Ancient Flying Machines, is it real?

Discussion in 'History' started by Shadow1, Apr 16, 2010.

  1. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    actually you dont have to be pulled at all all you really need is a good wind
    proof
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVdHege0w-E
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    No you cannot power an airplane off of wind. You can make a glider but not a plane. For example, the wright brothers actually flew in gliders using the wind way before they made their first historic powered flight. But they didnt get credit because it doesn't count.

    Explain to me how you could make an airplane not a glider powered out of wind? You cant, the law of conservation of energy states the maximum energy you get out of a machine is the amount you put in. Because of efficiency it would lose a lot of that energy in the transfer. If you are only getting lets say 50% of the energy (Im making that up, I dont know the physical number though I figured it would be less than 70% and more than 10%) than if you are flying into a headwind and harnessing that energy to somehow make powered flight you are only putting out in forward motion 50% of said headwind into forward motion meaning that the headwind would fling you around and you would be unable to make any progress.

    To make a powered flight using wind without any outside influences is impossible for the Egyptians.


    Personally that artifact looked like a bird to me...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    so both of them are in the air not touching any solid object. i would say that is flying either way.. they both have the same general appearance aka shape a body 2 wings and a tail

    thats a bad pic. of the artifact it actually has a rudder. what bird do you know uses a rudder? that has both a horisontal and vertical rudder on its tail. this is what makes me and others raise an eyebrow. if it was just a horisontal rudder yes i would agree that is a bird but the fact is it has horisontal and vertical which no know bird has
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Just to be thoroughly pedantic most planes have one wing. That's why biplanes (i.e. WWI-style) are called "bi" (meaning two) planes.
    The entire structure from tip to tip is "the wing".
     
  9. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    No sifreak, there are millions of people in this world that would tell you that a glider is not a plane. Glider have been used decades before the Wright flyer maybe longer. A glider is not an airplane.

    So anything with two wings and a tail is an airplane? If I put my feet together to make a tail and stretch my arms out for wings, am I an airplane?

    What glider pre 20th century have you seen has a delta wing than?

    So what?

    Our hands supposedly look like the arab symbol for Allah, does that we should all convert to islam? No, it's a coincidence. Same thing here.

    Tell me, how many Egyptian artifacts have been found? Doesnt the law of probability state that one of them must look vaguely like a plane than?

    Haven't you ever heard of those exams by psychologists where they show you an inkblot and you say the first thing that comes to mind? Same thing goes here. How do you know that isn't the top to some golden sceptre and that the wings are there for aesthetics?

    It's made out of gold for christ's sakes, it does not have an engine or an indication of a cockpit or any way to possibly see how it would manipulate control surfaces. For that matter, I dont see any dynamic control surfaces. What, was the pilot supposed to ride it bareback?
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Yes I know it's Wiki, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, especially in this case.

    The aeronautical definition of aeroplane (or airplane for those of you who use Websters) is a heavier than air aircraft with fixed lifting surfaces (whether powered or not). A heavier than air aircraft with moving lifting surfaces (usually helicopter or autogyro) is an aerodyne (which is the catch-all term for any heavier than air type i.e. aeroplanes are also aerodynes, but not all aerodynes are aeroplanes). And a lighter than air aircraft is an aerostat.
    Of course the first and second definitions caused some discussion among the cognoscenti over variable-geometry aircraft (e.g. F-14, Panavia Tornado & C.) since their lifting surfaces aren't fixed... I'm not sure that particular argument has been settled even though it was raised ~30 years ago

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    what i meant by that was there is 2 wings on on the right and one on the left
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    I know what you meant but there isn't.
    It's a left wing-half and a right wing-half, making a total of one wing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Oops, port and starboard, rather...
     
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    This debate is about whether or not the Egyptians had powered aircraft. Sure gliders are "technically" planes, but the fact is the Wright brothers were credited with making the first airplane, even though gliders have been used indefinitely. the fact is a sheet of paper in the wind has fixed lifting surfaces and is heavier than air, but people dont even call it a glider let alone a plane.

    The debate is whether they had a powered aircraft. And the fact is that they did not. they had no way to power it, hell, what was their mastery of metallurgy? Maybe making a some spears and hand made parts. But the fact is for an engine you need advanced metal working. And it stands to reason that since metal does not fall apart or does not get erroded quickly compared to other materials it stands to reason we would have some form of evidence for the plane.
     
  14. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    taking what i said way out of context.

    1 artifact but thast all you really need you we scaled it up to exact measurements and guess what ? i actually glided and creates lift.. if it was for a golden sceptre very very odd that the handle when thrust forward horisontally would create lift but your probably right a golden ceptre wtih an object that on the end that can create lift..

    you dont have to see any controll surfaces... paind the gliders i link all white so you cant see in.. can u see any control surfaces?
     
  15. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    What makes anyone think that this Egyptian civilization had the tools, the know how, and the ability to make a plane?
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    While would they create a golden statue of it than? Or a golden model? That...thing does not look like it can fly if you made it exactly as it appears. For one thing its made out of gold. For another where are the control surfaces. For another where is the cockpit? for another how would they make the cables, the joystick control, the landing gear, hell.... ANYTHING for it?
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    They didn't.
    There was nothing particularly stopping the Egyptians from making, and using, gliders - they had sufficient materials and "technology" - but it apparently didn't occur to them...

    Check again: the Wrights are credited with the first successful powered controllable flight.

    They wouldn't because a sheet of paper in the air doesn't rely on aerodynamic effects for lift.
     
  18. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    I know that. But in common vernacular with casual conversations people say that they made the first airplane. Sure they may know it was the first powered and controlled flight, but most people don't word it that way. When people think of airplane they think of commercial airlines, fighter planes, etc... They dont think about gliders 90% of the time.

    I disagree, aerodynamic effects usually mean that there is higher air pressure under the object or wing than above it. You dont necessarily need a wing. Just look at (I believe) the X-38 Lifting Body by NASA.

    So we all agree that the Egyptians did not create a real "powered" "controllable" aircraft, right?
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Which says much about "the general public" doesn't it?

    I didn't say "wing" (although the X-38 is carefully shaped so that the entire vehicle acts like a wing), I said it doesn't rely on aerodynamic effects - it's the gusts of wind themselves that make sheets of paper "fly" about. Or are you going to claim that a plastic bag also uses lift and aerodynamics as they are used by an aircraft?

    Pfft, they didn't create any aircraft as far as we know: no gliders, no hot air balloons (probably also within their capabilities) not even toy gliders (which apparently were popular with children in Renaissance Europe for a while). And certainly not powered aircraft.

    Oh hell! I just actually checked the links in the OP.
    One of them talks about Atlantis, Mu and Lemuria (always a good crank indicator), another link is to a site run by Hatcher-Childress (a known crank) and the first doesn't particularly strike me as trust worthy, simply from this quote:
    Er, no it isn't a "reversedihedral wing", in fact I've never seen that term before, especially written that way. If the wing slopes downwards it's called anhedral. And the reference to Concorde is also faulty - the down-angle on the tips is as much for compression lift as it is anhedral.
     
  20. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Heh, something tells me the misunderstanding between a glider and a power/controlled flight isnt the only reason you dont approve of "the general public."

    Than why for the love of G-d are we debating gliders vs. powered aircraft.

    That was exactly my point. That a wind powered aircraft (not a glider because gliders are closer to gravity powered despite the occasional updraft) is merely a piece of paper "flying" in the wind. that it is not a real aircraft like we are talking about.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Yup.

    Um, 'cos it helps to pass the time?

    Yep, wind-power is a non-starter for an aircraft (except as a secondary [non-propulsive] system e.g. RATs).
     
  22. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    they built pyramids, to this day we can not build them as good as they did.
     
  23. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    I find that hard to believe. Are you telling me that stacking a bunch of bricks together is more complicated than building a rocket to land on the moon? Or building the empire state building? Or the London bridge?
     

Share This Page