Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.

Old 30th May 2014, 09:25
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
"Static Thrust of Propellers
The thrust of a propeller is not constant for different flight speeds. Reducing the inflow velocity generally increases the thrust. A reduction of the aircraft speed down to zero tends to increase the thrust even further, but often a rapid loss of thrust can be observed in this regime."
(Included by Simplex - the OP, in his post #80)

I was not going to get involved in this long and largely impossible thread, so I shall just say that if the OP really believes that propellor thrust does not vary with speed that is his/her own problem and we may as well give up trying to use engineering principles to counter his/her assertions.
( Alan Lupton above)

??????????
Haraka is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 09:56
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
I am still laughing at the idea of putting a propeller under the aircraft to help it stay airborne


Almost as ridiculous as hanging the whole machine from a large propellor and leaving the wings off.
Thats on top - so ok !
But I was chuckling at visualising the Flyer with a large prop mounted horizontally below the aircraft and then having to mount the whole thing on a launching rail
Then of course would be the fun of trying to drive that prop from a horizontally mounted engine and bending the chain drive through 90 deg !
Also then having someone lying under the aircraft to swing that prop for engine start !

Much more challenging than having 2 pusher props turning nice and slowly,and even having them contra (counter) rotate so there is no turning/torque moment on the airframe,now that was good design philosophy in the early 1900's.

rgds LR
longer ron is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 10:22
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
having 2 pusher props turning nice and slowly,and even having them contra (counter) rotate so there is no turning/torque moment on the airframe,now that was good design philosophy in the early 1900's.
........although the idea was even then at least over 50 years old: for example see Stringfellow's flying model of 1848 amongst other pioneers.
Haraka is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 10:41
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I think T.O.M. Sopwith's comments on examining a Wright ( a "B"?) aeroplane in the USA in 1911 are interesting:

"Speaking from a mechanical standpoint, I think the Wright machine is a monstrosity. I don't see how it could be any worse and still it seems to fly reliably. As you say in this country it seems to get there, but that chain from the motor to the propellers is a very bad arrangement. The chain is the worse feature of the Wright machine, but the slow motion of the propeller makes up for it at least partially.
If you can get the power from a propeller making 500 revolutions per minute you will get about 75 per cent efficiency out of your machine. If the propeller makes 1,200 revolutions per minute you can only get about 50 per cent efficiency. That is what gives the Wright machine an advantage. With its two propellers it gets power without making as many revolutions as where a single propeller is used, and I think the advantage in efficiency more than makes up for what it loses by having that horrid looking chain"

Quote from "Sopwith - The Man and the Aircraft" by Bruce Robertson 1970
Haraka is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 12:47
  #85 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Patent for Three Axis Control, published May 26, 1903, filled Sep. 24, 1901
https://patentimages.storage.googlea...US728844-0.png

Not only the patent had been filled long before the Wright brothers decided to apply for a brevet but it contains the same idea of connecting roll and yaw the two brothers had in their patent published on May 22, 1906 (see: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=p...s/US821393.pdf).

"The rudder, hinged to the rear end of the deck, is controlled by cords or ropes, extending to the drum and attached to and reversely wound therein. It will thus be seen that the rudder is simultaneously moved with the up-and-down transverse movement of the aeroplane. When one side of the plane is moved downward, the rudder is caused to swing toward the same side, and when the opposite side of the aeroplane is moved downward the rudder swings toward this side. Hence there is a mutual cooperation between the aeroplane and rudder with reference to controlling the sweep, lateral swirling, or circling of the ship."
Source: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=p...s/US728844.pdf
(Note: aeroplane, plane mean control surface, wing).
simplex1 is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 15:39
  #86 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1) Picture - The alleged Flyer I 1903:
http://www.wright-brothers.org/Infor...Flyer_Side.jpg

2) Video - A replica of Flyer I 1903 (Wright Flyer 1st Full Taxi test at Flabob Airport, Published on Sep 21, 2012, Pilot at the Controls Fred Culick):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZqIpay-8
(see min 1:44)

It is quite evident from (1) and (2) that the so called replica has the front elevator placed at a visible greater distance from the wings than in the case of the original. The bars linking the main wings and the front elevator are arranged in such a way that the replica seems similar to the 1903 Flyer. In reality the reproduction has the elevator as distant from the wings as in the case of latter planes which flew starting with Aug. 1908. They altered the pitch stability. They are not building a Flyer I but a kitsch.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 15:50
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Simplex,
Can you elaborate on the provenance of the item hanging up in the Smithsonian ( ex- U.K.Science museum ) which masquerades as the 1903 Flyer and by some seemingly verifiable accounts at least, apparently clearly isn't?

Last edited by Haraka; 30th May 2014 at 16:54.
Haraka is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 18:46
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
having 2 pusher props turning nice and slowly,and even having them contra (counter) rotate so there is no turning/torque moment on the airframe,now that was good design philosophy in the early 1900's.

........although the idea was even then at least over 50 years old: for example see Stringfellow's flying model of 1848 amongst other pioneers.
There is very little in the world that is new
The best designers usually collect all the good ideas together and make them work.

But seriously - all I meant was that the prop drive design suited the Wrights aircraft very well !

rgds LR
longer ron is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 18:51
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
Haraka...

The chain is the worse feature of the Wright machine, but the slow motion of the propeller makes up for it at least partially.
If you can get the power from a propeller making 500 revolutions per minute you will get about 75 per cent efficiency out of your machine. If the propeller makes 1,200 revolutions per minute you can only get about 50 per cent efficiency. That is what gives the Wright machine an advantage. With its two propellers it gets power without making as many revolutions as where a single propeller is used, and I think the advantage in efficiency more than makes up for what it loses by having that horrid looking chain"
Interesting quote from Sopwith !
Of course the other real advantage of the orrible looking chain drive is that it was relatively easy to change sprocket sizes etc and therefore be able to fine tune the prop RPM if required !

rgds LR
longer ron is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 18:53
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Hi LR,
As I hope you can see, we are in total agreement on the Wrights' prop configuration being very well matched to what they were attempting to achieve.
Haraka
( I'm not qualified to comment on Sopwith's mechanical comments!)
Haraka is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 19:04
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1) Picture - The alleged Flyer I 1903:
http://www.wright-brothers.org/Infor...Flyer_Side.jpg

2) Video - A replica of Flyer I 1903 (Wright Flyer 1st Full Taxi test at Flabob Airport, Published on Sep 21, 2012, Pilot at the Controls Fred Culick):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZqIpay-8
(see min 1:44)

It is quite evident from (1) and (2) that the so called replica has the front elevator placed at a visible greater distance from the wings than in the case of the original. The bars linking the main wings and the front elevator are arranged in such a way that the replica seems similar to the 1903 Flyer. In reality the reproduction has the elevator as distant from the wings as in the case of latter planes which flew starting with Aug. 1908. They altered the pitch stability. They are not building a Flyer I but a kitsch.
It's not clear whether you're trying to impugn the Wright brothers, or the replica makers with wrightflyer.org, or both. It is clear, however, that you're trying to "scientifically" compare distances based on wild extrapolations from differently foreshortened images. You're comparing apples and oranges.

In particular, the 1903 photo has a completely different perspective than the video view at 1:44. You can easily see this is so by looking at the vertical spacers connecting the upper and lower wings.

Moreover, if you compare the 1903 photo with a video frame that acutally has a similar perspective, you can see that the two flyers appear to have the same dimensions. The video frame at 1:48 isn't perfect, but it's a MUCH fairer comparison than the frame at 1:44.

Here, just to make it clear, I made an animated GIF just for you. Have a look:

eetrojan is offline  
Old 30th May 2014, 19:07
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
Hi Haraka
Yes I do see No arguments with you at all !
rgds LR
longer ron is offline  
Old 31st May 2014, 02:16
  #93 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can you elaborate on the provenance of the item hanging up in the Smithsonian ( ex- U.K.Science museum ) ... as the 1903 Flyer ...?
The eye witness, A. D. Etheridge, who was at the Nags Head Lifesaving Station on March 12, 1935, amongst other things, said:

"They (the Wright brothers) said they were going to take the engine back with them and the wings of the plane they left with me. Later I got a letter from a man in Philadelphia telling that Wilbur had written and told him that I had the old plane and that he wanted to buy it if I would dispose of it; so I wrote him a letter that I would sell it to him for $25.00. He sent me a check for it, and it is right here that I lost a fortune if I had kept it."
see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8494651

The official story is that Orville Wright rebuilt the 1903 Flyer, the first time in 1916:

"Orville first rebuilt the Flyer in 1916 with the help of Jim Jacobs of the Dayton-Wright Company. Many of the parts had been broken in the tumble across the sand following the fourth flight in 1903. Others had been used and broken in the tests of the 1904 airplane. All were replaced in the reconstruction. Many of these replaced pieces still exist.
The most significant losses were the engine, the fabric, and the propellers. The crankcase and legs were broken off in 1903 and the engine was never used again. The fabric was stored separately and given to the Wright family upon Orville's death in 1948. Other pieces, like the hub to the dolly and the propeller shaft sprockets also exist. Most of these survivors are in the collection of the National Park Service."
Source: In Depth: The 1903 Flyer, Part I

In conclusion, the 1903 Flyer was sold by A. D. Etheridge to someone in Philadelphia and its engine, despite being carried back home by the Wright brothers has not survived. It is also known the brothers did not have drawings for their initial plane. The 1903 Flyer is an airplane that vanished completely and latter replicas are just claimed to be reproductions of the original.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 31st May 2014, 05:24
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
Meanwhile - back in reality

The photographs taken on December 14 and 17, 1903, were shot using Orville Wright’s “Series V Korona” dry-plate camera. The images used in this article were taken from the Library of Congress collection of Wright brothers negatives and are free of copyright restrictions; the images were cropped and enlarged, with improved levels, contrast and brightness, but were otherwise unaltered, with spots, scratches and other imperfections left intact.

longer ron is offline  
Old 31st May 2014, 05:50
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: California
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wright Bros. Century Magazine article

Re: the comment:<< the brother's own version of events, published in Sep. 1908 (see: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress )>>

This article was actually written by Orville without Wilbur. He fashioned the article to give himself the credit for first flight. It was written by Orville with Katherine's (his sister's) help. Wilbur was abroad at the time and had left instructions for the lesser brother, Orville, to follow for the article. These were ignored. The article was published before Wilbur could object. The LOC Letters of Wilbur and Orville Wright clearly show this.

It is an example of more to come, Orville, far less talented, was always trying to upstage Wilbur and did this for the rest of his life. He also worked hard to upstage other aviators and inventors, such as Whitehead.
GWFirstinFlight is offline  
Old 31st May 2014, 05:55
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: California
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, those folks were wrong

The historic record does show that the Wrights have been mis-portrayed for political and financial gain. As an example, read Smithsonian conspiracy to deny Whitehead flew first now provable. The original documents are contained therein. This has been about MONEY as in financial gain, from the very beginning. Then you can add power and influence. Mix those together and you have "History by Contract" by O'Dwyer and Randolph, courtesy of the Smithsonian.
GWFirstinFlight is offline  
Old 31st May 2014, 06:02
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
An original Wright photo and a pic taken at NASM for comparison (this probably has a little lens distortion).
Both pics emphasizing the rather frail construction,I can see why the Wrights liked to fly in a reasonable wind - to keep the groundspeed (and hence landing speed) down to a minimum!
Any frail wooden aircraft that is 'rebuilt' will be largly a replica anyway !







longer ron is offline  
Old 31st May 2014, 06:51
  #98 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This replica does not agree with that 1903 lateral view photo of Flyer I. The distance between the main wings and the front elevator was visibly increased.

A replica of Flyer I 1903 (Wright Flyer 1st Full Taxi test at Flabob Airport, Published on Sep 21, 2012, Pilot at the Controls Fred Culick).
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZqIpay-8
simplex1 is offline  
Old 31st May 2014, 07:31
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The original post was clearly trolling for a controversial reply. Ponder the results..!
evansb is offline  
Old 31st May 2014, 07:51
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
I will not comment on any of the modern replicas !

AFAIK there were no engineering drawings for the 1903 Flyer so it may have been impossible (even for Orville's 'rebuild') to get every detail correct.
Any slight or even subtle difference can have a huge effect on flying qualities etc
And as for the modern replicas - any current pilot is going to struggle to fly an aircraft like the Wright Flyers etc - it is difficult to 'unlearn' modern flying/handling qualities !
longer ron is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.