> The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines.
Perhaps for aesthetics or mechanical and aerodynamic elegance, but never for practicality for human means.
Perhaps for aesthetics or mechanical and aerodynamic elegance, but never for practicality for human means.
"I confess that, in 1901, I said to my brother Orville that men would not fly for 50 years. Two years later, we ourselves were making flights. This demonstration of my inability as a prophet gave me such a shock that I have ever since distrusted myself and have refrained from all prediction."
No one has ever been able to predict where technology is going. This one is for you to tame your forecasting proclivities and for the moron who's downvoting my comments without explaining where my argument is weak. Cheers.
> The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines.
But when I make one, it's wrong?
Fuck you.
Last but not least: never say never, and never predict more than 10 years into the future. In 20 years your predictions might be ridiculed.
We design rigid body and rigid wing aircraft because of mechanical constraints.