This one started off with so much promise
as the animators at the National History Museum (NHM) in London assembled their version of the ornithocheirid pterosaur, Anhanguera, bipedally (Fig. 1), as you’ll see when you click on the video under ‘References’.
Figure 1. Animated by the NHM, Anhanguera is bipedal and flapping its literally oversize wings standing on oversize feet with an undersized skull and hyperextended elbows and unbalanced stance.
Unfortunately there were some morphology issues (compared in Fig. 2):
- wings too long
- sternal complex missing
- gastralia missing (but rarely preserved in ornithocheirids)
- feet way too big
- skull too small
- tail too short
- not sprawling
- free fingers too big
- wing fingers should tucked tight against elbows (in the same plane)
- one extra cervical
- anterbrachia too short and gracile
- elbows overextended (in Fig. 1)
- too much weight put on forelimbs, center of balance (wing root) should be over the toes
- Prepubes are extremely rare in ornithocheirds, but when present they are tiny, putter-shaped and oriented ventrally in line with the bent femora, not anteriorly
Figure 2. NHM Anhanguera compared to skeletal image from ReptileEvolution.com. There are at least 10 inaccuracies here. See text for list.
Also unfortunately, the video quickly devolved
to the invalid and dangerous quad launch, when (doggone it!) it was all set up to do a more correct and much safer bird-like launch. The laws of physics and biomechanics are ignored here, but at least David Attenborough narrates.
Figure 3. NHM Anhanguera quad launch select frames. The laws of physics and the limitations of biomechanics are ignored here.
Attempts to convince readers and workers
that the quad-launch hypothesis cheats morphology and physics (as recounted here and at links therein) have so far failed. But I’m not giving up. So, if anyone has a connection to the NHM in London, please make this post available to alert them of their accidental foray into wishful thinking and inaccurate morphology.
References
National History Museum (NHM) in London
The Pterosaur Heresies 
Pardon a naïve question: I’ve presumed that Anhanguera was among the better known ornithocheirids, and guessed that there were some partial skeletons at least, not just bits and pieces. Are the different proportions [head, feet, wings] you cite vs. this prep the result of compositing very incomplete specimens with a look at other related genera. Or [in your opinion] was someone simply careless in working from adequate specimens?
Many specimens are bits and pieces. A few are much more complete. In any case, omitting the sternal complex or using ‘standard’ feet are simply careless, IMHO.