voilent shaking once he's in the air, on the ground it shakes as his legs move and in the air its with the wings, which flap with a lower frequency than his legs. But yeah, I see what you mean with the side camera making it look like his head is pitching a lot more than the GoPro would suggest.
 
You think the grass cuts itself? The kid in me wants to believe..but without more evidence I'd say this is fake.

You can see the tracks from the mower, and you can see the tracks of some kind of vehicle that happened to drive the same path that the guy "flew."
 
When he takes off it looks really fake to me. Just does not look realistic at all. I'm not saying that this is impossible, but I think that pigs will do this before we will.

Plus, as said by Kueller, the helmet cam looks fake too, and if I was ever going to fly like that, and I knew I had a camera on my head, I would look around everywhere, not just straight.

The whole thing screams fake to me, especially when he takes off. I mean, when he takes off, it reminds me of this. Look at around 1:28...
 
Folks,

Notice that the camera view of the person wearing the wings is blocked from time = 20 - 24 sec by one of the other people running toward the camera. The same thing happens when the guy lands at time = 1:04. These are classic tricks used to mask awkward transitions from CGI or superimposed footage back to real world footage.
 
You can see the tracks from the mower, and you can see the tracks of some kind of vehicle that happened to drive the same path that the guy "flew."

Lol, it couldn't POSSIBLY be the truck they drove in to get there could it...not sure why that's such an implausible explanation for the tracks.

Someone asks why you'd want to do this....hello?! How awesome would it be to go out to a nearby open field and be able to jump into the air, no fuel to buy, no license to spend thousands of dollars on to be allowed to fly along with the hundreds you spend a year to keep your license current. If you've never flown in a small ultra light type airplane then yes, it would be a bit hard to explain the freedom.

I genuinely hope this is real, I would give my balls to be able to fly like that.
 
Not sure if it is real or not, but back when I was a teenager, I had a triangle shaped box-kite that also had wings.

First time I used it, it lifted me off of the ground right before the heavy duty kite string I was using broke.

It wasn't very windy at all, and the kite was not more than 50ft in the air when it happened.
 
*sigh* so many armchair quarterbacks here spouting psudoscience nonsense.

1) His arm strength has nothing to do with it, so quite bringing that up. The device is controlled with electric motors.
2) It does not follow the (tire tracks), so quit using that as well. The camera views are off those tire tracks, crossing other sets numerous times. Try actually watching the entire video.
3) It was obviously quite windy and as such the wings have a large enough span that they could easily act as a glider given the circumstances. The flapping honestly could of largely been irrelevant.
4) The camera height was pretty consistent with the non first person shots. Seriously, I think some of you didn't bother to watch and are just parroting stupid crap posted by others.

My personal take on it is it is "Plausible" until proven one way or the other. The materials used, the surface area and all the other factors do lend some credibility. I want to see more hard proof before I buy into it. I am not willing to dismiss it as fake either.
 
I can tell you one reason why it's fake: his legs.

Without some sort of heavy straps, he wouldn't be able to hold his legs back like that.
 
Folks,

Notice that the camera view of the person wearing the wings is blocked from time = 20 - 24 sec by one of the other people running toward the camera. The same thing happens when the guy lands at time = 1:04. These are classic tricks used to mask awkward transitions from CGI or superimposed footage back to real world footage.

Yeah, it was hard for me to explain but it's definitely CGI. After watching enough CGI you can kind of pick it out.
 
Its hard to tell from this particular video, part 14, but I'll submit to you part 13:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&feature=relmfu

As a 3D animator with knowledge of compositing, they have two moments in part 13 where the camera conveniently looks down at the ground to swap in the CGI birdsuit. In addition, there is a rough oddness to the movement, particularly toward the end of his run far down field.

Part 14 also has this oddness of movement that most anyone, and particularly those in 3D animation involving motion capture, would notice quickly. Of the whole thing, the lift off sequence has the oddest of movement.

The final nail in the coffin is the triangular flap of fabric connecting between his legs. The use of a cloth simulation becomes obvious during the side-view sequence, because at multiple points you can see sharp points and planes forming on this supposed lightweight nylon/silk fabric.
 
Its hard to tell from this particular video, part 14, but I'll submit to you part 13:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&feature=relmfu

As a 3D animator with knowledge of compositing, they have two moments in part 13 where the camera conveniently looks down at the ground to swap in the CGI birdsuit. In addition, there is a rough oddness to the movement, particularly toward the end of his run far down field.

Part 14 also has this oddness of movement that most anyone, and particularly those in 3D animation involving motion capture, would notice quickly. Of the whole thing, the lift off sequence has the oddest of movement.

The final nail in the coffin is the triangular flap of fabric connecting between his legs. The use of a cloth simulation becomes obvious during the side-view sequence, because at multiple points you can see sharp points and planes forming on this supposed lightweight nylon/silk fabric.

The triangle piece of cloth was something I hadn't noticed. That certainly does make it suspicious.
 
I also don't buy the wind helping him, if the was a good stiff breeze, wouldn't he of been pushed backwards or greatly slowed considering he wasn't flapping very hard.
 
How anyone can believe this is real after seeing the part from 0:34 - 0:38 (2nd camera on takeoff) is beyond me. This video reminds me of the video of that supposed new sport where people run across the surface of water to see how far they can get. I had a friend who was convinced it was real and it took me a while to prove to him it couldn't possibly. These videos are trolling the entire internet.
 
Look at 0:34 you retards. Why is this even a discussion? The only thing guy this guy did successfully was generate revenue from some shitty effects and getting almost a million people to view it
 
3) It was obviously quite windy and as such the wings have a large enough span that they could easily act as a glider given the circumstances. The flapping honestly could of largely been irrelevant.
It doesn't look that windy actually. Nothing is blowing around, things that are hanging are just hanging and not swaying or anything.

As for the flapping being irrelevant, when he's going along there's noticable periods of lift which are timed with the downstroke, so there might be something to that, and it seems like its producing a bit of thrust to get him up to speed.

My personal thought is, to fly you need to have a lift coefficient such that...

CL = L/(0.5*rho*V^2*S)

Where L is lift, rho is density, V is air speed and S is surface area.

If we say he's travelling 5m/s (18km/h) with the help of a bit of headwind, which is a decent running speed, and say he and his contraption weigh 90kg, the dimensions look about 7m span and 1.5...

90*9.8/(0.5*1.225*5^2*7*1.5) = 5.5

That's an exceptionally high lift coefficient that I think is out of the realm of even flapping wings. If you say there's a decent headwind, maybe so he's about 8m/s (30km/h, being quite generous there I think), required CL drops to about 2.1. Still too high for a stationary well designed single element wing, and pushing the limits of a dual element wing, well within reach of a 3 element wing, certainly well out of the range of a non-flapping wing made of material blowing around in the breeze like he has there, so I doubt pure glider action would be keeping him aloft there. Also if he weren't generating thrust in that sort of headwind he'd very quickly slow down and probably be going backwards, so if its real, it must be generating thrust if nothing else.

The flapping frequency looks about 1.5Hz, the tip amplitude is about 1.5m, by my quick maths that gives a peak tip speed of 14m/s, RMS tip speed of about 10m/s, so the tip would be in separated flow I'd think... but for that sort of geometry and Reynolds number I don't really know if that's beneficial or not, and that's only the tip, the root doesn't move a hell of a lot so wouldn't benefit from flapping dynamics nearly as much. So that's a big question mark, can the flapping wing perform so much better than a stationary one to get maybe double the lift coefficient. It also raises the point that the wing spanwise flexibility looks a bit odd to me, maybe its just not as flexible as I think it is though, its just doesn't quite look right for a root-driven flapping.

If it is running 2x2kW motors and the wings are imparting even a quarter of that to the air, yeah, maybe that's enough. As I mentioned earlier, calculations on the largest soaring bird which had similar dimensions (but would have been maybe 10-20kg lighter) gave estimates on glide speed of 18m/s and 0.6W power. So with those motors, its in the ball park of what it needs, but 18m/s is 60km/h... though that's a glide speed not a "fast flap", the two aren't really interchangable except for very low flapping frequencies at very high speeds.

The wing loading is about 90/(7*1.5) = 8.6, which when compared on the "Great Flight Diagram" puts it off to the left a little bit, but still in the realm of possibility...

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~tchklovs/Proposal_files/image008.jpg
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~tchklovs/Proposal.htm
 
impressive kite they built, amazing that they could get a person up in the air with it. A little silly to think to that a person with a wingspan some 20 times a bird, weighing 100 times a bird would be able to get off the ground.
 
Speaking as a bit of an expert on bird flight, the wingspan is enough to barely act as a glider in a heavy headwind. The "flapping" involved on this device is nowhere near sufficient to generate any kind of powered lift. When a bird's wing moves, it is not just a mild up and down motion as others have rightly said. On a powered takeoff, depending on the bird, the wing tips can travel through a full 180 degree arc on the downstroke, and the wings are folded toward the body on the upstroke to avoid wasting gained altitude. In addition, the primary feathers are vaned in such a way that on a downstroke they lock together to form a single nearly-rigid surface, while on the upstroke the individual feathers turn to allow air spillage through the wings. Add to this the aerodynamic design of the avian body itself - also acting as a lift generating surface - and the fact that the avian body has nine air sacks connected to the lungs to reduce physical density as well as provide enough oxygen to power the massive flight muscles - and I do mean massive. Without the proper weight-saving and density-reducing adaptations for flight this contraption could not work. The pilot and rig would have to weigh no more than 90 lbs. Consider this:

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/nathan_earls.dir/intro_slide.html

That's the size lifting surface necessary for sustained gliding flight for human mass. Now compare the so-called "bird wings" to that glider. Do the "bird wings" have enough surface area to lift a 170 lb human without hurricane-force headwinds? I severely doubt it.

If you want some facts about bird flight, and why physics does not lend itself favorably toward this, look here:

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/554notes3.html

Regarding the videos, I see the camera transitions in video 13, and in video 14, during the camera zoom the shadow of the subject is hidden during lift-off by the person walking into the frame, and the "helmet cam" inset conveniently covers where a real shadow should be over the water. The person walking across the frame during "landing" is also a point of contention. Until there is a full, non-cut film that includes take-off, flight, and landing in a single take with the camera in focus on the person the whole time, and preferably single takes all done from multiple angles, I believe this to be a hoax.
 
This video proves alot of things. Like

1. The green "Like" bar is a great indication on how many dumbasses are on YouTube
2. CGI and "miracle music" is effective in generating YouTube revenue
 
Here's what makes me believe it's fake: he is not carrying enough batteries for even a short flight. There isn't a clear shot of the apparatus on his back, but it doesn't look big enough to contain large motors and batteries. Someone mentioned 3000 watt motors. I don't know where they got that number, doesn't sound big enough to me, but even those would be heavy. I also agree with the comment about his legs during flight. Try to hold your legs out like that while being supported by your upper torso; it's not easy or natural.

This one just does not pass the smell test.
 
On a powered takeoff, depending on the bird, the wing tips can travel through a full 180 degree arc on the downstroke, and the wings are folded toward the body on the upstroke to avoid wasting gained altitude. In addition, the primary feathers are vaned in such a way that on a downstroke they lock together to form a single nearly-rigid surface, while on the upstroke the individual feathers turn to allow air spillage through the wings.

That tends to be on birds that take off from a standing start in still wind. Large birds that can only take off in a headwind or after a running start like an albatross tend to not fold their wings on the upstroke and instead use pitch control to minimise downforce during an upstroke...

Albatross take off...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ZdtN69xF8

Insects also don't fold their wings, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Also, all those things you say are well and good, but this thing flew...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HQQYOAL0A

It did have to get going to a much higher speed before it got off the ground though, and it weighed a lot (320kg). It also had a 24hp engine, where as Smeets is saying he's got a 3hp engine (though I dunno it that's 3hp each or 3hp for one)
http://www.ornithopter.net/Publications/TheDevelopmentandTestingofaFull-ScalePilotedOrnithopter.pdf

You also picked quite a large hang glider, there are ones with a smaller wing than what you posted...
http://www.australian-hang-gliding-history.com/articles/photos/2006-hang-glider.jpg

That and you can't really compare a hang glider to a flapper, a hang glider or most man made aircraft has to generate lift purely from static lift coefficients.

I personally think it was a fake, it got off the ground a bit too easy, too much of it doesn't look right, granted very elaborate fake since they've been at it for almost a year... though I don't think its far from reality and a similar device that works could be made by a knowledgable researcher and engineer.
 
People at wired think this is possible? I have suddenly lost all respect for them.
x2

Are you kidding me? Just look at the horrible, jerky CGI when he takes off. CGI has a long way to go before it looks completely natural.

Not to mention that he just magically takes off, even though his speed and flapping remain the same.

Come on, humanity.
 
Large birds that can only take off in a headwind or after a running start like an albatross tend to not fold their wings on the upstroke and instead use pitch control to minimise downforce during an upstroke...
That's due to the shape of the wing on an Albatross. The wings on this apparatus are broader, more like a hawk's or eagle's wings.

Also, all those things you say are well and good, but this thing flew...
The Spruce Goose flew as well. Raw power can overcome aerodynamic design deficiencies to a point.

You also picked quite a large hang glider, there are ones with a smaller wing than what you posted...
http://www.australian-hang-gliding-history.com/articles/photos/2006-hang-glider.jpg
Smaller wing, yes, but still not nearly as small as what's in use here.

That and you can't really compare a hang glider to a flapper, a hang glider or most man made aircraft has to generate lift purely from static lift coefficients.
If there's insufficient lift area to work as a pure glider, then the flapping must generate enough lift to overcome the deficiency. If that flapping is deficient, and the gliding is deficient, then it cannot work at all. I'm seeing the entire system as being deficient.

I personally think it was a fake, it got off the ground a bit too easy, too much of it doesn't look right, granted very elaborate fake since they've been at it for almost a year... though I don't think its far from reality and a similar device that works could be made by a knowledgable researcher and engineer.

I'm not sure why you're taking issue with anything I said then if we both think it's a hoax. :confused:

As for plausibility of a properly engineered man-portable flapping machine, yes, the mechanics are possible and the materials science is there today, but R&D cost and testing is a significant limiting factor. It would take a very dedicated and smart individual with significant resources (a really rich bastard) to make it a reality.
 
Hey guys, if you liked this, you should check this out. It is a new bat species they just discovered in New York City! The gracefulness of its flight is just amazing.
 
As real as this:
ManBearPig_Was_So_Last_Year_by_xXFixMyBrokenHeartXx.jpg
 
P.S. Hate to break it to you guys, but the Transformers also aren't real. Sorry guys. :(
 
That's due to the shape of the wing on an Albatross. The wings on this apparatus are broader, more like a hawk's or eagle's wings.
Eagles when they get up a bit of speed are the same. On take off they fold their wings on upstroke, once they have a bit of speeds its more up/down motion. The angle of attack available (and required) is less due to the freestream flow, so they don't need to fold their wings to reduce downforce on upstroke, they can do it with pitch control, which is how the DeLaurier ornithopter works as well.

Like this Eagle video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjDrGVkhdUw

Its folding its wings a lot when it takes off, but once its got up even just a bit of speed it doesn't need to anymore.
The Spruce Goose flew as well. Raw power can overcome aerodynamic design deficiencies to a point.
True, I wouldn't say 24hp is a lot of power for a 320kg flapping machine though ;)
If there's insufficient lift area to work as a pure glider, then the flapping must generate enough lift to overcome the deficiency. If that flapping is deficient, and the gliding is deficient, then it cannot work at all. I'm seeing the entire system as being deficient.
No doubt. I'm not sure how insufficient it truely is though. Your comparing the pure glider to gliders, which its not, and comparing flapping to a bird, which its not. Birds have very strict structural and power limits. This is flapping quite fast for its size and forward velocity, which may put its aerodynamics closer to that of insects (I haven't done the scaling calcs to check). The link you posted mentions the Argentavis, which is the largest supposed soaring bird, which is lighter than this contraption with similar (but slightly smaller) wings.

For sustained flight they think the Argentavis needed 600W of power, but its muscles could only supply 170W by computer estimates, which is why they think it needed a big run up down a hill to get off the ground and glided around on updrafts more than anything because it didn't have the required 600W. This contraption supposedly has 2kW motors, as you said, raw power can overcome aerodynamic deficencies. ;)

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12233.full

I'm not sure why you're taking issue with anything I said then if we both think it's a hoax. :confused:

As for plausibility of a properly engineered man-portable flapping machine, yes, the mechanics are possible and the materials science is there today, but R&D cost and testing is a significant limiting factor. It would take a very dedicated and smart individual with significant resources (a really rich bastard) to make it a reality.

While I think its a hoax I think its an interesting topic as far as physics is concerned ;)

If no one has made one in the future when I get around to it, I would love to try my hand at designing a practical man-carrying ornithopter. ;) You can get some very high power densities out of various engines these days. Even if you don't look at electric, you have motorcycle engines that can push 100+hp for less than 50kg, or little 2 stroke go-kart engines that weigh bugger all and can get 20-30hp. Students have designed human powered ornithopters, which admittedly don't have the power to take off themselves, but can sustain height and speed for short periods off the 2-3hp a healthy athlete can provide.

I don't see it overtaking fixed wing flight, but when materials and power sources reach the point of overcoming the traditional inertial, structural and power limits of ornithopters, there's some potential there for some interesting flying machines :)
 
Back
Top