actually, we don't have pterodactyl DNA really. If we did we would've cloned one a while ago. With time, DNA breaks up. Dinosaur DNA is too broken up for us to currently work with. Also, don't mechanical arms have slower reaction times? Also I've seen that they're also pretty clumsy and slow. Wings would have to be flapping somewhat fast (depending on the size of the wing) to be flying. If our pseudo-wings were as good as mechanical arms, they would be as I had said before, death weight.
Some knowledge of aerodynamics and the physiology of winged animals would quickly lead to the following conclusion. A human with wings who could fly using his own muscle power would not look much like a human being. A lot of redesign would be required to cut down both the weight & the distribution of it to allow for stable flight. If you assume a creature with 6 limbs, the arms & legs would have to be much lighter. Such a person would not be able to run very fast, jump, or lift much weight. Note also that a creature with 6 limbs would require three sets of muscles: Flap wings, power the arms, & power the legs. The extra set of muscles (& 4 limbs in additon to the wings) would add weight, requiring even more weight reduction elsewhere. If you assume a quadruped, what do you sacrifice: Your Arms or your legs? I suppose hands could be at the end of the wings, useful only for very simple tasks. Doing two handed jobs would be very clumsy. I do not think many (if any) winged creatures can bring their wing tips close to touching. An alternative would be to have lower limbs which were hands instead of feet. This would allow the use of tools, but walking would be clumsy. Note that no winged creature can sit and use both feet to pick something up. There are some problems here. Even if you redesign a human to reduce the weight by 50%, you would still need huge pectoral muscles to flap the wings. Perhaps the pectorals would have to be as much as 3 or4 feet thick. The brain & skull would likely require resign to both save weight & to allow for stable flight. Note that all winged creatures have heads which are small compared to overall body size. As far as I know the pterosaurs were the largest creatures who could fly. I do not think that their bodies weighted more than 100 pounds, if that much. Some think that a pterosaur could not take off on a still day from a level plane. They might havew required running into the wind or taking off rom a cliff. They seem to be designed more for gliding than powered flight
Nonsense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Simply having an organism’s DNA does not allow you to clone it. Cloning a whole animal uses a process called nuclear transfer. This technique requires whole intact cells. And not just any old cells, but pristine cells that are either living or have been sufficiently frozen without any freeze-thawing.
Well I studied this for at least 2 years and figured out that you need hormones to make the bones in the wing grow but first you have to get your DNA and filter the wings with it, as well for CSF so it could be formed around the blood vessels. After the wing has your enzymes which help the wings grow when you do, it is attachable to your body but remember that birds and humans are totally two different mammals in size and characteristics thus the nerves will be different in size and blood vessels too. Let me cut to the chase, unfortunately you will die if you ever do such thing, one because unlike us birds carry diseases that we are vulnerable to, two it will cause cancer much quicker cause it will need an extremely fast cardio system and it will cause cell division in a faster pace.
Why try to make wings for humans when it would be much better to just have anti gravity devices that humans could either strap on or get into to use whenever they need to. By inventing anti gravity humans would have a much better way of "flying" and not be burdened with large wings to manage everywhere they went. :shrug:
Welcome You've studied this for 2 years!? Isn't that kind of a waste of time? Birds are mammals? What is that suppose to mean? This statement says that we don't have diseases that we can catch! WTF? Do athelets have higher cancer rates because they have a higher metabolism?
The largest flying birds now living are the Marabou stork and the Andean condor. Both have 10-foot wingspans and weigh only about 20 pounds. Look at the physics of the problem. Body mass is proportional to body volume, a three-dimensional figure that increases as the cube of linear dimension such as length. But lift is proportional to the surface area of the wings, which increases only as the square of linear dimension. If you double the length of the spine and the rest of the animal expands proportionally, you're multiplying the mass by eight. Therefore you have to almost triple the wingspan in order to multiply the surface area of the wings by eight. So if you double the linear dimensions of that condor so he now weighs 160 lb, you'll have to triple his wingspan to 30 ft. That will be a very ungainly bird, especially when you start dealing with the particulars such as the colossal breastbone needed to anchor those powerful wing muscles. My knowledge of aeronautics is very primitive so my calculations are very rough. I've seen people with more expertise work this out and insist that a 100-pound bird would need a wingspan comparable to a jetliner. His breastbone would be so large that he'd have trouble balancing for walking. This is why the flightless birds are larger than flying birds. A 300-pound ostrich could never be made to fly. [Note: The kori bustard is larger and has been observed airborne, but it's not clear that it can actually take off and fly, rather than launching from a high spot and gliding on thermals--especially since its wingspan is no larger than the condor.]
You must be thinking of just the opposite, HAHO (High Altitude, High Opening). If you open your parachute LOW, as in HALO, you aren't going to get anywhere near a 6/1 glide ratio during your long freefall. To put it in perspective, even using a "wing suit" (not used by HALO units http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHbk0qNyk8Q), the best horizontal distance is about 12 miles from an altitude of 34,000 ft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yJzTwgsz4s
Hi guys, Interesting discussion going on here. I'm pretty sure there is a way to fly, implementing the right bionics onto the arms (connected to the wings) to generate the needed powers. I'm now designing my flying-concept on a serious level. Follow me on my website, twitter or facebook, or just check it out! Grtz Jarno (The Netherlands) w w w.humanbirdwings.n e t
I was thinking of this guy: Rossy developed and built a system comprising a back pack with semi-rigid aeroplane-type carbon-fiber wings with a span of about 2.4 metres (7.9 ft), powered by four attached Jet-Cat P200 jet engines modified from large-model, kerosine fueled, aircraft engines. His first flight occurred in November 2006 in Bex, lasting nearly six minutes and nine seconds. Yves later successfully flew across the English Channel on 26 September 2008 in 9 minutes 7 seconds, reaching a speed of 299 km/h (186 mph) during the crossing Later in 2008, he made a flight over the Alps, reaching a top descent speed of 304 km/h (189 mph) and a top average speed of 124 mph. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...fpyKhz&usg=AFQjCNEyHdc4cAVFX-tdrdD1usq1UEhYyQ WIKI The Gryphon is a military wingpack that currently allows paratroopers to exit an aircraft at an altitude of 10 kilometres, then fly 40 kilometres while carrying up to 100 kilograms of equipment. The system is still in development and the goal, according to Elektroniksystem- und Logistik-GmbH (Electronic System and Logistics Group or ESG), is to allow paratroopers to fly up to 200 kilometres, thus enabling them to penetrate enemy airspace without compromising the safety of the aircraft or being detected by radar. WIKI Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
To be simple - no. Mankind is not designed for winged flight - take a look at the skeletal structure of flight-capable birds and you will notice their bones are extremely light (as far as bones go), and (IIRC) very porous. Ours, on the other hand, are extremely heavy and dense, creating the strong structure we've come to rely on. Attempting flight would require a set of wings vastly large in scale to our body than a bird requires, which would, of course, require a heavier bone structure, larger musculature, and more feathers, all of which equals more weight and, thus, the need for ever larger wings. Is it possible? *shrugs* perhaps... but a jetpack would be far more practical :shrug:
an episode of mythbusters determined you would need a sternum about 2 feet wide and about 5 feet long to attach the pecs for a pair of wings. i would imagine each pectoral would weigh about 75 pounds
Nature already figured this out! None of the large ratites (ostrich, emu, cassowary, rhea, or the extinct moa, the largest of all) can fly. Duh?
