|
I had written a long(ish) post on friday but my company webmarshal would not let me post on prune LOL - work/real life and beer have intervened since :)
They are not ailerons in post 262 - they are Airbrakes :) |
Airbrakes Do note that the word "longeron" is also from the French :) ( In fact the ailerons are fairly clearly visible on the upper wing.) |
I am posting part of an article from the Wright Brothers.org website,one of the things I mentioned in my friday (not posted) post was why the need to discredit the Wrights Achievements ?
As I posted previously all Simplex wants to do is discredit the WB achievements,as far as I am aware - no other posters on this thread have tried to discredit the other earlier pioneers - it is just that there is simply no other contender for the first powered/controlled flight . Even if some people doubt the criteria for the 1903 flight - then the 1905 flights at Huffman were still way ahead of any other contender ! Simplex no doubt will scoff at the source for this article but it is well written and the rest of the page is even handed in its comments about Santos Dumont ! In 1905, after the Wrights felt they had worked the bugs out of their invention and had created a practical airplane, they invited the public back again. They sent out about 30 invitations to people whom they thought would make credible witnesses. Several hundred showed up at Huffman Prairie to watch them fly on October 4 and 5 , 1905. On October 5, Wilbur was able to keep the Wright Flyer 3 in the air for 39 minutes, flying 30 complete circuits of the field and covering over 24 miles -- in public. To sum up, the Wrights made at least six public flights of varying degrees of success before 1906. "...they presented their ground device dependant flying machine..." Another common objection of the Santos Dumont camp is that the Wright brothers used a catapult to launch their airplane. They ignore the fact that the Wright brothers made over 40 flights of varying lengths before they built a catapult, including the four flights on December 17, 1903. They also ignore the records of the flights the Wrights made in 1904 and 1905, which show that the catapult wasn't always used. If the Wrights felt they had sufficient headwinds, they took off without it. The Wrights continued to use the catapult and launching rail long after they needed to because they felt it offered an advantage over wheels. Aircraft with wheels needed a long take-off run; with a rail the Wrights could be off the ground in as little as 60 feet. Additionally, the rail kept the airplane headed in the proper direction until the air was flowing over the control surfaces fast enough to give the pilot adequate control. Ground loops and other accidents were all too common in wheeled aircraft that had to traverse some distance before the controls became effective. Wilbur Wright experienced this anti-catapult chauvinism in France in 1908 when he set an altitude record and the Federation Aeronautique Internationale denied him the record because he made an "assisted" take-off. To prove to the French that whatever assistance the catapult had provided was beside the point, Wilbur took off unassisted on skids alone and set the record anew. |
Do note that the word "longeron" is also from the French I would have preferred 'Flapjack' (which combines 2 interests :)) but it had already been eaten LOL |
Simplex - just a little point - when I said I was British and therefore it does not matter to me who flew first - it is because to me there is no national pride involved !
Same if I was Portugese - no national pride involved ! However - if I was (say) Brazilian or of Brazilian descent then there may be national pride involved :) |
The whole point is of interpretation of definitions.
What is "practical"? Is it "practical" to have an aircraft that has to take off on a rail and has to be physically carried and lifted back on to one to return to flight? Where does a "hop" end and "sustained" flight begin? The Wrights' first claimed flight in 1903 was a short distance into a stiff breeze. Ader's aircraft in 1896 ( with controls) also got airborne, but the flight was disallowed because it had been "lifted by a breeze". On 17th Dec 1903 the Wrights' aircraft was reportedly blown over and wrecked. What is understood by "controlled" flight ? By whose reckoning is two-axis aerodynamic control, with automatic stability in the third not "controlled"? What is "acceptable" evidence of flight? ( N.B. Voisin used FAI witnesses in January 1908). So how is the popular description of anybody "inventing" the aeroplane reasonably justified? |
The whole point is of interpretation of definitions. What is "practical"? Is it "practical" to have an aircraft that has to take off on a rail and has to be physically carried and lifted back on to one to return to flight? Where does a "hop" end and "sustained" flight begin? The reason I highlighted the last sentence on post 266 is that by 1905 the Wrights launching method had become irrelevant to actual flight duration,with hindsight their biggest 'mistake' was staying with the launch rail but I can understand their reasoning behind it ! rgds LR |
Did the Wright's have a patent on the the falling-weight catapult?
http://i58.tinypic.com/iop8j9.jpg |
Note that the ailerons in the photo above are both pointing in the same direction and that the foreplane "rudder" i.e. elevator appears to be absent. Possible combined elevator and aileron- elevons I think that they are indeed 'elevons' for both pitch and roll control. This glider was built by R.E.P ! rgds LR |
And why did the French try the under-carriage-less Baroudeur as late as 1956?
http://i62.tinypic.com/25irjbr.jpg And the Australians? :) http://i61.tinypic.com/yknev.jpg |
So how is the popular description of anybody "inventing" the aeroplane reasonably justified? But this doesn't mean we should deny the contributions of the Wrights who, as it happened, after a lot of work themselves and having studied the work of others, were the first to get it together. Was their aeroplane practical? Not by our standards, but it was more practical than anything else in 1903. And perhaps anyone who thinks catapult launch invalidates their claim should explain to a group of naval aviators that what they do isn't really flying, most of the time. |
LR
Now that is interesting. I went back and had a good look and the upper wing structure seemed to possibly show a false spar and neutral ailerons. So perhaps not after all. The absence of a forward elevator made me wonder if it just hadn't been fitted. R E-P is also credited as the inventor of the control column. Following the farcical "photo of the Whitehead machine in flight" interlude the Californians are now pushing for greater recognition of Montgomery ( whose glider was the probable actual subject of the "Whitehead " photo.) He was gliding using ailerons in 1884 apparently . |
And why did the French try the under-carriage-less Baroudeur as late as 1956? As for the Australians.... " Of course its a combat goer." " What do you mean it hasn't got a bottom on it?" |
zero launch Didn't it require a rocket-propelled trolley?.... http://i60.tinypic.com/2m30kfp.jpg |
Did the Wright's have a patent on the the falling-weight catapult? |
Have you guys seen photographs of how painful it was for the Germans to move the early dead sled-equipped Arado 234s from the field?
Got some photos somewhere...breathtakingly complex. |
|
Didn't it require a rocket-propelled trolley?.... Take-off options examined by Héreil and his staff included catapults, railroad sleds and launch ramps. It was the lack of a conventional undercarriage that killed the project , as it was argued that taking off from and landing on unprepared fields did not actually turn the aircraft in to an effective weapons system and that the logistics of providing fuel, weapons,oxygen, spares etc to dispersed sites would be a nightmare. (extracted from Air International June 1995) |
Clement Ader did not fly in front of official witnesses
On Oct. 14, 1897, Clement Ader tried to take off. Two officials from the War Department witnessed his attempts and declared the rear wheel had not been all the time in contact with the soil and that the back side of the plane had raised frequently. The officials did not say anything about the front wheels. "il fut cependant facile de constater, d'après le sillage des roues, que l'appareil avait été fréquemment soulevé de l'arrière et que la roue arrière formant le gouvernail n'avait pas porté constamment sur le sol. ... Les deux membres de la commission le virent sortir brusquement de la piste, décrire une demi-conversion, s'incliner sur le côté et enfin rester immobile" Source: CLEMENT ADER 1 |
Whilst not commenting on the 1897 Ader incident , I think the distinction has to be understood between "officials" and "official witnesses".
It looks like simplex1 is confused here ( again). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:36. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.