Status: Undetermined
I'm no aeronautical engineer, so I'm not qualified to say if the plane featured on the website of
JCR Technology could fly or not, though it sure doesn't look to me like it would ever get off the ground. Apparently it's supposed to fly by means of eight flapping wings, located on either side of the plane. The website is entirely in French, so I can't determine if this is simply some kind of thought experiment, or a real plane that someone is trying to build. Definitely check out the computer-graphic simulations of the plane flying (look under the 'images' tab). Even in the simulations, it doesn't look like it could fly. There's a
photostream on Flickr showing a crosssection of this plane being displayed at the Salon International des Inventions in Geneva, which seems to be a convention for people with crazy inventions.
Comments
Ornithopter-style planes have been thought up for years.. Main problem being that moving that much mass takes energy. While it might work, it sure as hell wouldn't be efficient, or quiet.
Personally, what I'm interested in is some reasearch that's been done on 'semi-dirigibles'.. half plane, half airship. Relies on lift gas but also a bit of speed to keep it up, but allows for much larger cabin section.
http://www.ornithopter.org/
http://www.ornithopter.org/birdflight/
Sure, helicopters also have a small airfoil surface area compared to their weight, but then that's a completely different motion from these wing-paddle things.
They haven't discovered any new principles of aerodynamics or made any breakthroughs in technology. They just claim that, if they wave those wings fast enough and in the right sequence, then they can get airborne. Which is exactly the same technique tried by people for centuries, without success.
They do mention that they think this will work well for submarines and boats, and for that it very well might. It would be just like using oars. They also mention using it on land vehicles, which seems rather fanciful to me. What really makes me wonder, though, is where they mention using this technology for spaceflight in a vacuum. That's such complete nonsense that it makes me question the rest of their work.
I checked out and found the interview article of JCR Cameroon origin inventor (French site buta-connection.net ). JCR presented this concept inspired by insect flying at famous Bourget Air show last year (I checked it, it is true) but the authorities did not give them permit to fly JCR002 with human pilot, so they just exhibited the static model of JCR001.
According to the inventor, this plane with vertical take-off/landing capacity is safer and less noisy than ordinary plane and may attract many people of his continent who cannot afford traveling in jetplane.
I doubt strongly this plane could really fly with today's technology
This is clearly a joke. Aerodynamically speaking it is not even an attractive brick. Being so obviously a joke, please take my comments purely in the spirit of scientific conjecture. I wouldn
However, the wing design does have one interesting feature: the metal wing frame has flexible segments hanging down from the underside sort of like steps on a ladder. This means that on the downsweep, the flexible segments are pressed against the frame to create a closed surface. On the upsweep, the segments open up to allow air to pass through, thus creating much less drag/downward lift than on the downsweep.
But of course the design is still complete garbage. Even if enough power could be generated, the wings would shake themselves to bits at the required speeds. Perhaps the nicest thing to say is that it might work underwater as a flapping submarine.
Their translator's not very good either. See "air immobilisation" (hovering?), "very big portance" (importance?), "very weak congestion" (slight nasal problems?). And don't forget "conviviality" and "evolutivity," which, AFAIK, are not words at all!
JCR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
3500 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY
DOVER , DE 19901, USA.
Tel/Fax : (00 1) 302 213 91 61
I saw the following contribution some where on this web site...
"Real Discoveries Dismissed as Hoaxes
Status: Not Hoaxes
A few days ago the Financial Times ran a brief list of major technological breakthroughs that were either ignored or ridiculed. This raises an interesting issue: the danger of over-skepticism, or dismissing startling new discoveries as hoaxes simply because one refuses to believe that anything new or out-of-the-ordinary can be real. I can't find a link to the FT story, but here's a summary of their list:
The Wright Brothers' discovery of flight: "When two American bicycle repairmen claimed to have built the world's firstaircraft in 1903, they were dismissed as cranks. Newspapers refused to send reporters or photographers to witness any of the flights. More than two years later, Scientific American magazine was still insisting that the story was a hoax. By that time, the Wright brothers had completed a half-hour flight covering 24 miles."
Steam Turbine Propulsion: "The claim of Irish engineer Charles Parsons to have developed a radically new form of marine propulsion was scorned by the Admiralty, until his steam turbine vessel made an unauthorised appearance at the 1897 Spithead naval review going at 37 knots - faster than any other vessel in the fleet."
Atoms as a source of energy: "The idea that atoms could be a source of energy millions of times more potent than coal or oil was dismissed by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ernest Rutherford as "moonshine"."
Amorphous semiconductor materials: "During the 1950s, self-taught American physicist Stanford Ovshinsky found a way of creating materials lacking a regular crystal structure - an achievement dismissed as impossible by scientists. They are now standard components in devices ranging from flat-panel displays to solar cells."
Lasers: "While developing the technology behind the laser, American physicist Charles Townes was approached by two Nobel-Prize-winning colleagues who told him he was wasting his time and threatening their funding. Even after the first laser was built in 1960, it was described as "a solution looking for a problem"."
The Scanning Tunnelling Microscope: "The Scanning Tunnelling Microscope (STM), invented by scientists at IBM in Zurich in the early 1980s, now plays a key role in fields ranging from biology to nanotechnology. But many scientists remained deeply suspicious of the claims made for the STM until its inventors won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1986."
Thee are dozens of successful RC ornithopters flying every day.....and there are several teams around the world working on full-size, manned ornithopters. We have already achieved unassisted lift-offs and are on the verge of successful, sustained flight.
Here's the URL to the video of one of the lift-off tests of the U Of T ornithopter C-GPTR for which I was the test pilot.
http://www.ornithopter.net/images/full-scale.mpg
There are also people working on tandem wing designs which will improve efficiency by capturing the wake shed by the front wing with the leading edge of the rear wing. Far from destroying lift , it will increase it, if done properly.
However, regarding the picture at the top of the page of the multi-winged aircraft.....it certainly does seem to be a hoax that would be incapable of flight due to the design, construction and size of the wings and overall poor design. I agree that it might make a decent underwater vehicle but I can't see it soaring the skies !
Many different methods of research are being used from actual observation and high speed video in a wing tunnel to robotic flappers to CFD and we now have a very good picture of the flapping wing kinematics and dynamics of birds, bats and insects.
Unfortunately most of this research is directed towards producing MAVs.
However there are a few groups around the world currently working on full-size, piloted [ie: 'manned'] ornithopters. Todays ornithopters are sophisticated aircraft with aeroelastically tailored wings designed to twist and bend appropriately during the flapping cycle. Even so, it would be impossible to replicate the wing kinematics of a bird or bat and so we choose those that we think most important for the higher Re of a full-size aircraft. eg variable stroke plane angle, active pitch control of the spar etc etc.
There are many problems to be overcome to successfully sustain flight in a full-size ornithopter...and this is why it hasn't been done yet !! The University Of Toronto has been testing a full-size ornithopter since 1996. I was the first test- pilot and did all the prototype testing up to the maximum speed of 56mph and including the first lift-offs [we accelerated unassisted [ie using the ornithopter's own engine] from zero to lift-off speed 50mph and then intentionally lifted off]
It took 2 years of testing to achieve this. The problem, of course, is the high speed bouncing of an ornithopter.
We did not go out of ground effect.
The U Of T 'Project Ornithopter' website URL is http://www.ornithopter.net I was their test pilot for 7 years . I resigned eventually in order to work full time on my own design which I hope to start testing this summer.
Some researchers are completely bypassing the problems of take-off by simply towing the ornithopter aloft. This doesn't prove anything in my view.
(OK, so I stole that from Carl Sagan. So sue me 😊 )
and tested a plane with flapping wing drive only, without propellers, without jet motors.
During a test this plane with one pilot on board took off and flied approximately 750 meters in air.
Their translator's not especially good either. See "air check" (hovering?), "very big portico" (importance?), "very weak congestion" (slight nasal problems?)! And don't fail to remember "conviviality" and "volatility," which, AFAIK, are not terms at every!