Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/02/24/incredible-slo-mo-video-of-rap.html
…
5 Likes
coolest thing I’ve seen all day
4 Likes
A fun side-perk of the legalization and corporatization of weed is that opportunity to claim a conspiracy that research priorities are being influenced by Big Weed.
Exhibit A: 0:49, bubble vortices created by the passing wings of an owl form the face of an Owl-ancient
3 Likes
3 Likes
Boy, are they going to be disappointed when they find out this principle has been in use for like 80 years already. Competition free flight (meaning non-RC) model airplanes have used lifting tails since the 30’s - note the CG at about 80% of the wing chord instead of the conventional 25-35%, to keep the tail lift from making it pitch nose down:
Of a similar time frame, but manned, were Henri Mignet’s Pou du Ciel designs, which took the concept even further to become a tandem-winged craft:
4 Likes
Almost as incredible as this bird’s double-take of a dung-cam.
2 Likes
Right. But free-flight models don’t have any control surfaces, so they can have tiny stability margins, barely above neutral. It’s only aircraft that need to maneuver (i.e. that need to have either movable elevators or all-moving stabilizers) that have to choose between stability and a lifting tail. Or, to be more specific: The closer the angle of incidence of the tail is to the angle of incidence of the wing, the less you can maneuver before going unstable. So the more maneuvering you want to do, the less the tail can lift (or the more the tail has to generate downforce) before you go unstable. Of course, instability is acceptable if you have fly-by-wire or, y’know, a nervous system.
This is all true of tandem-wing airplanes (like the Flea of the Sky) and canard airplanes. The forward surface has to be at a higher angle of incidence than the aft surface. This means that either the aft surface is at a very low angle of attack (i.e. not making a lot of lift per square foot, but still making as much drag as any other square foot on the airplane) or the forward surface is at a very high angle of attack (i.e. making a lot of induced drag, and relatively close to a stall). In other words, either the back wing or the forward wing is at an angle of attack that is draggier than the optimal range of angles that wings like to cruise at.
So, long story short: As with all airplane design features, there are pros and cons. The only way to aerodynamically have your cake and eat it too (i.e. have both the wings and the tail making a decent amount of lift, at an angle of attack that is not too draggy) is to be able to deal with instability (i.e. with FBW or a nervous system).
5 Likes
I think the researchers are lucky the birds don’t come and claw their eyes out for tricking them like that.
1 Like
Fuckin’ owls. How do they work?
3 Likes
Sufuckinperbally!
2 Likes
They seemed to be trying hard to justify their research so they could get some more funding. Cool video, but I don’t see any great discoveries.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
