The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding Hiram Maxim's 1894 plane:
"The actual horse power delivered to the screws is 363 when the engines are running at 375 revolutions per minute. ... The thrust of the screws, when the machine is moored, is 2,100 lb., and when it is running it is 2,000 lb. We give these figures as they were supplied to us, omitting decimals. The total lift is something over 10,000 lb. at a speed of forty miles an hour and with the aeroplanes making an angle of about 7.25 degrees with the horizontal."
Source: The Sydney Mail - Google News Archive Search or The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916)
2000 lb * 40 mph / 363 HP = 58.7% - The efficiency of the propellers is simply too high for 1894. It should have been below 50%.
"The actual horse power delivered to the screws is 363 when the engines are running at 375 revolutions per minute. ... The thrust of the screws, when the machine is moored, is 2,100 lb., and when it is running it is 2,000 lb. We give these figures as they were supplied to us, omitting decimals. The total lift is something over 10,000 lb. at a speed of forty miles an hour and with the aeroplanes making an angle of about 7.25 degrees with the horizontal."
Source: The Sydney Mail - Google News Archive Search or The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916)
2000 lb * 40 mph / 363 HP = 58.7% - The efficiency of the propellers is simply too high for 1894. It should have been below 50%.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
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.
The FAA order applying to the Wright Flyer replicas.
The general description of applicable 1903 Wright Flyer replicas are any close reproduction or copy of the Wright Brothers 1903 aircraft which may be used, but not limited to re-enactment or simulation of the proof of design concept type of flights preformed in 1903 with only a pilot on board.
Another inconsistency, an eye witness is quoted as talking about flapping propellers
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A replica is not meant to be an exact copy of the original.
The use of the word means nothing, it may simply refer to the rotation.
flap - definition of flap by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
You have to show me an example (it could be 100 years old) where the word flapping refers clearly, beyond any doubt, to rotating propellers. You really want to be ridiculous. You are changing the meaning of words just to defend the hopeless case of the Wright brothers as the first people to fly an airplane.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will use the word flap for you.
SIMPLEX, your mouth flaps and gibberish comes out.
You won't even acknowledge that your photo of the langley plane is a MODEL without a human being on board.
OK smart guy, prove the Wright's plane (1903 flyer) can't fly.
Not just that you can't fly it. Not just that someone else can't fly it. but that the Wrights couldn't fly it.
They had been practicing for years and evolved their first gliders into a powered, controllable airplane.
You have been writing for a couple of weeks.
YOU are the only person who is hopeless.
SIMPLEX, your mouth flaps and gibberish comes out.
You won't even acknowledge that your photo of the langley plane is a MODEL without a human being on board.
OK smart guy, prove the Wright's plane (1903 flyer) can't fly.
Not just that you can't fly it. Not just that someone else can't fly it. but that the Wrights couldn't fly it.
They had been practicing for years and evolved their first gliders into a powered, controllable airplane.
You have been writing for a couple of weeks.
YOU are the only person who is hopeless.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from a NASA technical paper "A Look at Handling Qualities of Canard Configurations", by Seth B. Anderson.
The comments on controllably, and the use of anhedral are worthy of note, given the diatribe by simplex on these two elements.
The comments on controllably, and the use of anhedral are worthy of note, given the diatribe by simplex on these two elements.
At the start of powered flight, most new aircraft copied the Wright Brothers canard design; however, only tail aft configurations were produced during the WW I years, 1914-1918, and only a few copies of canard designs invaded the market for the next 50 years. In those early days of flight, most aircraft were designed and built without the benefit of wind tunnel tests, and documentation of stability and control characteristics did not exist. The first systematic stability and control flight test results were conducted by NACA5 in 1919 using a Curtiss JN4H aircraft. Handling qualities measurements correlated with pilot opinion did not take place until the late 1930s.
Although a great number of canard-equipped aircraft have flown throughout the years, it is only recently that stability and control data have become available to provide a clearer understanding of the relative merits of this concept. As a result, only a select few of the many canard concepts that have demonstrated successful flight are reviewed.
In the early struggles to achieve powered flight, the canard concept proved to be popular. The Wright Brothers designed their 1903 canard "Flyer" by appropriately blending knowledge of structures, power plant, and aerodynamics to construct a machine that had enough power to offset the drag and sufficient control to trim over a wide AOA range. They did not, however, understand or appreciate the need for stability and this was reflected in problems encountered in developing their concept. Not only was their aircraft unstable longitudinally and laterally, but also the elevator hinge moments were overbalanced, and large adverse yaw complicated turn entries.
An examination of a two-view drawing of the 1905 aircraft reveals features which are of special interest from the stability and control (handling qualities) standpoint. Foremost is the use of the foreplane, which led to the configuration coined "canard," a French word for a hoax or tall story. In fact, their accomplishment of powered flight was not completely believed until Wilber Wright demonstrated their aircraft in many European countries in 1908. The reason for the choice of the canard control was not based upon measured data (the Wrights' wind tunnel tests did not include pitching moment), but more upon intuitive reasoning. Good control was uppermost in their minds. Wilber had expressed a concern that an aft tail configuration had an intrinsic danger that was associated with Lilienthal's loss of control and death while flying his glider in 1896.
The stall behavior of their aircraft was never well documented. The relatively constant chord planform would normally provide good stall characteristics by virtue of center-section flow breakdown, except that downwash from the canard would unload the wing root area and tend to cause loss of lateral stability at stall. Stalls had been encountered in the 1901 glider (configured similarly to the 1903 powered vehicle), which was observed to "mush" to the ground with little damage. A more serious stall did occur with the 1903 Flyer when Wilber allowed the aircraft to pitch up to the stall in a moment of confusion when he inadvertently stopped the engine. The stall occurred at low altitude, resulting in a nose-down impact with considerable damage, but Wilber was not hurt. The nose-down behavior is normally a desired stall recovery response, except when flying close to the ground.
Pursuing the pitch characteristics further, recent data obtained on a one-eighth-scale model show that pitching moment characteristics were relatively linear up to CLmax . In fact, a pitch down at the stall normally max associated with a canard control losing effectiveness (by stalling before the wing) is not evident. Flight stall behavior would be altered by the c.g. location used. In the Wrights' case, the c.g. was not far enough forward to highly load the canard and cause it to stall first. Although the Wrights may have wanted more stability, it was not possible to move the c.g. farther forward because of the inability to trim out the large nose-down pitching moment associated with the highly cambered airfoil. It should be noted that even though the flyer was highly unstable, a large upload on the canard was required to provide trim at a cruise CL of approximately 0.6.
The Flyer's instability was a major handling qualities problem as evidenced from comments by Orville Wright in a letter to Wilber in 1909. "The difficulty in handling our machine is due to rudder (horizontal tailor canard) being in front, which makes it hard to keep on a level course. If you want to climb you must first give the front rudder a larger angle, but immediately the machine begins to rise you must reverse the rudder and give a smaller angle. The machine is always in unstable equilibrium. I do not think it necessary to lengthen the machine but to simply put the rudder behind instead of before." From the recent wind tunnel data it was estimated that they were flying with a negative static margin of approximately -20%. The derived pitch dynamic stability showed that the short period mode was aperiodic and doubled amplitude in about 0.5 sec. This calculated divergence rate is considerably greater than that judged acceptable. In reality, the behavior would be subdued by apparent mass and inertia effects. A skilled pilot could learn to cope with this behavior, but undoubtedly the pilot workload was high.
As their flights progressed, the Wrights recognized the need for more stability. By reducing the wing camber and providing a more favorable hinge moment balance, they were able to add 70 lb of cast iron at the nose to improve stability. Eventually, one of the canard surfaces was moved to the rear and made movable, improving stability so that hands-off flight was possible.
The lateral/directional stability and control of the Flyer were marginal and early attempts at turning flight were fraught with danger. In fact, it was not until September 1904 that a 360° turn was accomplished. Part of the problem was lateral stability. Although dihedral invented by Cayley around 1800 was known to produce positive lateral stability, the Wrights chose to use anhedral because their glIder experiments had shown adverse bank angle effects when flying in ground effect in cross wind operation with positive dihedral.
Although anhedral tended to help the airplane turn by virtue of an unstable spiral mode, Wilbur noted in his diary, "Unable to stop turning." It was fortunate that directional stability (CNB ) was neutral to low, since a large CNB would have aggravated the spiral instability. In part, the poor yaw (turn) behavior was due to the interconnect system used to improve turn entry. The Wrights discovered early in their glider tests that wing warping provided good roll effectiveness, but it also produced adverse yaw. By interconnecting the rudder with wing warp, adverse yaw effects were reduced, but yaw control power was marginal. In 1905 they decided to operate the rudder control independently with improved turn capability.
Although the 1903 Flyer did achieve success in ushering in the era of powered flight, the canard concept did not appear to have enough merit to prevail beyond 1910. The 1911 model B aircraft had a conventional (aft) tail.
Although a great number of canard-equipped aircraft have flown throughout the years, it is only recently that stability and control data have become available to provide a clearer understanding of the relative merits of this concept. As a result, only a select few of the many canard concepts that have demonstrated successful flight are reviewed.
In the early struggles to achieve powered flight, the canard concept proved to be popular. The Wright Brothers designed their 1903 canard "Flyer" by appropriately blending knowledge of structures, power plant, and aerodynamics to construct a machine that had enough power to offset the drag and sufficient control to trim over a wide AOA range. They did not, however, understand or appreciate the need for stability and this was reflected in problems encountered in developing their concept. Not only was their aircraft unstable longitudinally and laterally, but also the elevator hinge moments were overbalanced, and large adverse yaw complicated turn entries.
An examination of a two-view drawing of the 1905 aircraft reveals features which are of special interest from the stability and control (handling qualities) standpoint. Foremost is the use of the foreplane, which led to the configuration coined "canard," a French word for a hoax or tall story. In fact, their accomplishment of powered flight was not completely believed until Wilber Wright demonstrated their aircraft in many European countries in 1908. The reason for the choice of the canard control was not based upon measured data (the Wrights' wind tunnel tests did not include pitching moment), but more upon intuitive reasoning. Good control was uppermost in their minds. Wilber had expressed a concern that an aft tail configuration had an intrinsic danger that was associated with Lilienthal's loss of control and death while flying his glider in 1896.
The stall behavior of their aircraft was never well documented. The relatively constant chord planform would normally provide good stall characteristics by virtue of center-section flow breakdown, except that downwash from the canard would unload the wing root area and tend to cause loss of lateral stability at stall. Stalls had been encountered in the 1901 glider (configured similarly to the 1903 powered vehicle), which was observed to "mush" to the ground with little damage. A more serious stall did occur with the 1903 Flyer when Wilber allowed the aircraft to pitch up to the stall in a moment of confusion when he inadvertently stopped the engine. The stall occurred at low altitude, resulting in a nose-down impact with considerable damage, but Wilber was not hurt. The nose-down behavior is normally a desired stall recovery response, except when flying close to the ground.
Pursuing the pitch characteristics further, recent data obtained on a one-eighth-scale model show that pitching moment characteristics were relatively linear up to CLmax . In fact, a pitch down at the stall normally max associated with a canard control losing effectiveness (by stalling before the wing) is not evident. Flight stall behavior would be altered by the c.g. location used. In the Wrights' case, the c.g. was not far enough forward to highly load the canard and cause it to stall first. Although the Wrights may have wanted more stability, it was not possible to move the c.g. farther forward because of the inability to trim out the large nose-down pitching moment associated with the highly cambered airfoil. It should be noted that even though the flyer was highly unstable, a large upload on the canard was required to provide trim at a cruise CL of approximately 0.6.
The Flyer's instability was a major handling qualities problem as evidenced from comments by Orville Wright in a letter to Wilber in 1909. "The difficulty in handling our machine is due to rudder (horizontal tailor canard) being in front, which makes it hard to keep on a level course. If you want to climb you must first give the front rudder a larger angle, but immediately the machine begins to rise you must reverse the rudder and give a smaller angle. The machine is always in unstable equilibrium. I do not think it necessary to lengthen the machine but to simply put the rudder behind instead of before." From the recent wind tunnel data it was estimated that they were flying with a negative static margin of approximately -20%. The derived pitch dynamic stability showed that the short period mode was aperiodic and doubled amplitude in about 0.5 sec. This calculated divergence rate is considerably greater than that judged acceptable. In reality, the behavior would be subdued by apparent mass and inertia effects. A skilled pilot could learn to cope with this behavior, but undoubtedly the pilot workload was high.
As their flights progressed, the Wrights recognized the need for more stability. By reducing the wing camber and providing a more favorable hinge moment balance, they were able to add 70 lb of cast iron at the nose to improve stability. Eventually, one of the canard surfaces was moved to the rear and made movable, improving stability so that hands-off flight was possible.
The lateral/directional stability and control of the Flyer were marginal and early attempts at turning flight were fraught with danger. In fact, it was not until September 1904 that a 360° turn was accomplished. Part of the problem was lateral stability. Although dihedral invented by Cayley around 1800 was known to produce positive lateral stability, the Wrights chose to use anhedral because their glIder experiments had shown adverse bank angle effects when flying in ground effect in cross wind operation with positive dihedral.
Although anhedral tended to help the airplane turn by virtue of an unstable spiral mode, Wilbur noted in his diary, "Unable to stop turning." It was fortunate that directional stability (CNB ) was neutral to low, since a large CNB would have aggravated the spiral instability. In part, the poor yaw (turn) behavior was due to the interconnect system used to improve turn entry. The Wrights discovered early in their glider tests that wing warping provided good roll effectiveness, but it also produced adverse yaw. By interconnecting the rudder with wing warp, adverse yaw effects were reduced, but yaw control power was marginal. In 1905 they decided to operate the rudder control independently with improved turn capability.
Although the 1903 Flyer did achieve success in ushering in the era of powered flight, the canard concept did not appear to have enough merit to prevail beyond 1910. The 1911 model B aircraft had a conventional (aft) tail.
Well Simplex - some very knowledgeable guys on here giving you some sound practical information - as Brian posted previously - language useage has changed greatly over the 100+ years,different words/phrasing and even meanings !The technical language of aviation would evolve over the next ten years after 1903 - but it just did not exist in the early 1900's - so people just called and described things in different ways !
I did post yesterday why an exact replica of the 1903 Flyer could not be built to fly - and it has nothing to do with any half ar5ed conspiracy theories !
Have a nice life
I did post yesterday why an exact replica of the 1903 Flyer could not be built to fly - and it has nothing to do with any half ar5ed conspiracy theories !
Have a nice life
Canards.
I always thought that the name "Canard" was derived from the French word for a duck, because the long length of the aircraft in front of the main wing in this layout making the configuration resemble a duck in flight. Hence the Focke Wulf F-19 "Ente" and the Mig- 8 "Utke", in German and Russian also meaning duck. By usage the foreplanes ( when normally present) also being referred to as canards.
From the flying point of view I think consideration should also be given to the fact that the elevator's location ( directly in line with the pilot's forward vision) , its angle of incidence and it's position relative to the horizon gave the pilot a very short control feedback loop to respond to what the aeroplane was doing: all aids to flying an unstable aircraft.
The article quoted by Brian also perhaps gives some explanation as to the seemingly alarming up-angle of the elevator on the famous 17th December photograph .
(Incidentally I disagree with the assertion that at the start of powered flight "most" new aircraft copied the Wright brothers canard design. A number, yes, but that has not the same implication. It might not be incorrect to state that , following the experience of the European visit, the Wrights progressively abandoned their canard configuration).
I always thought that the name "Canard" was derived from the French word for a duck, because the long length of the aircraft in front of the main wing in this layout making the configuration resemble a duck in flight. Hence the Focke Wulf F-19 "Ente" and the Mig- 8 "Utke", in German and Russian also meaning duck. By usage the foreplanes ( when normally present) also being referred to as canards.
From the flying point of view I think consideration should also be given to the fact that the elevator's location ( directly in line with the pilot's forward vision) , its angle of incidence and it's position relative to the horizon gave the pilot a very short control feedback loop to respond to what the aeroplane was doing: all aids to flying an unstable aircraft.
The article quoted by Brian also perhaps gives some explanation as to the seemingly alarming up-angle of the elevator on the famous 17th December photograph .
(Incidentally I disagree with the assertion that at the start of powered flight "most" new aircraft copied the Wright brothers canard design. A number, yes, but that has not the same implication. It might not be incorrect to state that , following the experience of the European visit, the Wrights progressively abandoned their canard configuration).
Last edited by Haraka; 2nd Jun 2014 at 11:02.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the start of powered flight, most new aircraft copied the Wright Brothers canard design
The canard configuration was well known at the time the Wright brothers started to build gliders.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flapping propellers
To account for an eyewitness describing the Wrights' propellers as "flapping" I don't think we need to postulate a change in meaning of the word (which seems a bit unlikely to me). We just have to remember that eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable, and the slow rotation of the Wrights' propellers could easily have been interpreted, by a relatively distant observer who didn't know how they really moved, as flapping. Think of all the times you've seen something as first moving in one way, then identified it and reinterpreted it.
Truly, eyewitnesses are unreliable. All those aircraft that streak flames before crashing, even though there was actually no fire. And it's not just other people: I was an eyewitness to a mild fender-bender, and afterwards realised I could not remember the precise sequence of events.
I'm not quite sure what OP is trying to prove. I assume it's that someone else had priority over the Wrights, and it looks like Langley: maybe Langley could have flown, but he didn't. But if the Wrights didn't really fly until 1908, that would give it to Santos Dumont, unless it was really Richard Pearse: but if Pearse was first, it shows how little this Guinness Book of Records mentality matters for real history, because he had no influence on future developments, whereas the Wrights, for good and ill, certainly did.
Truly, eyewitnesses are unreliable. All those aircraft that streak flames before crashing, even though there was actually no fire. And it's not just other people: I was an eyewitness to a mild fender-bender, and afterwards realised I could not remember the precise sequence of events.
I'm not quite sure what OP is trying to prove. I assume it's that someone else had priority over the Wrights, and it looks like Langley: maybe Langley could have flown, but he didn't. But if the Wrights didn't really fly until 1908, that would give it to Santos Dumont, unless it was really Richard Pearse: but if Pearse was first, it shows how little this Guinness Book of Records mentality matters for real history, because he had no influence on future developments, whereas the Wrights, for good and ill, certainly did.
Hiram Maxim's plane had that canard wing you are talking about since before 1894
Regrettably, despite many contributors' forbearance and encouragement, you really don't seem to have demonstrated evidence of an informed coherent and/or constructive original argument or structured point of view on any of the topics you have raised.
Perhaps you would be happier on a UFO thread or somesuch on another forum?
Join Date: May 2014
Location: California
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gustave Whitehead Engines
Gustave Whitehead not only made engines, used them to fly, and wrote letters to the editor about them in 1901-1902 through 1911, but he was actively developing and selling them to other inventors. He was interviewed in person and displayed his engines, and there are many photos of them. Aviation pioneer Charles Witteman was one of his customers who said Whitehead was a genius. Wikipedia is definitely not the source of all knowledge, nor is what we have been taught the last word. History is always catching up to what the realities actually were. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, coming back to Hiram Maxim, that article from Scientific American - September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London], about a flight on July 31, 1894, does not talk about witnesses and the evidence, it presents to support the flight, is indirect: "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."
The ideal flight of Maxim's plane, if everything had worked perfectly, would have been 1 inch above the steel rails!
"Four extra wheels were fitted to the machine on outriggers and so adjusted that, if the machine should lift one inch clear of the steel rails, the wheels at the ends of the outriggers would engage the under side of the pine trackway." ...
Source: The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916)
The description given by Hiram Maxim himself about the flight is quite complicated. He was not 100% sure his plane had really flown, even at a height of 1 inch. It is not quite clear what happened to the right wheel which rolled on one of the steel rails. After running 1000 feet the plane started to tear up the upper rail with its outer right wheel. This means the inner right main wheel could well have been in contact with the steel rail. It is also not clear how far from the steel rail Maxim's plane stopped. The flying machine could have been 6 wheel in the air but the other two (right front) evolved in a mysterious way. Also, between 600 and 900 feet the plane, according to Maxim, floated 1 inch above the steel rail. Are we sure all inner wheels were in the air simultaneously? I have serious doubts the machine had such a vertical stability to fly (even guided horizontally by the outer wheels) 1 inch above the rails for 300 feet, a long distance.
Maxim's own words:
"The enormous screw-thrust started the engine so quickly that it nearly threw the engineers off their feet, and the machine bounded over the track at a great rate. Upon noticing a slight diminution in the steam pressure, I turned on more gas, when almost instantly the steam commenced to blow a steady blast from the small safety valve, showing that the pressure was at least 320 lbs. in the pipes supplying the engines with steam. Before starting on this run, the wheels that were to engage the upper track were painted, and it was the duty of one of my assistants to observe these wheels during the run, while another assistant watched the pressure gauges and dynagraphs. The first part of the track was up a slight incline, but the machine was lifted clear of the lower rails and all of the top wheels were fully engaged on the upper track when about 600 feet had been covered. The speed rapidly increased, and when 900 feet had been covered, one of the rear axle trees, which were of two-inch steel tubing, doubled up and set the rear end of the machine completely free. The pencils ran completely across the cylinders of the dynagraphs and caught on the underneath end. The rear end of the machine being set free, raised considerably above the track and swayed. At about 1,000 feet, the left forward wheel also got clear of the upper track, and shortly afterwards the right forward wheel tore up about 100 feet of the upper track. Steam was at once shut off and the machine sank directly to the earth, embedding the wheels in the soft turf without leaving any other marks, showing most conclusively that the machine was completely suspended in the air before it settled to the earth. In this accident, one of the pine timbers forming the upper track went completely through the lower framework of the machine and broke a number of the tubes, but no damage was done to the machinery except a slight injury to one of the screws."
Source: The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916)
Hiram Maxim's plane
Hiram Maxim's plane
The ideal flight of Maxim's plane, if everything had worked perfectly, would have been 1 inch above the steel rails!
"Four extra wheels were fitted to the machine on outriggers and so adjusted that, if the machine should lift one inch clear of the steel rails, the wheels at the ends of the outriggers would engage the under side of the pine trackway." ...
Source: The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916)
The description given by Hiram Maxim himself about the flight is quite complicated. He was not 100% sure his plane had really flown, even at a height of 1 inch. It is not quite clear what happened to the right wheel which rolled on one of the steel rails. After running 1000 feet the plane started to tear up the upper rail with its outer right wheel. This means the inner right main wheel could well have been in contact with the steel rail. It is also not clear how far from the steel rail Maxim's plane stopped. The flying machine could have been 6 wheel in the air but the other two (right front) evolved in a mysterious way. Also, between 600 and 900 feet the plane, according to Maxim, floated 1 inch above the steel rail. Are we sure all inner wheels were in the air simultaneously? I have serious doubts the machine had such a vertical stability to fly (even guided horizontally by the outer wheels) 1 inch above the rails for 300 feet, a long distance.
Maxim's own words:
"The enormous screw-thrust started the engine so quickly that it nearly threw the engineers off their feet, and the machine bounded over the track at a great rate. Upon noticing a slight diminution in the steam pressure, I turned on more gas, when almost instantly the steam commenced to blow a steady blast from the small safety valve, showing that the pressure was at least 320 lbs. in the pipes supplying the engines with steam. Before starting on this run, the wheels that were to engage the upper track were painted, and it was the duty of one of my assistants to observe these wheels during the run, while another assistant watched the pressure gauges and dynagraphs. The first part of the track was up a slight incline, but the machine was lifted clear of the lower rails and all of the top wheels were fully engaged on the upper track when about 600 feet had been covered. The speed rapidly increased, and when 900 feet had been covered, one of the rear axle trees, which were of two-inch steel tubing, doubled up and set the rear end of the machine completely free. The pencils ran completely across the cylinders of the dynagraphs and caught on the underneath end. The rear end of the machine being set free, raised considerably above the track and swayed. At about 1,000 feet, the left forward wheel also got clear of the upper track, and shortly afterwards the right forward wheel tore up about 100 feet of the upper track. Steam was at once shut off and the machine sank directly to the earth, embedding the wheels in the soft turf without leaving any other marks, showing most conclusively that the machine was completely suspended in the air before it settled to the earth. In this accident, one of the pine timbers forming the upper track went completely through the lower framework of the machine and broke a number of the tubes, but no damage was done to the machinery except a slight injury to one of the screws."
Source: The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916)
Hiram Maxim's plane
Hiram Maxim's plane
Last edited by simplex1; 2nd Jun 2014 at 22:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to even bother to answer that comment.
Regrettably, despite many contributors' forbearance and encouragement, you really don't seem to have demonstrated evidence of an informed coherent and/or constructive original argument or structured point of view on any of the topics you have raised.
Regrettably, despite many contributors' forbearance and encouragement, you really don't seem to have demonstrated evidence of an informed coherent and/or constructive original argument or structured point of view on any of the topics you have raised.
because he had no influence on future developments, whereas the Wrights, for good and ill, certainly did.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gustave Whitehead not only made engines, used them to fly, and wrote letters to the editor about them in 1901-1902 through 1911, but he was actively developing and selling them to other inventors. He was interviewed in person and displayed his engines, and there are many photos of them. Aviation pioneer Charles Witteman was one of his customers who said Whitehead was a genius. Wikipedia is definitely not the source of all knowledge, nor is what we have been taught the last word. History is always catching up to what the realities actually were. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dan winterland
anyone was welcome to use the patented notions/ideas etc of the wrights AS LONG AS IT WAS NOT FOR PROFIT.
Curtiss substantially stole the ideas and MADE MONEY off the wrights hard work.
I actually think only the warlike hatred of the europeans for each other lead to advancement in aviation, OVER THERE>
anyone was welcome to use the patented notions/ideas etc of the wrights AS LONG AS IT WAS NOT FOR PROFIT.
Curtiss substantially stole the ideas and MADE MONEY off the wrights hard work.
I actually think only the warlike hatred of the europeans for each other lead to advancement in aviation, OVER THERE>
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought that the name "Canard" was derived from the French word for a duck, because the long length of the aircraft in front of the main wing in this layout making the configuration resemble a duck in flight.
Discussion on who was "first".
The Case for Gustave Whitehead
One influence the Wrights had was to virtually stop all aviation research and development in the US
Greed and the Wright Brothers - NYTimes.com
“By attempting to neuter Curtiss,” Goldstone writes, “the Wrights stifled the development of American aviation.”
I think there is a bit more to the U.S.A.'s failure to keep pace with European aviation development pre-1917 than just "blaming it on the Wrights" .
However that is perhaps another discussion.
However that is perhaps another discussion.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The claims that Whitehead was the first to fly seem no better to me than those of Clement Ader's claimed flight in Eole. As I said earlier, there were many other pioneers and already a lot of knowledge and experience, so by the end of the 18th century "powered, sustained and controlled flight" was inevitable.