The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Wrights are NOT on any official record as making a bona fide powered flight taking off from level ground and landing at the same elevation, flying under their own power (vs. "soaring" or "gliding", requiring a 22 mph headwind), and landing without damage.
Never been there, but how much of a slope is there?
Last edited by Noyade; 4th Jun 2014 at 10:09.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely somebody in 1906 not before.
If you ask me who performed (using a plane) the first practical, self sustained flight in close circuit, then this person is Henri Farman. Before him I do not see any serious evidence that somebody else achieved such a flight.
If you ask me who performed (using a plane) the first practical, self sustained flight in close circuit, then this person is Henri Farman. Before him I do not see any serious evidence that somebody else achieved such a flight.
Early uses of the Aeroplane in war
Include:
"November 1 1911 Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti flew an Austrian-designed Taube aircraft over the Taguira Oasis on the Turkish front. Extracting the pins with his teeth, he threw four 4.5lb grenades from about 300ft onto the troops below. The grenades managed to achieve very little but the incident caused an international enquiry and provoked protests from the Turks about the indiscriminate nature of the attack. The first true bomb, with fins and a detonator, was designed by a Bulgarian soldier, Simeon Petrov, in 1912. In the Balkan War against Turkey that autumn, two bombs were dropped on a Turkish railway station from an Albatros aircraft. This was the first bomber aircraft and the first true bombs, whose design became standard during the World War I."
Not one of my usual sources (!) , but in this case I think fairly reliable and easy to hand:
Ten of the greatest: Aerial engagements | Mail Online
On U.S. Naval Aviation:
" However, not until 1934 was the first carrier commissioned that had been built from the keel up for that purpose"
(Unites States Navy and Marine Corps Fighters 1918-1962. Ed Bruce Robertson.Harleyford 1962.)
"November 1 1911 Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti flew an Austrian-designed Taube aircraft over the Taguira Oasis on the Turkish front. Extracting the pins with his teeth, he threw four 4.5lb grenades from about 300ft onto the troops below. The grenades managed to achieve very little but the incident caused an international enquiry and provoked protests from the Turks about the indiscriminate nature of the attack. The first true bomb, with fins and a detonator, was designed by a Bulgarian soldier, Simeon Petrov, in 1912. In the Balkan War against Turkey that autumn, two bombs were dropped on a Turkish railway station from an Albatros aircraft. This was the first bomber aircraft and the first true bombs, whose design became standard during the World War I."
Not one of my usual sources (!) , but in this case I think fairly reliable and easy to hand:
Ten of the greatest: Aerial engagements | Mail Online
On U.S. Naval Aviation:
" However, not until 1934 was the first carrier commissioned that had been built from the keel up for that purpose"
(Unites States Navy and Marine Corps Fighters 1918-1962. Ed Bruce Robertson.Harleyford 1962.)
Last edited by Haraka; 4th Jun 2014 at 11:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you keep mentioning that "glide" at Kitty Hawk, that has a slope. Never been there, but how how much of a slope is there?
The total thrust generated by the two propellers was just 134 pounds (estimated by the Wright Experience project).
see also: 1903 Wright Flyer I
An insignificant 10 degree slope would have nearly doubled the available thrust from 134 to 264 pounds.
The slope in the picture is clearly above 10 degrees.
The 1903 Flyer taking off in his first flight on Dec. 17, 1903.
Simplex 1's latest
IF the Wrights used the same rail position on the 17th Dec as they did on 14th Dec, then the illustration in his "Wright Flyer 1" reference entitled
"Ready for the first flight test on 14 December 1903" might lend some credence to the slope allegation.
Regarding Voisin bros./Farman and the Wrights. Both learned from each other from 1908 . The Wright's appreciation of the greater stability of the French product and ailerons being incorporated by Henri Farman in the Voisin, post the turning exhibitions of Wilbur ( incidentally to be seen in the Bristol Boxkite of 1910- an improved ,but still unmistakable, Farman).
"Ready for the first flight test on 14 December 1903" might lend some credence to the slope allegation.
Regarding Voisin bros./Farman and the Wrights. Both learned from each other from 1908 . The Wright's appreciation of the greater stability of the French product and ailerons being incorporated by Henri Farman in the Voisin, post the turning exhibitions of Wilbur ( incidentally to be seen in the Bristol Boxkite of 1910- an improved ,but still unmistakable, Farman).
Last edited by Haraka; 4th Jun 2014 at 12:38.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine
Your cropped photo is of flight on the 17th Dec, and from the complete photo there is no evidence of any slope.
The brothers made a flight on the 14th December, but did not regard it as such because the launch ramp was set on a slope of 8° 50" at the foot of Kill Devil Hill. Photos below.
Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) recognise the Wrights as making the first controlled, powered, sustained (from takeoff to landing) flight involving a heavier-than-air vehicle, using mechanically unassisted takeoff (thrust/lift created chiefly by onboard propulsion).
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 4th Jun 2014 at 12:55.
Thanks Brian,
Then the Wrights moved their take-off rail's position between 14th and 17th Dec.
Presumably this new position was established to the FAI's later satisfaction and is where the psp ( or whatever) track now is.
Then the Wrights moved their take-off rail's position between 14th and 17th Dec.
Presumably this new position was established to the FAI's later satisfaction and is where the psp ( or whatever) track now is.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your cropped photo is of flight on the 17th Dec, and from the complete photo there is no evidence of any slope.
Just study in detail the best image available (TIFF 17.2 mb). You find it here:
[First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina]
This photo in small format was published by the Wright brothers in Sep. 1908 as evidence for their alleged flights in 1903. If the slope had been visible on the small size picture the brothers would not have sent it to be published. Unfortunately, they made the mistake to keep the negative and when this was studied with care the slope in front of the plane revealed itself in its entire splendor.
The slope (the fact that the plane was carried up on a hill before each flight) is also confirmed by John T. Daniels in his 1933 letter to a friend and also in his declaration from 1935.
see: Eyewitness Account of First Flight by John Daniels
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The presence of the hill is also confirmed by this picture: [Close-up view of damaged 1903 machine, rudder frame broken in landing, on ground at end of last flight] showing Flyer I 1903 landed, after its final flight on Dec. 17, 1903. The large size version of the image (TIFF 17.2 mb) also reveals the anachronistic look of the propellers. They simply did not exist in 1903. Propellers like that appeared at the end of 1907 and this is strong evidence the photo was not made in 1903.
Had the two brothers obtained a patent for their alleged 1903, 66% efficient propellers they would have had a great contribution immediately to increasing the speed of airships which lacked high performance aerial screws.
Had the two brothers obtained a patent for their alleged 1903, 66% efficient propellers they would have had a great contribution immediately to increasing the speed of airships which lacked high performance aerial screws.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are a bit in denial.
Haraka, don't know on what basis/evidence the FAI recognised the flight.
The presence of the hill is also confirmed by this picture
Propellers like that appeared at the end of 1907 and this is strong evidence the photo was not made in 1903
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Wiki article about early flight, pioneers, and Wenham's Wind Tunnel -long before the Wright's!
Early flying machines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Early flying machines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wind Tunnels: Maxim again
. A wind tunnel, however, was the main focus of Maxim's experimental work, and he built it in heroic dimensions. It was 12 feet long, with a test section 3 feet square. Twin coaxial fans mounted upstream and driven by a steam engine blew air into the test section at 50 miles per hour. The tunnel and whirling arm proved to Maxim that cambered airfoils provided the most lift with the least drag. He obtained a lift-to-drag ratio of 14 for a cambered airfoil at 4 degree angle of attack-a spectacular performance for the late 1800s. He was also the first to detect the effects of aerodynamic interference, where the total drag of a structure exceeded the sum of the drags of the individual components. He cautioned, therefore, that "the various members constituting the frame of a flying machine should not be placed in close proximity to each other.
No half measures with Sir Hiram!
(Also note the reference to the discovery of interference drag- very important, even in those days, in considering things like biplane performance)
Quote:
From the "Pilots of America" site
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
" This is a nonsensical response"
"Are you the user Binksternet from Wikipedia, the one who has wrecked so many pages regarding the history of aviation?"
From the "Pilots of America" site
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
" This is a nonsensical response"
"Are you the user Binksternet from Wikipedia, the one who has wrecked so many pages regarding the history of aviation?"
As an aircraft engineer I was interested in the 'alleged' building of the engine by charlie,wilbur and orville
They built it by 'keeping it simple' and ultra conservative...
They built it by 'keeping it simple' and ultra conservative...
Contemporary automotive practice seems to have been the model for the water-cooled four-cylinder inline layout and influenced many of the details of the design.
The bore and stroke were both 4" for a total displacement of 200 cubic inches. Why the brothers selected such a short stroke, when most engines of the period were "under square" is unknown. Perhaps it had to do with the maximum center offset of their lathe. The compression ratio was about 4.5:1 and suitable for the 60 octane gasoline then available.
No throttle was fitted. The engine appears to have been designed to run at constant power throughout the whole flight envelope. Ignition could be manually retarded as an aid to starting, but there is disagreement about whether timing could be adjusted in flight. At any rate, the control over engine speed provided by retard would not have been dramatic.
The originality of the Wright design was in the extensive use of aluminum to save weight and in the ways in which the design was adapted to the limitations of their tooling. Some fabrication work may have been farmed out to local machine shops, but the bulk of it was done in-house on a lathe and drill press. Someday in that great shop in the sky, I would like to ask Wilbur and Orville why they did not purchase critical, hard-to-make parts, such as the crankshaft and connecting rods. Perhaps, caught up in the rhythm of the work, the idea of going to outside suppliers, working around someone else's givens, would have been a kind of violation.
Even so, Engine No. 1 did not approach the state-of-the-art of 1902. Some features, such as splash lubrication, vacuum-actuated intake valves and make-and- break ignition were obsolescent. Nor was the performance goal of 8 hp at 180 lb anything to write home about. But conservatism has appeal for aircraft engine designers.
The bore and stroke were both 4" for a total displacement of 200 cubic inches. Why the brothers selected such a short stroke, when most engines of the period were "under square" is unknown. Perhaps it had to do with the maximum center offset of their lathe. The compression ratio was about 4.5:1 and suitable for the 60 octane gasoline then available.
No throttle was fitted. The engine appears to have been designed to run at constant power throughout the whole flight envelope. Ignition could be manually retarded as an aid to starting, but there is disagreement about whether timing could be adjusted in flight. At any rate, the control over engine speed provided by retard would not have been dramatic.
The originality of the Wright design was in the extensive use of aluminum to save weight and in the ways in which the design was adapted to the limitations of their tooling. Some fabrication work may have been farmed out to local machine shops, but the bulk of it was done in-house on a lathe and drill press. Someday in that great shop in the sky, I would like to ask Wilbur and Orville why they did not purchase critical, hard-to-make parts, such as the crankshaft and connecting rods. Perhaps, caught up in the rhythm of the work, the idea of going to outside suppliers, working around someone else's givens, would have been a kind of violation.
Even so, Engine No. 1 did not approach the state-of-the-art of 1902. Some features, such as splash lubrication, vacuum-actuated intake valves and make-and- break ignition were obsolescent. Nor was the performance goal of 8 hp at 180 lb anything to write home about. But conservatism has appeal for aircraft engine designers.
Longer ron
Might this have been the reason for the Wrights avoiding a "conventional" take off ,where a maximum of power (very much more than that required to sustain flight) is needed to accelerate and get the machine off of the ground in a reasonable distance in still air?
The engine appears to have been designed to run at constant power throughout the whole flight envelope
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wind tunnel tests done by the Wright brothers were useless
The Wright brothers were not the first to test scaled wings in wind tunnels as Wilbur claimed and the results, obtained on the scaled down models, could not have been useful for the real life plane.
By comparing what Wilbur claimed in (1) with the results obtained in (2), it becomes clear that W. Wright lied about the usefulness of its wind tunnel tests. His experiments would have been of no utility for designing a real size Flyer.
(1) "We finally stopped our wind tunnel experiments just before Christmas, 1901. We really concluded them rather reluctantly because we had a bicycle business to run and a lot of work to do for that as well.
It is difficult to underestimate the value of that very laborious work we did over that homemade wind tunnel. It was, in fact, the first wind tunnel in which small models of wings were tested and their lifting properties accurately noted. From all the data that Orville and I accumulated into tables, an accurate and reliable wing could finally be built. Even modern wind tunnel data with the most sophisticated equipment varies comparatively little from what we first discovered. In fact, the accurate wind tunnel data we developed was so important, it is doubtful if anyone would have ever developed a flyable wing without first developing this data. Sometimes the non-glamorous lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project.
In any case, as famous as we became for our "Flyer" and its system of control, it all would never have happened if we had not developed our own wind tunnel and derived our own correct aerodynamic data.
- Wilbur Wright"
Source: The Wright Brothers' Wind Tunnel
(2) "Based on the most accurate surviving description of the Wright Brothers’ wind tunnel, a replica was constructed and used to determine the effect flow quality and experimental method had on the Brothers’ results, and whether those results were useful in a quantitative sense.
The research incorporated static and total pressure measurements, velocity surveys across the jet, and quantitative flow visualization. Velocity surveys involved high resolution dynamic pressure measurements along the horizontal and vertical test section axes. Particle image velocimetry provided velocity magnitudes, turbulence intensities, and vorticity measurements in the test section. Force measurements on an airfoil model supported the conclusions regarding the effect of flow characteristics on aerodynamic measurements.
Testing revealed boundary layers extending 2.5″ from each wall. In the center of the tunnel was a 5″ diameter “dead zone” in which the flow velocity was 20% lower than the maximum tunnel velocity. Isolated pockets of high velocity flow reaching 35 mph existed outside the “dead
zone”. PIV data revealed asymmetric load distributions on the airfoil due to velocity and vorticity gradients, and indicated the Wrights’ lift measurements were at least 7% low due to flow interactions with the lift balance. Direct force measurements showed the Wrights’ lift measurements were at least 6% and as much as 15% low depending on the Wrights’ true tunnel velocity. Scaling from the tunnel to the Wright Flyer increased the CL discrepancy by an additional 14% and showed the Wrights’ drag prediction to be 300% too high, resulting in highly inaccurate efficiency predictions. Thus, though they learned a great deal from their wind tunnel experiments, the Wrights’ quantitative data was not applicable to full scale design.
...
Because of this, the Wrights would have greatly over predicted the drag on their wing. Significantly, this prediction would have forced the Wrights to seek a much greater thrust and much larger engine than actually necessary to overcome the inflated value."
Source: Michael Gary Dodson, "An historical and applied aerodynamic study of the Wright Brothers' wind tunnel test program and application to successful manned flight", Trident Scholar project report no. 335, year 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a437187.pdf
The Wright brothers were not the first to test scaled wings in wind tunnels as Wilbur claimed and the results, obtained on the scaled down models, could not have been useful for the real life plane.
By comparing what Wilbur claimed in (1) with the results obtained in (2), it becomes clear that W. Wright lied about the usefulness of its wind tunnel tests. His experiments would have been of no utility for designing a real size Flyer.
(1) "We finally stopped our wind tunnel experiments just before Christmas, 1901. We really concluded them rather reluctantly because we had a bicycle business to run and a lot of work to do for that as well.
It is difficult to underestimate the value of that very laborious work we did over that homemade wind tunnel. It was, in fact, the first wind tunnel in which small models of wings were tested and their lifting properties accurately noted. From all the data that Orville and I accumulated into tables, an accurate and reliable wing could finally be built. Even modern wind tunnel data with the most sophisticated equipment varies comparatively little from what we first discovered. In fact, the accurate wind tunnel data we developed was so important, it is doubtful if anyone would have ever developed a flyable wing without first developing this data. Sometimes the non-glamorous lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project.
In any case, as famous as we became for our "Flyer" and its system of control, it all would never have happened if we had not developed our own wind tunnel and derived our own correct aerodynamic data.
- Wilbur Wright"
Source: The Wright Brothers' Wind Tunnel
(2) "Based on the most accurate surviving description of the Wright Brothers’ wind tunnel, a replica was constructed and used to determine the effect flow quality and experimental method had on the Brothers’ results, and whether those results were useful in a quantitative sense.
The research incorporated static and total pressure measurements, velocity surveys across the jet, and quantitative flow visualization. Velocity surveys involved high resolution dynamic pressure measurements along the horizontal and vertical test section axes. Particle image velocimetry provided velocity magnitudes, turbulence intensities, and vorticity measurements in the test section. Force measurements on an airfoil model supported the conclusions regarding the effect of flow characteristics on aerodynamic measurements.
Testing revealed boundary layers extending 2.5″ from each wall. In the center of the tunnel was a 5″ diameter “dead zone” in which the flow velocity was 20% lower than the maximum tunnel velocity. Isolated pockets of high velocity flow reaching 35 mph existed outside the “dead
zone”. PIV data revealed asymmetric load distributions on the airfoil due to velocity and vorticity gradients, and indicated the Wrights’ lift measurements were at least 7% low due to flow interactions with the lift balance. Direct force measurements showed the Wrights’ lift measurements were at least 6% and as much as 15% low depending on the Wrights’ true tunnel velocity. Scaling from the tunnel to the Wright Flyer increased the CL discrepancy by an additional 14% and showed the Wrights’ drag prediction to be 300% too high, resulting in highly inaccurate efficiency predictions. Thus, though they learned a great deal from their wind tunnel experiments, the Wrights’ quantitative data was not applicable to full scale design.
...
Because of this, the Wrights would have greatly over predicted the drag on their wing. Significantly, this prediction would have forced the Wrights to seek a much greater thrust and much larger engine than actually necessary to overcome the inflated value."
Source: Michael Gary Dodson, "An historical and applied aerodynamic study of the Wright Brothers' wind tunnel test program and application to successful manned flight", Trident Scholar project report no. 335, year 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a437187.pdf
Last edited by simplex1; 4th Jun 2014 at 20:12.
U.S.N.A. --- Trident Scholar project report; no. 334 (2005)
AN HISTORICAL AND APPLIED AERODYNAMIC STUDY OF THE WRIGHT
BROTHERS’ WIND TUNNEL TEST PROGRAM AND APPLICATION TO
SUCCESSFUL MANNED FLIGHT by
Midshipman 1/c Michael G. Dodson, Class of 2005
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland
Reading through the whole study...they pay tribute to the wright brothers intuitive development technique and do not accuse the wrights of not flying in 1903 !The Brothers gained much useful knowledge from the wind tunnel tests but obviously were aware of the limitations of the some of the results and intuitively arrived at a reasonable aerofoil shape which was a marked improvement on the previous glider design !
Quote from the study
AN HISTORICAL AND APPLIED AERODYNAMIC STUDY OF THE WRIGHT
BROTHERS’ WIND TUNNEL TEST PROGRAM AND APPLICATION TO
SUCCESSFUL MANNED FLIGHT by
Midshipman 1/c Michael G. Dodson, Class of 2005
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland
Reading through the whole study...they pay tribute to the wright brothers intuitive development technique and do not accuse the wrights of not flying in 1903 !The Brothers gained much useful knowledge from the wind tunnel tests but obviously were aware of the limitations of the some of the results and intuitively arrived at a reasonable aerofoil shape which was a marked improvement on the previous glider design !
Quote from the study
However, had they used their wind tunnel as a quantitative tool the Wright Flyer would have
been grossly over-designed and may have been too heavy to fly. Therefore the Wrights must
have recognized the limits of the tunnel and used it as a qualitative tool, along with the
experience they gained in earlier full scale experiments, to engineer and design the first
successful manned aircraft.
been grossly over-designed and may have been too heavy to fly. Therefore the Wrights must
have recognized the limits of the tunnel and used it as a qualitative tool, along with the
experience they gained in earlier full scale experiments, to engineer and design the first
successful manned aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amazing again.
oh, I am supposed to use more caps.
Amazing, again!
The Wrights used another method to experiment with airfoils. But of course simplex1 hasn't read about that. And I am not going to give details of it.
oh, I am supposed to use more caps.
Amazing, again!
The Wrights used another method to experiment with airfoils. But of course simplex1 hasn't read about that. And I am not going to give details of it.