Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!agate!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!crux.rp.CSIRO.AU!leon.atnf.CSIRO.AU!DABBOTT
From: dabbott@atnf.CSIRO.AU (David Abbott)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: A robotic Butterlfy!
Message-ID: <1994Jul30.100631.26134@rp.CSIRO.AU>
Sender: usenet@rp.CSIRO.AU (Network news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: leon
Reply-To: dabbott@atnf.CSIRO.AU
Organization: CSIRO Australia Telescope.
References: <1994Jul28.153808.22030@msuvx2.memphis.edu> <ELEQIM.15.0009A00F@herts.ac.uk> <1994Jul29.103802.22064@msuvx2.memphis.edu>,<31bd76$fn3@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 10:06:31 GMT
Lines: 25


  Has anyone here ever watched a butterfly ? They have four wings the 
front and rear pairs driven 180 degrees out of phase, each wing root 
follows a figure eight pattern. 

  Rigid wings are far easier to build than a flexible wing, mechanically 
a butterfly is quite simple, 3 degrees of freedom for each wing. I doubt 
power and strength to weight problems can be solved using photovoltaics, 
unless the abdomen incorporated a gas bouyancy system.

  Also I suspect butterflies are dynamically unstable, an autopilot 
capable of hovering is quite involved. Balancing front and rear thrust
so the butterfly doesn't somersault is the problem.

  As a suggestion, start out with a dragonfly. It looks slightly more
aerodynamic, and should have a decent glide rate even when unpowered. And
I think it would be easier to stablise foward flight instead of hovering.

Dave

  try to avoid making important decisions when tired or hungry...
ok I've just broken that rule, sorry if I sound like an asshole, I 
think its a fascinating challenge, I might try and beat you to a 
working prototype

