The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
No Hanaka, I was not saying that the OP did not say that propellor thrust did not vary with speed - it was his/her use of a measured static thrust of 508 lbf in the following:
- max_Thrust_propellers = 508 pounds
- Speed_plane = 70 miles/hour
- Power_engine = 40 HP
Yes the arithmetic is fine (don't bother with all those irrelevant SI units)
(508 * 70 *(88/60))/550 = hp
but the 508 lbf assumption is wrong.
As I wrote before, I was not going to get involved in this thread which advances a theory, based on a single unverifiable assumption, as truth.
- max_Thrust_propellers = 508 pounds
- Speed_plane = 70 miles/hour
- Power_engine = 40 HP
Yes the arithmetic is fine (don't bother with all those irrelevant SI units)
(508 * 70 *(88/60))/550 = hp
but the 508 lbf assumption is wrong.
As I wrote before, I was not going to get involved in this thread which advances a theory, based on a single unverifiable assumption, as truth.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
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.
I still don't understand if you're attacking the Wright brothers, the replica makers, or both. But, it doesn't matter because...
... you're making a ridiculous off-the-cuff comparison of length by eyeballing a photo taken with a 1903 lens, and a 2012 video of a replica taken with a different lens and from a different distance.
Even worse, you're cherry picking the video frame that gives you the angle that let's you see what only you want to see. .
Here, let me make it a little clearer for you (click for larger version):
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to admit I made a mistake:
See: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8499180
It is not increased as I wrote but "decreased their thrust at least 2.37 times at 70 mile/hour".
508pounds * 70miles/hour / 40HP = 237% (if the propellers keep their static trust at 70 mph).
If at 70 mph the thrust decreases from 508 pounds to 214 pounds then the efficiency of the propellers would have been around 100%. As max. efficiencies attained in 1901-1902 were ~ 50% then that static 508 pounds thrust would have had to go down to about 107 pounds at 70 mph.
107pounds * 70miles/hour / 40HP = 50%
Only if the thrust had dropped 4.75 times (508 pounds / 107 pounds) the plane would have attained 70 mph with 50% efficient propellers, available that time.
It appears the propellers of Gustav Whitehead were terrible unoptimized for flight speeds giving high trust at low speeds, where they were not used (the plane accelerated with the propellers unpowered and the engine coupled only to the wheels), and quite poor thrust in flight. It is not impossible. It is plausible.
Unless you prove the propellers of Whitehead increased their thrust at least 2.37 times at 70 mile/hour as compared to the static thrust your accusations are baseless.
It is not increased as I wrote but "decreased their thrust at least 2.37 times at 70 mile/hour".
508pounds * 70miles/hour / 40HP = 237% (if the propellers keep their static trust at 70 mph).
If at 70 mph the thrust decreases from 508 pounds to 214 pounds then the efficiency of the propellers would have been around 100%. As max. efficiencies attained in 1901-1902 were ~ 50% then that static 508 pounds thrust would have had to go down to about 107 pounds at 70 mph.
107pounds * 70miles/hour / 40HP = 50%
Only if the thrust had dropped 4.75 times (508 pounds / 107 pounds) the plane would have attained 70 mph with 50% efficient propellers, available that time.
It appears the propellers of Gustav Whitehead were terrible unoptimized for flight speeds giving high trust at low speeds, where they were not used (the plane accelerated with the propellers unpowered and the engine coupled only to the wheels), and quite poor thrust in flight. It is not impossible. It is plausible.
Last edited by simplex1; 31st May 2014 at 17:48.
I was actually working on what eetrojan has so nicely shown in his GIF animation.
Do notice the increased angle of incidence on the "replica" which I think tends to support "longer rons" caution on reading across.
Please note that I am not "Wright bashing' on this point, it applies to many later "lookalikes", that actually aren't on closer examination.
Do notice the increased angle of incidence on the "replica" which I think tends to support "longer rons" caution on reading across.
Please note that I am not "Wright bashing' on this point, it applies to many later "lookalikes", that actually aren't on closer examination.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall a quote, but I will paraphrase, of one of the wright's.
of all the birds in the animal kingdom, the parrot is the best talker, but the worst flyer.
TO SIMPLEX I SALUTE YOU AS A GREAT PARROT.
The Wrights were right and did the first real flight.
'nuff said.
of all the birds in the animal kingdom, the parrot is the best talker, but the worst flyer.
TO SIMPLEX I SALUTE YOU AS A GREAT PARROT.
The Wrights were right and did the first real flight.
'nuff said.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gustav Whitehead the inventor of the lightweight Diesel Engine?!
This German inventor claimed his No. 22 plane, that allegedly flew on Jan. 17, 1902, was powered by a 40 HP, 120 pounds, kerosene engine with ignition by compression (a lightweight reliable diesel engine, an impossibility for 1902, even for 1922!).
"It is run by a 40 horse-power kerosene motor of my own design, especially constructed for strength, power and lightness, weighing but 120 pounds complete. It will run for a week at a time if required, without running hot, stopping, or in any possible manner troubling the operator. No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. It requires a space 10 inches wide, 4 feet long and 10 inches high."
(Source: "The Whitehead Flying Machine", American Inventor Magazine, 1 April 1902", http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/#Gustav-Whitehead ).
All known diesel engines existent in 1902 were heavy stationary machines. The first powered diesel ship appeared in 1903 and the first diesel road vehicle, a tractor, in 1922 (see, Diesel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
A 1902 reliable, ignition by compression engine, working with kerosene, weighting just 120 pounds and delivering 40 HP is simply anachronistic, a thing that, in reality, appeared decades latter.
This German inventor claimed his No. 22 plane, that allegedly flew on Jan. 17, 1902, was powered by a 40 HP, 120 pounds, kerosene engine with ignition by compression (a lightweight reliable diesel engine, an impossibility for 1902, even for 1922!).
"It is run by a 40 horse-power kerosene motor of my own design, especially constructed for strength, power and lightness, weighing but 120 pounds complete. It will run for a week at a time if required, without running hot, stopping, or in any possible manner troubling the operator. No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. It requires a space 10 inches wide, 4 feet long and 10 inches high."
(Source: "The Whitehead Flying Machine", American Inventor Magazine, 1 April 1902", http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/#Gustav-Whitehead ).
All known diesel engines existent in 1902 were heavy stationary machines. The first powered diesel ship appeared in 1903 and the first diesel road vehicle, a tractor, in 1922 (see, Diesel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
A 1902 reliable, ignition by compression engine, working with kerosene, weighting just 120 pounds and delivering 40 HP is simply anachronistic, a thing that, in reality, appeared decades latter.
Last edited by simplex1; 31st May 2014 at 21:54.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the GIF animation from here:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8500075
Just look at the angles of one of the right triangles of bars that connect the main wings with the front elevator. The replica and the 1903 original Flyer have different such angles. The replica has isosceles right triangles while the 1903 plane right triangles that have the horizontal chateaus visibly shorter than the vertical one.
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8500075
Just look at the angles of one of the right triangles of bars that connect the main wings with the front elevator. The replica and the 1903 original Flyer have different such angles. The replica has isosceles right triangles while the 1903 plane right triangles that have the horizontal chateaus visibly shorter than the vertical one.
The launch of Aerodrome No. 5 on the Potomac River on 6 May 1896.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simplex 1
and where is the pilot? a MODEL does not count the same as the Dec 17, 1903 controlled powered flight including a human pilot.
SIMPLEX1. Perhaps you are bored? Perhaps you are lonely? Perhaps you are really pretty dumb? BUT foisting off a model without a pilot as YOUR evidence against the WRights is really pretty bad.
FOR all practical purposes the Wrights Invented the airplane as we know it and flew the first flight (human, powered, controlled etc). Others invented the prop, or the engine, or even sewing thread. But the wrights put it together, overcame warp drag and gave mankind the airplane.
Now, if you want to go back to Daedalus, that's fine.
And as far as really piloting a plane with anhedral and not being stable, I will remind you that most pilots today do not learn to fly while laying down in a hip cradle. The Wrights were amazing. SIMPLEX, you are not.
and where is the pilot? a MODEL does not count the same as the Dec 17, 1903 controlled powered flight including a human pilot.
SIMPLEX1. Perhaps you are bored? Perhaps you are lonely? Perhaps you are really pretty dumb? BUT foisting off a model without a pilot as YOUR evidence against the WRights is really pretty bad.
FOR all practical purposes the Wrights Invented the airplane as we know it and flew the first flight (human, powered, controlled etc). Others invented the prop, or the engine, or even sewing thread. But the wrights put it together, overcame warp drag and gave mankind the airplane.
Now, if you want to go back to Daedalus, that's fine.
And as far as really piloting a plane with anhedral and not being stable, I will remind you that most pilots today do not learn to fly while laying down in a hip cradle. The Wrights were amazing. SIMPLEX, you are not.
Last edited by glendalegoon; 1st Jun 2014 at 00:08.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're confusing your firsts simplex. Wrights were the first manned.
Langley had his first genuine success on May 6, 1896, with his Aerodrome Number 5. It made the world's first successful flight of an unpiloted, engine-driven, heavier-than-air craft of substantial size. It was launched from a spring-actuated catapult mounted on top of a houseboat on the Potomac River near Quantico, Virginia. Two flights were made on May 6, one of 1,005 m (3,300 ft) and a second of 700 m (2,300 ft), at a speed of approximately 40 kph (25 mph). On both occasions, the Aerodrome Number 5 landed in the water, as planned, because, in order to save weight, it was not equipped with landing gear.
The world is not short of conspiracy theories etc but generally speaking the truth is far more mundane than many people would like to think.
Simplex - I am still not sure exactly why you are trying so hard to discredit the Wrights - I am trying to reply to you in a helpful and practical way !
I would hazard a guess that the dimensions of the 1903 Flyer were constrained by the width of their Shed at KDH,which is possibly why it ended up looking very 'short' - because stability and control for aircraft was in its infancy then the Wrights would probably not have realised that having the Elevator 'close coupled' (ie only a short distance from the wing) would make the aircraft very sensitive in pitch + also by their own admission they had the elevator hinge wrongly positioned which I assume made it very 'twitchy' (overbalanced) !
If anybody subsequently built a 'replica' -they would have to make the elevator further out (further forward) for flight safety/stability/control !
Simplex - I am still not sure exactly why you are trying so hard to discredit the Wrights - I am trying to reply to you in a helpful and practical way !
I would hazard a guess that the dimensions of the 1903 Flyer were constrained by the width of their Shed at KDH,which is possibly why it ended up looking very 'short' - because stability and control for aircraft was in its infancy then the Wrights would probably not have realised that having the Elevator 'close coupled' (ie only a short distance from the wing) would make the aircraft very sensitive in pitch + also by their own admission they had the elevator hinge wrongly positioned which I assume made it very 'twitchy' (overbalanced) !
If anybody subsequently built a 'replica' -they would have to make the elevator further out (further forward) for flight safety/stability/control !
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another inconsistency, an eye witness is quoted as talking about flapping propellers that equipped one of the Wright brothers' planes
There is a large size article, "Fly Over St. Louis at 50 Miles an Hour.", Sunday Magazine - St. Louis Post Dispatch - April 21 1907, Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress ", containing (amongst other things) a short witness account in its end (bottom right):
"Like a locomotive
By A. I. Root, Medina, O., Who Witness Several of Wright Brothers' Flights.
It was one of the grandest sights of my life. I stood in front of the machine as it came around a curve. Imagine, if you can, an aluminum locomotive, without wheels, but with 20-foot wings and big, flapping propellers, climbing up into the air right towards you. Such a tremendous flapping and snapping. Everyone was excited except the two Wrights. ...".
First of all, none of the known airplanes made by the Wright brothers resembles an aluminum locomotive and secondly they were not equipped with flapping propellers.
Amos Ives Root (a real person) is quoted as claiming he witnessed a flying machine that never existed. The entire article has the appearance of an investment scam. Most of the newspaper clippings ( see Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress ) collected by the Wright brothers, especially those between Dec. 17, 1903 and Aug. 8, 1908, look like unreliable articles one can find in tabloids.
There is a large size article, "Fly Over St. Louis at 50 Miles an Hour.", Sunday Magazine - St. Louis Post Dispatch - April 21 1907, Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress ", containing (amongst other things) a short witness account in its end (bottom right):
"Like a locomotive
By A. I. Root, Medina, O., Who Witness Several of Wright Brothers' Flights.
It was one of the grandest sights of my life. I stood in front of the machine as it came around a curve. Imagine, if you can, an aluminum locomotive, without wheels, but with 20-foot wings and big, flapping propellers, climbing up into the air right towards you. Such a tremendous flapping and snapping. Everyone was excited except the two Wrights. ...".
First of all, none of the known airplanes made by the Wright brothers resembles an aluminum locomotive and secondly they were not equipped with flapping propellers.
Amos Ives Root (a real person) is quoted as claiming he witnessed a flying machine that never existed. The entire article has the appearance of an investment scam. Most of the newspaper clippings ( see Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress ) collected by the Wright brothers, especially those between Dec. 17, 1903 and Aug. 8, 1908, look like unreliable articles one can find in tabloids.
Dan Winterland wrote # 24 The problem with flight was power and 19th century experiments with steam engines produced powered short hops with one 3hp powered aircraft achieving an altitude of 6 inches.
Simplex1 asked:
It would be curious to read a few more details about that mysterious plane. Was it a heavier than air man carrying flying machine?
I think Dan may be referring to the aircraft built by Thomas Moy and R.Schill which is said to have risen a few inches of the ground at the Crystal palace in 1875. The "Aerial Steamer" was a biplane "with the wings arranged in tandem" fitted with an engine of 3 h.p. and weighed 80lb, including radiator and water and was mounted on a wheeled undercarriage.
from "Aerial Wonders of our Time " Ed. Sir John Hammerton.
More about it on Google inc. photo and illustrations
( Doesn't sound like it actually became a man carrier
)
Simplex1 asked:
It would be curious to read a few more details about that mysterious plane. Was it a heavier than air man carrying flying machine?
I think Dan may be referring to the aircraft built by Thomas Moy and R.Schill which is said to have risen a few inches of the ground at the Crystal palace in 1875. The "Aerial Steamer" was a biplane "with the wings arranged in tandem" fitted with an engine of 3 h.p. and weighed 80lb, including radiator and water and was mounted on a wheeled undercarriage.
from "Aerial Wonders of our Time " Ed. Sir John Hammerton.
More about it on Google inc. photo and illustrations
( Doesn't sound like it actually became a man carrier
)
Last edited by Haraka; 1st Jun 2014 at 07:59.
Simplex, when you read:
No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used.
why do you jump to the conclusion that a (so-called) diesel engine is implied?
A moment's research into early IC engines will tell you that what we now refer to as "hot tube" ignition was widely used and that the engines so equipped were slow-turning. I doubt it would have used kerosene as we now know it, but once running and with the tube up to operating temperature I expect it could have done so.
As I wrote before, I was not going to get involved in this thread which advances a theory, based on a single unverifiable assumption, as truth and why have I even bothered to read this thread.
However you seem to have expanded your argument to include anything you personally don't immediately understand as evidence in favour of your theory.
No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used.
why do you jump to the conclusion that a (so-called) diesel engine is implied?
A moment's research into early IC engines will tell you that what we now refer to as "hot tube" ignition was widely used and that the engines so equipped were slow-turning. I doubt it would have used kerosene as we now know it, but once running and with the tube up to operating temperature I expect it could have done so.
As I wrote before, I was not going to get involved in this thread which advances a theory, based on a single unverifiable assumption, as truth and why have I even bothered to read this thread.
However you seem to have expanded your argument to include anything you personally don't immediately understand as evidence in favour of your theory.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the 1875 plane of Thomas Moy, Octave Chanute wrote in 1892:
"the machine (which was only a large model and could not carry an engineer) being wholly propelled by the action of the aerial wheels upon the air, acting only as driven.
The utmost speed attained was 12 miles per hour, while 35 miles an hour was required to cause it to leave the ground."
( see: Chanute, Octave (November 1892), "Progress in Flying Machines: Aeroplanes, Part IV". The Railroad and Engineering Journal, Progress in Flying Machines: Aeroplanes, November 1892 )
The 1875 plane of Moy did not fly at all and it was not a man carrying machine. This airplane was about three times below the takeoff speed. It was far from achieving even the shortest, smallest hop possible.
Honestly I do not find any credible man carrying plane, powered by steam, that really hopped a bit (took off under its own power) before 1906.
"the machine (which was only a large model and could not carry an engineer) being wholly propelled by the action of the aerial wheels upon the air, acting only as driven.
The utmost speed attained was 12 miles per hour, while 35 miles an hour was required to cause it to leave the ground."
( see: Chanute, Octave (November 1892), "Progress in Flying Machines: Aeroplanes, Part IV". The Railroad and Engineering Journal, Progress in Flying Machines: Aeroplanes, November 1892 )
The 1875 plane of Moy did not fly at all and it was not a man carrying machine. This airplane was about three times below the takeoff speed. It was far from achieving even the shortest, smallest hop possible.
Honestly I do not find any credible man carrying plane, powered by steam, that really hopped a bit (took off under its own power) before 1906.
Maxim's twin engined Naptha/Steam machine ( in only a test-rig configuration) in 1894 generated so much lift in a trial run ( estimated at between 3000 and 10,000 lb)that it inadvertently broke its restraining rails and travelled a considerable distance through the air with four on board.
In this configuration it was not intended to fly. The planned configuration for this included additional wing panels , powered flying controls and a gyroscopically governed autopilot.
Maxim ran out of money on this project and lost interest, probably because he was coming to the realisation that the internal combustion engine made smaller machines more practicable.
Unlike the Wrights 1903 engine, one of Maxim's engines ( of 180 hp incidentally) is fortunately still with us and is in the bowels of the U.K. Science Museum. At least it was in 1978.
The other engine Maxim consigned to the Smithsonian in the U.S.A. by the safest means of transportation possible in 1912. He put it on the Titanic.
If I may quote Peter Lewis ( British Aircraft 1809 to 1914. Putnam).
Designed on a grand scale, construction of Hiram S. Maxim's first biplane commenced in 1891, and the enormous machine was completed in 1894. Power for the pair of 17.83 ft. diameter propellers was provided by two light-weight compound steam engines, which gave a total of 360 h.p. 320 lb./sq. in. steam was supplied by a Thorneycroft marine boiler fired by naphtha, total thrust being 2,100 lb.
Testing was carried out at Baldwyn's Park, Bexley, Kent, on a 9 ft. wide steel railway track 1,800 ft. in length, equipped with check rails of Georgia pine 35 ft. apart. With pilot and three passengers aboard, the machine took off after a run of 200 yds., when it reached 40 m.p.h., but broke the check rails and came to a halt. The measured lift was 4,000 lb. Owing to the illness of the inventor, and the fact that the grounds at Baldwyn's Park were required for use as a public institution, the whole project was abandoned. Span, 104 ft. Length, 120 ft. Wing area, 3,875 sq. ft. Weight loaded, 8,000 lb.
In this configuration it was not intended to fly. The planned configuration for this included additional wing panels , powered flying controls and a gyroscopically governed autopilot.
Maxim ran out of money on this project and lost interest, probably because he was coming to the realisation that the internal combustion engine made smaller machines more practicable.
Unlike the Wrights 1903 engine, one of Maxim's engines ( of 180 hp incidentally) is fortunately still with us and is in the bowels of the U.K. Science Museum. At least it was in 1978.
The other engine Maxim consigned to the Smithsonian in the U.S.A. by the safest means of transportation possible in 1912. He put it on the Titanic.
If I may quote Peter Lewis ( British Aircraft 1809 to 1914. Putnam).
Designed on a grand scale, construction of Hiram S. Maxim's first biplane commenced in 1891, and the enormous machine was completed in 1894. Power for the pair of 17.83 ft. diameter propellers was provided by two light-weight compound steam engines, which gave a total of 360 h.p. 320 lb./sq. in. steam was supplied by a Thorneycroft marine boiler fired by naphtha, total thrust being 2,100 lb.
Testing was carried out at Baldwyn's Park, Bexley, Kent, on a 9 ft. wide steel railway track 1,800 ft. in length, equipped with check rails of Georgia pine 35 ft. apart. With pilot and three passengers aboard, the machine took off after a run of 200 yds., when it reached 40 m.p.h., but broke the check rails and came to a halt. The measured lift was 4,000 lb. Owing to the illness of the inventor, and the fact that the grounds at Baldwyn's Park were required for use as a public institution, the whole project was abandoned. Span, 104 ft. Length, 120 ft. Wing area, 3,875 sq. ft. Weight loaded, 8,000 lb.
Last edited by Haraka; 1st Jun 2014 at 10:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when you read:
"No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. "
why do you jump to the conclusion that a (so-called) diesel engine is implied?
"No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. "
why do you jump to the conclusion that a (so-called) diesel engine is implied?
The only known engine of that time with a similar performance to Whitehead's motor was the Manly–Balzer engine (also with 5 cylinders) which used electric sparks for igniting the fuel not compression.
Dry weight: 136 lb (62 kg)
Power output: 52 hp (39 kW) at 950 rpm
Delivered: March 1903
see: Manly?Balzer engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the plane built by Hiram Maxim, there is an article in the french journal L'Aeronaute from Nov. 1894. The author describes this huge plane and mentions the good reviews it received in newspapers but he does not clearly write Maxim's plane flew or at least made short hops, beyond any doubt.
"Il y a, dans les essais de M. Hiram Maxim, quelque chose de nouveau, c'est, l'emploi de deux rails superposés l'un au-dessous des roues, l'autre au-dessus. On met de la couleur sous le rail supérieur et si la couleur est enlevée, on déclare que l'appareil s'est envolé. Je trouve l'expérience mal faite. Il se peut très bien que l'aéroplane, qui a une très mauvaise stabilité, se renverse et qu'une des roues se soulève sans que pour cela l'appareil se soit enlevé. Il se peut encore que, comme l'aéroplane de M. Tatin, celui de M. Maxim fasse des bonds sans se maintenir en l'air et sans être capable de s'envoler."
(Source: "LE BREVET DE L'AÉROPLANE de M. HIRAM MAXIM" L'AÉRONAUTE, 27° ANNÉE. — N° 11. — NOVEMBRE 1894, L'Aéronaute (Paris) )
Translation:
"There is, in the trials of Mr. Hiram Maxim, something new, it is the use of two rails one below the wheels, the other above. The upper rail has paint and if the color is removed, we declare that the plane rose. I find the experiment badly done. It may well be that the airplane, which has a very poor stability, tends to overturn and one of the wheels lifts off without us being able to say the plane as a whole got in the air. It is still possible that, as the airplane of Mr. Tatin, the one of Mr. Maxim makes hops without staying in the air and without being able to fly."
It is not clear at all that Maxim's plane made even short hops, this is, it left the inferior rail with all the wheels for an instant. It might have left the lower rail with both left and right front wheels, a case for which the paint from the upper rails would have been removed. The force could have even broken the superior rail without the back wheels being able to quit the lower rail.
Hiram Maxim definitely had a plane in 1894 but the publications of the time do not confirm 100% a true take off (all wheels simultaneously not in contact with the lower rails).
"Il y a, dans les essais de M. Hiram Maxim, quelque chose de nouveau, c'est, l'emploi de deux rails superposés l'un au-dessous des roues, l'autre au-dessus. On met de la couleur sous le rail supérieur et si la couleur est enlevée, on déclare que l'appareil s'est envolé. Je trouve l'expérience mal faite. Il se peut très bien que l'aéroplane, qui a une très mauvaise stabilité, se renverse et qu'une des roues se soulève sans que pour cela l'appareil se soit enlevé. Il se peut encore que, comme l'aéroplane de M. Tatin, celui de M. Maxim fasse des bonds sans se maintenir en l'air et sans être capable de s'envoler."
(Source: "LE BREVET DE L'AÉROPLANE de M. HIRAM MAXIM" L'AÉRONAUTE, 27° ANNÉE. — N° 11. — NOVEMBRE 1894, L'Aéronaute (Paris) )
Translation:
"There is, in the trials of Mr. Hiram Maxim, something new, it is the use of two rails one below the wheels, the other above. The upper rail has paint and if the color is removed, we declare that the plane rose. I find the experiment badly done. It may well be that the airplane, which has a very poor stability, tends to overturn and one of the wheels lifts off without us being able to say the plane as a whole got in the air. It is still possible that, as the airplane of Mr. Tatin, the one of Mr. Maxim makes hops without staying in the air and without being able to fly."
It is not clear at all that Maxim's plane made even short hops, this is, it left the inferior rail with all the wheels for an instant. It might have left the lower rail with both left and right front wheels, a case for which the paint from the upper rails would have been removed. The force could have even broken the superior rail without the back wheels being able to quit the lower rail.
Hiram Maxim definitely had a plane in 1894 but the publications of the time do not confirm 100% a true take off (all wheels simultaneously not in contact with the lower rails).
Last edited by simplex1; 1st Jun 2014 at 13:15.
Trial of Maxim's Steam Flying Machine
Scientific American—September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London.]
On Tuesday, July 31, for the first time in the history of the world, a flying machine actually left the ground, fully equipped with engines, boiler, fuel, water, and a crew of three persons. Its inventor, Mr. Hiram Maxim, had the proud consciousness of feeling that he had accomplished a feat which scores of able mechanics had stated to be impossible. Unfortunately, he had scarcely time to realize his triumph before fate, which so persistently dogs the footsteps of inventors, interposed to dash his hopes. The very precautions which had been adopted to prevent accidents proved fatal to the machine, and in a moment it lay stretched on the ground, like a wounded bird with torn plumage and broken wings. Its very success was the cause of its failure, for not only did it rise, but it tore itself out of the guides placed to limit its flight, and for one short moment it was free. But the wreck of the timber rails became entangled with the sails, and brought it down at once. The machine fell on to the soft sward, embedding its wheels deeply in the grass, and testifying, beyond contradiction, that it had fallen and not run to its position. If it had not been in actual flight, the small flanged wheels would have cut deep tracks in the yielding earth.
Scientific American—September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London.]
On Tuesday, July 31, for the first time in the history of the world, a flying machine actually left the ground, fully equipped with engines, boiler, fuel, water, and a crew of three persons. Its inventor, Mr. Hiram Maxim, had the proud consciousness of feeling that he had accomplished a feat which scores of able mechanics had stated to be impossible. Unfortunately, he had scarcely time to realize his triumph before fate, which so persistently dogs the footsteps of inventors, interposed to dash his hopes. The very precautions which had been adopted to prevent accidents proved fatal to the machine, and in a moment it lay stretched on the ground, like a wounded bird with torn plumage and broken wings. Its very success was the cause of its failure, for not only did it rise, but it tore itself out of the guides placed to limit its flight, and for one short moment it was free. But the wreck of the timber rails became entangled with the sails, and brought it down at once. The machine fell on to the soft sward, embedding its wheels deeply in the grass, and testifying, beyond contradiction, that it had fallen and not run to its position. If it had not been in actual flight, the small flanged wheels would have cut deep tracks in the yielding earth.
I guess you can take your pick to support your particular case Simplex 1
.