×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hummingbird-Size Wing-Flapping Drone Unveiled

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the time-to-fill-your-bird-feeder-with-batteries dept.

Robotics 108

garymortimer writes "AeroVironment, Inc. has demonstrated a tiny new drone called a 'Nano Hummingbird.' The hand-made prototype aircraft has a wingspan of 16 centimeters (6.5 inches) tip-to-tip and has a total flying weight of 19 grams (2/3 ounce), which is less than the weight of a common AA battery. This includes all the systems required for flight; batteries, motors, communications systems and video camera. The aircraft can be fitted with a removable body fairing, which is shaped to have the appearance of a real hummingbird. The aircraft is larger and heavier than an average hummingbird, but is smaller and lighter than the largest hummingbird currently found in nature."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

108 comments

Control (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248970)

It's amazing how much control they appear to have over the thing. I feel lucky when I can get my RC helicopter to go anywhere near the general direction that I want. And especially outdoors! The very slight breeze outside makes toy helicopter impossible to fly, but it seems like they have complete control.

Re:Control (0)

Americium (1343605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249502)

Helicopter are inherently unstable because the gyro (the blades) are on top, so they are very hard to fly. If you put the blades at the bottom, like they did with this [youtube.com] , the stability is utterly amazing.

Re:Control (1)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249566)

Awesome. Until you slip and fall into the blades.

Yum. Meat rain.

Re:Control (1)

Americium (1343605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249594)

Anytime you slip out of a helicopter, I think it's bad. But I do agree, I would enjoy falling 1000ft or so much more than being cut up by a blade, and then falling.

Re:Control (1)

berwiki (989827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249790)

I not sure if I believe your post.
Sure that video looks neat, but that machine also has a significant weight advantage over an RC helicopter. I don't see why flipping it over (other than getting utterly blasted with air, and messing with a nice consistent airflow pattern) would be any different. And you could account for the things I mentioned, it just requires more engineering.

Re:Control (1)

Americium (1343605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249878)

Not much, the RC toy chopper for $10 more has a gryo and autostability control and are supposedly amazingly stable and easy to fly....or so I have heard, as I also have not ventured outside to the mall to see them in action.

Re:Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249824)

I don't think that's why they are unstable. In fact I'm absolutely positive that putting the blades on bottom would make most helicopters much less controllable. Try holding a broom stick from the top. Now try holding it from the bottom. Which way was easier?

Re:Control (1)

Byrel (1991884) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251280)

Helicopter are inherently unstable because the gyro (the blades) are on top, so they are very hard to fly. If you put the blades at the bottom, like they did with this [youtube.com] , the stability is utterly amazing.

This is not why helicopters are unstable. A helicopter is unstable because the slightest motion forward generates a greater airspeed on one side of the rotor than the other side. This in turn generates more lift on one side, causing the chopper to bank (and in the hands of an inexperienced pilot, crash). This uneven lift is also caused by any relative motion to the wind. Indeed, a wind of less than 10 mph is enough to flip an unstabilized chopper.

This uneven lift must be actively compensated by rotating each blade as it goes around. Increasing the angle of attack will increase the lift on that blade (until the blades stall; a condition also worsened by winds, and motion.

It actually doesn't matter whether the blades are on the bottom or top; the force causing the instability is not gravitational, but aerodynamic. In fact though, flipping a chopper upside down, while possible even in a normal chopper, adds another dimension of instability. (The "balancing a broomstick" instability.)

As a final note, nearly any unstable system can be rendered stable by applying a proper feedback control system. If you express the response of the unstable system in terms of complex frequency, the instability is represented by poles with a real component > 0. A feedback system can be designed to cancel those poles, and render the system stable.

Re:Control (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35252226)

Helicopter are inherently unstable because the gyro (the blades) are on top, so they are very hard to fly. If you put the blades at the bottom, like they did with this [youtube.com] , the stability is utterly amazing.

Why should the position of the blades matter as far as stability? Given the same whirling mass you have the same gyro effect.

A payload hanging below the rotors is easier to balance than payload perched on top of the rotors.

For top mounted payloads , in addition to tilt needed for forward motion, the side vectored thrust needed to fight airframe rotation, you now have to add balancing forces.

You may thing this device was utterly amazing, but the truth of the matter is it was an technological dead end, which while possible to achieve, offered no compelling advantage over the helicopter. There is a reason you don't see these things flying around. They were very problematic, and contrary to your assertion, they were not stable, but required constant correction to keep them upright.

Re:Control (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249596)

I'll bet that the commercial or promotional video you saw for your helicopter made it look like it was fully controllable too!

Re:Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35252130)

I'm wondering if it has much more flying time than 10 minutes or so, and that's on the good-end of my experience with micro-R/C helicopters. Once you get it adjusted to be flying half decent, half your battery time is already gone.

Also it seems cute doesn't it? Doesn't seem like it would work well for spying outside of the Americas where hummingbirds aren't native. Also I'd love to see it fly in the presence of a real hummingbird. Those little buggers despite their appearance and diminutive size are fiercely territorial. It would be fun to see one react to another "bird" that seems to behave retardedly within their airspace and watch as they tear that shit up.

Re:Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35253970)

biomimicry?

Can someone make sense? (0)

sabrex15 (746201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248976)

"The aircraft is larger and heavier than an average hummingbird, but is smaller and lighter than the largest hummingbird currently found in nature." --- I don't really get that sentence, can someone explain?

Re:Can someone make sense? (3, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249022)

The largest hummingbird species are bigger and heavier than the drone, but the average of all the hummingbird species is smaller and lighter than the drone. So, while it's bigger than what a hummingbird is likely to be, it is not so big that it couldn't possibly be disguised as a hummingbird.

Re:Can someone make sense? (2)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249424)

So, while it's bigger than what a hummingbird is likely to be, it is not so big that it couldn't possibly be disguised as a hummingbird.

And in particular, there are quite a few hummingbird species of about that size, and the largest species, the appropriately named Giant Hummingbird [wikipedia.org] is significantly bigger. So "smaller than the largest hummingbird" isn't some kind of cop-out phrase where there's one such example in the Andes mountains but everywhere else it's too big to be a hummer.

But in some places it certainly would be too big. For example in the Eastern United States, the only hummingbird is the small Ruby Throated, and seeing something about twice its size flitting and hovering around would probably just draw more attention to it. So how well it blends in will depend in part on where it is deployed. Oh, and whether or not there are any bird-watchers around to say "gee that thing is bigger than I expected, let me take a closer look with binoculars". Somehow I doubt they're expecting their subterfuge to work in that kind of circumstance.

In any case, this drone is pretty freaking sweet.

Re:Can someone make sense? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249816)

Regardless, if I see a hummingbird this big, I'm getting a net. They just aren't common around my secret lair.

Re:Can someone make sense? (1, Funny)

Kufat (563166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249036)

Car metaphors are so last week, so here's a fast food metaphor:
It's bigger than a medium but smaller than a large.

Re:Can someone make sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249042)

Scientists are hard at work on genetically engineering an even larger humming bird to eat the smaller formerly largest humming birds.

Re:Can someone make sense? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250132)

Ever seen hummingbirds fight? They're likely engineering a larger hummingbird that can out-joust the smaller formerly largest hummingbirds.

I've seen too many dead hummingbirds with beak-sized holes through their throats to think otherwise.

Re:Can someone make sense? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249048)

"The aircraft is larger and heavier than an average hummingbird, but is smaller and lighter than the largest hummingbird currently found in nature." --- I don't really get that sentence, can someone explain?

If the average hummingbird is 1 unit in weight, and the world record heaviest hummingbird is 2 units in weight, the mechanical one weighs 1.5 units.

Re:Can someone make sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249050)

The size of the device is between the average size and the largest known hummingbird.

Re:Can someone make sense? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249052)

The aircraft is bigger and has more mass than the mean(average) hummingbird. The aircraft is not quite as large as the largest hummingbird, nor does it mass more than the heaviest hummingbird.

Re:Can someone make sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249058)

It means the average hummingbird is smaller than the craft, but a larger one is known to exist.

Re:Can someone make sense? (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249094)

There are multiple [wikipedia.org] species of hummingbird. A few of them are common [wikipedia.org] in north america, but there are less-common species, as well. Hummingbirds are rather remarkable, being the most maneuverable group of birds (ever seen a bird fly backwards?)

Re:Can someone make sense? (1)

umrguy76 (114837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249140)

Hummingbirds range in size from very small to not so small. While this aircraft is larger than the average size hummingbird found in nature, there are real hummingbirds that are larger.

. ---> o ---> O
hb aircft big hb

Re:Can someone make sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249148)

The aircraft is like a Ford Explorer. Larger than an average car, but smaller than an Escalade.

Re:Can someone make sense? (1)

aethogamous (935390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251816)

"The aircraft is larger and heavier than an average hummingbird, but is smaller and lighter than the largest hummingbird currently found in nature." --- I don't really get that sentence, can someone explain?

Sure, it means that he aircraft is larger and heavier than an average hummingbird, but is smaller and lighter than the largest hummingbird currently found in nature.

Am I the only one ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249030)

...starting to get just a little creeped-out by these kinds of developments?

What next - video fruit-flies that can shoot tiny rockets?

Re:Am I the only one ... (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249180)

What next - video fruit-flies that can shoot tiny rockets?

Video fruit-flies that upload to a large and persistent database of surveillance footage, indexed by your identity, location, and time.

Re:Am I the only one ... (3, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249190)

You will really get creeped out when they unveil the robotic tape worms.

Re:Am I the only one ... (3, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249274)

not really it will probably be the only way to cure obseity in america.

The robot tape worm destroys the food while it is in your system allowing you to eat and drink more with less effects

Re:Am I the only one ... (1)

mantissa128 (900471) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251330)

That is both horrifyingly plausible, and obscene.

Could the thing perhaps package up the food and deliver it to starving people?

Re:Am I the only one ... (1)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249484)

A genetically engineered fruit fly designed to injects prions into a selected target (assassination a-la carte).

I want one (3, Interesting)

a-zarkon! (1030790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249056)

But I have to wonder what the endurance is for this thing. TFA describes the requirements as:

1. Demonstrate precision hover flight within a virtual two-meter diameter sphere for one minute.
2. Demonstrate hover stability in a wind gust flight which required the aircraft to hover and tolerate a two-meter per second (five miles per hour) wind gust from the side, without drifting downwind more than one meter.
3. Demonstrate a continuous hover endurance of eight minutes with no external power source.
4. Fly and demonstrate controlled, transition flight from hover to 11 miles per hour fast forward flight and back to hover flight.
5. Demonstrate flying from outdoors to indoors, and back outdoors through a normal-size doorway.
6. Demonstrate flying indoors âheads-downâ(TM) where the pilot operates the aircraft only looking at the live video image stream from the aircraft, without looking at or hearing the aircraft directly.
7. Fly the aircraft in hover and fast forward flight with bird-shaped body and bird-shaped wings.

Based on the current crop of micro RC helicopters, I'd be surprised if this gizmo has enough battery life for more than 10-15 minutes of flight. Any real-world James Bond types out there care to chime in as to whether this is going to be sufficient to support a real-world mission?

Sounds like it would be a lot of fun for messing with coworkers in the cube farm though.

Re:I want one (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249374)

Current $15 rc helis have 10 minutes flight time. I am going to bet this unit has more since it does not need to cost less than $15 to build.

Re:I want one (1)

Jesse_vd (821123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249380)

sounds like the requirements don't need 10-15 minutes

3. Demonstrate a continuous hover endurance of eight minutes with no external power source.

Re:I want one (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249740)

These things could be a godsend for troops that have to clear buildings as they had to in, say, Fallujah. Being able to survey the situation before going through the door could save a lot of lives (well, on the American side at least).

They're too quick for that (1)

bnbgnoise (1935896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249972)

No real world James Bond would need it for more than 15 minuets, nor want to be engaged in operating an expensive remote machine manually for any extended period of time. Real world james bond's have a way of being where they need to be only long enough to get what they need and get out. The plain light as well be equipt with a physical object acquisition hand as well, sense the trouble of navigating it back to you should be most worth while. Having it Auto fly back to it's handset or have options of loiter or disperse would really truly make it most usefull. Auto emergency land when it's out of battery... and ultimately any code or weightlessness avaliable to leverage the advanced mechanical nature of the device. Including helium and mylar. if the added drag wouldn't reduce the benefit. AND auto power collection. Via ambient quanta solar. Hide functionality... basically if it were like a mechanical bat that would be perfect. I've always dreamed of such a machine. Package has been intercepted. This Vialectronic Homing Pigeon will self destruct, speak password... self destructing... speak password... three... two... two and a half....

Re:They're too quick for that (1)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35253470)

No real world James Bond would need it for more than 15 minuets...

As an old (really old) James Bond fan, I must protest your mischaracterization. James Bond wouldn't even need a Tango, much less a bunch of minuets—he gets the girl without having to even dance with her first!

Re:I want one too (1)

DCFusor (1763438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250044)

Think of the following. Some guys in a battle are hunkered down and shooting at you, say through a hole in a wall. This thing flies over there and shows you where they are -- or whether they are displacing to another place -- so you know where and whether to shoot. Don't even need one minute for that. If they're running away, you now know which way if you want to chase them -- they've gotten out of cover. And so on.

This can be a pretty life saving thing for the good guys, and devastating to the other side -- who's going to shoot at a bird? Sure, they'll figure it out, but that's not an easy target, and shooting also tells you where the bad guy is pretty close.

Re:I want one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35251002)

They told AvWeb that it can fly 11mph for eight minutes. Given that the original version had a 20 second battery life, this is very impressive.

That's a lot better than a real hummingbird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35251808)

Real hummingbirds have to drink nectar like every 5-7 minutes, or they have a helluva sugar crash.

Re:I want one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35252730)

10: Fly for 10 minutes.
20. Land, use as a stationary camera.
30. Recharge battery with photovoltaic body/wings while landed, maybe with camera/transmitter off.
40. Repeat (goto 10)

think of the potential (2)

JumpDrive (1437895) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249084)

These could be used to follow around truant kids and determine whether they are going to school or not.

Re:think of the potential (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249138)

Come on. Like all new technology, the industry that will commercialize this first will be the porn industry.

Re:think of the potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249242)

Or maybe you'll see adverts for the new X-11 Hummingbird Camera!

Re:think of the potential (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249752)

Or maybe you'll see adverts for the new X-11 Hummingbird Camera!

X11... porn industry... same thing

Re:think of the potential (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249664)

That does not adequately explain the aircraft industry, there is no membership fee for the mile high club.

Re:think of the potential (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249768)

That does not adequately explain the aircraft industry, there is no membership fee for the mile high club.

So then you are sneaking onto these flights? How are you making it past security without a ticket?

European hummingbird or an African hummingbird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249174)

I don't know...

dmanny

Nano (1)

Conrthomas (1993390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249192)

I thought nano meant, like, really small i.e. nanometers....this thing sounds pretty large, for calling it nano...

Re:Nano (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249400)

Welcome to 2001, when nano and nano-tech words became co-opted by marketers. No-one seems to give a shit about definitions anyway, e.g. picosatellites, microchips. Might as well call processors nanochips because the process size is measured in nanometres.

Arm it (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249246)

They should make one with weapons capability, like something you'd expect to see in a James Bond film. they could use some kind of laser, but I don't think it would have enough power to life the necessary shark. Maybe they could strap a Colt 45 to it (no not the drink, the gun). That would be cool (BLAM!! followed by a spray of hummingbird shaped parts).

One step closer (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249250)

One step closer to developing actual man hacks, from half life two. All that has to happen now is for the military to get a hold of this tech.

Illogical Mr. Spock.. Does not compute... (0)

houbou (1097327) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249312)

"The aircraft is larger and heavier than an average hummingbird, but is smaller and lighter than the largest hummingbird currently found in nature."

I'm confused.
I thought I knew English.
Can anyone help me?
Is this an experiment on how to create a brain aneurysm using an illogical statement?
"I sense a Star Trek moment here ladies and germs...".

Re:Illogical Mr. Spock.. Does not compute... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249414)

Let's say that hummingbirds come in sizes (or weights) 1 to 5.
Average sized hummingbird would then be the sum of those sizes, divided by the number of sizes available. I.e. (1+2+3+4+5)/5 = 3
So the "average hummingbird size" would be 3, while the largest hummingbird size would be 5.

So, if this artificial hummingbird is "larger and heavier than an average hummingbird, but is smaller and lighter than the largest hummingbird currently found in nature" - that means that it's size is somewhere between 3 and 5.

Re:Illogical Mr. Spock.. Does not compute... (1)

screwzloos (1942336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249470)

Different species of hummingbirds come in different sizes. An "average" hummingbird is smaller than this drone, but at least one species of hummingbirds is capable of growing larger than the drone.

Seems pretty logical to me.

Re:Illogical Mr. Spock.. Does not compute... (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249472)

I'm honestly shocked that "more than average, less than maximum" is confusing so many people. Okay, maybe the sentence is difficult to parse (I didn't find it so, but whatever), but it is not illogical in the least.

Re:Illogical Mr. Spock.. Does not compute... (1)

IICV (652597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249978)

The grandparent post is, however, a perfect example of Star Trek "logic" which most of the time is, in fact, illogical.

I mean, come on. Half the time they interpret "logical" as meaning "only do things that have a 100% chance of success, do nothing otherwise" (if there's a 50% chance we'll blow up after reticulating the deflector array, that's still the logical course of action if the only other option is a 100% chance of explosion from not dispersing the negative space wedgie!), and the other half of the time it means "emotions don't exist, despite the measurable effect of crew morale on ship efficiency".

God, that always pissed me off so much.

Re:Illogical Mr. Spock.. Does not compute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35252586)

I think people are just quickly skimming it and didn't notice that different adjectives were used.

Re:Illogical Mr. Spock.. Does not compute... (1)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35253514)

I'm honestly shocked that "more than average, less than maximum" is confusing so many people. Okay, maybe the sentence is difficult to parse (I didn't find it so, but whatever), but it is not illogical in the least.

"Not illogical", eh? The writer was trying to give us a sense of the scale of this device. Usually, this is done by referring to something simple and direct—like maybe the traditional "smaller than a breadbox, bigger than a pack of cigarettes". But our author strikes directly for familiar ground—the average and extreme weights of hummingbirds. Right, I know all about that. On the one hand, you have those really small, pip-squeak hummingbirds that you can mistake for wasps. On the other, we have Ricky The Ridiculously Obese, a Hogwart's courier who weighs in at 18.3756 ounces (unloaded), and delivers his messages for a very small charge, as he is completely flightless. OK, now how big is the flying machine? Um...who knows? Smaller than Ricky I guess. Bigger than a bug.

Re:Illogical Mr. Spock.. Does not compute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35251132)

"Dammit, Jim, I'm only a doctor, but this Houbou may have a serious
brain disorder !" - Leonard McCoy

HummingDactyl (2)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249338)

Jesus Christ look at that HUGE hummingbird! Why does it have a muffler? ... DUCK!

Re:HummingDactyl (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250274)

Jesus Christ look at that HUGE hummingbird! Why does it have a muffler? ... DUCK!

No, it's definitely a hummingbird.

badum-ching!

Re:HummingDactyl (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35253036)

Why would you call for a duck to protect you from a hummingbird? Or is that duck a larger version of the same device, with floating capability?

Two questions.... (1)

HalfOfOne (738150) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249370)

Could two of them carry a coconut?

And the size comparisons, were those for African or European hummingbirds?

Flight video of test criteria (5, Informative)

SnoopJeDi (859765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249442)

Here's a youtube video of the drone meeting several of these criteria. http://youtu.be/a8ZbtZqH6Io [youtu.be]

Re:Flight video of test criteria (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35250466)

I thought that youtu.be redirect to youtube.com was some kind of click-tracking scam at first. But whois says google run the dns servers for it so it's likely run by them[1]. Seems a bit absurd to save very few characters and probably makes the world a bit unsafer by using country code TLDs under false premises.

[1] confirmed: http://www.geek.com/articles/consumer/google-unveils-youtu-be-shortener-that-cuts-down-video-links-by-15-characters-20091222/ [geek.com]

Re:Flight video of test criteria (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35252070)

Excellent citation, thanks.

  Just judging from watching the video in hi-res, it's more like a helicopter with individually variable prop angles than a hummingbird - it looks like it's limited to "body straight up" flight.

  Still pretty astounding work for a prototype - but I'd be willing to bet a few dollars that something similar to this but with much more maneuverability - yaw and pitch - is on sale in department stores in maybe 5-7 years :-)

  If anyone has any more decent info on this, I would love to see it.

SB

Size right, but behavior? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249466)

While it might pass for a hummingbird size-wise, just looking at it fly you can tell it isn't natural. I've never seen a hummingbird fly body-upright, except when hovering.

Re:Size right, but behavior? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249656)

You're right, it does look wrong when it's flying forward quickly. It's appearance when flying slowly, or up, or backwards, etc, which are essentially variations on hovering, aren't that bad, but certainly if you watched it for any length of time it's unnatural nature would be apparent.

In other news... (1)

kaychoro (1340087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249916)

... Iran has recently placed orders for thousands of high speed oscillating fans to, "keep their government buildings free hummingbird infestations".

http://www.lojadesite.com.br (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249976)

Prazer, Boa tarde

Meu nome é Julian, possuo uma empresa idônea que atuo em residência própria na região de São Paulo, presto consultoria em informática em web designer, gostaria de apresentar minhas propostas

- Consultoria em informática

- Assessoria em Informática

- Desenvolvimento de sites

- Sistemas para Email Marketing

- Segmentação de Mala direta

Atendemos a domicilio e a residências.
Temos como objetivo uma parceria e um belo atendimento, sabemos que toda empresa deve possuir seu departamento de informática com um pronto atendimento em eventuais problemas em qual a INFODELL destaca-se em seu atendimento numero 1 no mercado

Tendo interesse responder o e-mail
julianlobo@hotmail.com.br

Julian Lobo Silva
INFODELL – Consultoria em Informática
LOJADESITE – Consultoria em web designer
Email julianlobo@hotmail.com.br
Tel 11 4252-2539
Cel 11 7354-9867

http://www.lojadesite.com.br

Cool! (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250042)

That looks like an awesome skeet target. And I'm sure anyone being observed by one in a warzone will agree.

Good for Green (2)

bnbgnoise (1935896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250140)

"The aircraft is larger and heavier than an average hummingbird, but is smaller and lighter than the largest hummingbird currently found in nature." [I think] This qualifies it as USDA organic...

re: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35250924)

wtf is this Dune?

quiddich (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35252668)

Or cross between Harry Potter and James Bond.

where YOUR money is going (0)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254362)

i agree this is super cool but this is yet another crazy DoD project. AeroVironment got $50M last year for a government contract. gee, wonder what they did with it.

your tax dollars at work.

Re:where YOUR money is going (0)

dominious (1077089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254794)

you are so good at criticising while you have no idea what good will come out from this project, nor what has been learnt from the research behind it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...