[JoeF]

and some on
http://ufomania.proboards.com/thread/1162

All are welcome to collect things in 1800a art that seems to have affected hang gliding history.

[Bob Kuczewski]

This one looks like it would be fun!!!

1885fullflyingmachinespaleofuture_13.png (59.83 KiB) Viewed 8735 times

I would add some big flippers on the feet for propulsion so the arms are more dedicated to control. Of course the drag of the balloon would probably eliminate upwind progress in all but the lightest of winds anyway, but using the leg muscles would give you at least some hope.

[ARP]

Bob,

Here is a modern version of it:- http://aeroplume.fr/

Tony

[ARP]

http://aeroplume.fr/category/videos-aeroplume/

[ARP]

I think you are right about the flippers Bob. The Marquis de Bacqueville (1742) thought so too but he forgot the balloon:- http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu ... v1891.html

[Bob Kuczewski]

Great link ARP!!

Progress in Flying Machines
by O. Chanute
http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Chanute/library/Prog_Wings_Nov1891.html

It has been argued that there is no proof that, weight for weight, a man is comparatively weaker than a bird, and that, inasmuch as he can raise his weight in walking up a stairway, he should be able to raise it by acting upon the air with a suitable apparatus, The weak point about this argument is not only that the weight and bulk of such an apparatus become a surcharge on the muscular power of the man, as would be, for instance, the case were an artificial pair of wings applied to an ostrich, but that among the birds themselves the power to rise vertically unaided does not exist for the larger species. These have to resort to various artifices, such as running against the wind or dropping from a perch, in order to gain that initial velocity which enables their surfaces to derive support from the air, and this probably furnishes a good reason why no flying birds exceed some 50 lbs. in weight; for small animals must possess more energy in proportion to their size than large ones.

Assuming that the speed of contraction in the muscles of two similar birds of different sizes is the same, it is evident that the work done per unit of time will be in ratio to the sectional area, or as the square of the dimensions, while the weight to be moved will vary as the cube of the dimensions; hence the rate of increase between the energy and the weight will be:

square root(Energy) varies as cubed root(weight)

Another way to say this is that the strength of your muscles is based on the cross-section of your muscles. Cross sections go up as the square of your overall dimension (assuming your proportions remain the same). But your weight goes up as the cube of your overall dimension (again assuming your proportions remain the same). That's why insects can walk on walls (and ceilings) all day long with tiny spindly little legs, but elephants need huge tree trunks of legs just for basic locomotion. That's also why most gymnasts are small. Weight goes up as the cube of your size, but strength only goes up the square of your size. So strength to weight ratio gets worse with increased dimension - unless the muscles become a larger and larger percentage of the body. Eventually it becomes unsustainable, and that's what limits the size of birds.

Great post ARP!!!!