Wright aircraft

[Big John]

Attention everyone.

On CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, there was a 'trailer' tonight
announcing that on the CBS Evening News tomorrow (Thursday Night)
there would be section on the Wright's and their airplane(s).

I plan on watching and seeing what they put on.

Big John

[John Harlow]

> Attention everyone.
>
> On CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, there was a 'trailer' tonight
> announcing that on the CBS Evening News tomorrow (Thursday Night)
> there would be section on the Wright's and their airplane(s).
>
> I plan on watching and seeing what they put on.

Probably something akin to this - this report is from one of our flying club
members today:
-------

Under the category of it's better to be lucky than smart! I saw the Wright
Flyer make its first successful flight today!!!!!!!!!! It flew 128 feet as
compared to the original first flight of 120 feet. Everyone involved was
extremely excited in spite of the fact that they broke two or three bottom
wing spars on the left wing. They were already repairing them before we
left.

How, you might ask, could someone as dumb as me be so lucky? A friend of
mine asked me at church Sunday if I would like to fly to First Flight this
week and see what we could see. My friend is Fred Mistr that owns a C206
(N5072U hangered in D12 at FCI). He called me at work at 9:45 and asked if
I could get away from work. We took off from FCI at Noon and flew the 206
to First Flight. We walked to the exhibit area in the shadows of the
monument when Fred said THERE IS THE WRIGHT FLYER. They were carrying it
from the hanger to the flight rail that it is launched from. We asked what
was going on and we were told that they would be making a test flight any
minute.

With a "crowd" of about 10-15 other dumb lucky people and 4 or 5
photographers and cameramen we watched as the engine was started, it raced
down the rail with a person at each wing and rose to (in my estimation) the
dizzying height of about 4 feet, came down into the sand and did a bit of a
ground loop (hence the broken wing ribs) and history was successfully
re-created!!

My penmanship does not do justice to the event but I hope each of you will
share some of my excitement at the event and will know for certain that this
entire project, after today, is successful!

[Margy Natalie]

hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at Kitty Hawk
didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott Crossfield
all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to disrespect the
Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).

Margy

John Harlow wrote:

> > Attention everyone.
> >
> > On CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, there was a 'trailer' tonight
> > announcing that on the CBS Evening News tomorrow (Thursday Night)
> > there would be section on the Wright's and their airplane(s).
> >
> > I plan on watching and seeing what they put on.
>
> Probably something akin to this - this report is from one of our flying club
> members today:
> -------
>
> Under the category of it's better to be lucky than smart! I saw the Wright
> Flyer make its first successful flight today!!!!!!!!!! It flew 128 feet as
> compared to the original first flight of 120 feet. Everyone involved was
> extremely excited in spite of the fact that they broke two or three bottom
> wing spars on the left wing. They were already repairing them before we
> left.
>
> How, you might ask, could someone as dumb as me be so lucky? A friend of
> mine asked me at church Sunday if I would like to fly to First Flight this
> week and see what we could see. My friend is Fred Mistr that owns a C206
> (N5072U hangered in D12 at FCI). He called me at work at 9:45 and asked if
> I could get away from work. We took off from FCI at Noon and flew the 206
> to First Flight. We walked to the exhibit area in the shadows of the
> monument when Fred said THERE IS THE WRIGHT FLYER. They were carrying it
> from the hanger to the flight rail that it is launched from. We asked what
> was going on and we were told that they would be making a test flight any
> minute.
>
> With a "crowd" of about 10-15 other dumb lucky people and 4 or 5
> photographers and cameramen we watched as the engine was started, it raced
> down the rail with a person at each wing and rose to (in my estimation) the
> dizzying height of about 4 feet, came down into the sand and did a bit of a
> ground loop (hence the broken wing ribs) and history was successfully
> re-created!!
>
> My penmanship does not do justice to the event but I hope each of you will
> share some of my excitement at the event and will know for certain that this
> entire project, after today, is successful!

[Cub Driver]

>On CBS Evening News with Dan Rather

It will be worth watching just to see how he manages to put an
anti-American spin on First Flight.

Lessee ...

"Little did Orville Wright realize that his achievement would lead in
less than half a century to the incinceration of Hiroshima by an
American bomb..."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Rhodes]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:20:25 -0500, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at Kitty Hawk
>didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott Crossfield
>all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to disrespect the
>Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).
>

Is this out of politeness to comrades? Or the worship of mystics?
This first is understood by all, for most all should know the meaning
of the word 'grace.' The second (if actually taken that far -- and I
think this is much to common), will likely isolate, and recall a bad
connotation onto the word 'comrade.' Even though common (and
therefore 'understood' by even many), I refuse grace at this point.

I know this party line of questioning to be a dangerous one. It is
accusational, and therefore can't help but be disrespectful. But I
don't care about those hurt feelings.
I've learned to have a certain amount of distaste for clubs -- of
any kind. I believe such a group psychology has a negative impact on
everyone. Groups tend to multiply feelings. If good then they heep
them up high. If bad then everyone gets that kind of drunk together.
They don't want that, so, (if they think they can get away with it),
they tend to tell everyone everything is a-okay. Some of us prefer
circumstances to be seen for what they are, not for what they would
have wanted them to be.

All the Wright brothers had to do was observe the arrow, as it flies a
precise flight; and consider what might happen if they changed that
very simple design. And all they had to do was observe the bird in
its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that, and put
part of their tail feathers up front. That was really kind of dumb,
wouldn't you say? But I do know what the party line is on this
matter, and I don't like it.

Mike

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Rhodes" > wrote in message
...
>
> All the Wright brothers had to do was observe the arrow, as it flies a
> precise flight; and consider what might happen if they changed that
> very simple design. And all they had to do was observe the bird in
> its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that, and put
> part of their tail feathers up front. That was really kind of dumb,
> wouldn't you say?
>

No, I wouldn't. They had sound reasons for putting the horizontal surfaces
in front. One of them was crashworthiness; they understood that everything
may not go as hoped and wanted structure in front of them. Another was
their belief that the pilot needed to see the position of the control
surface in order to effectively control the machine.

[Dan Luke]

TMTR

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:20:17 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>No, I wouldn't. They had sound reasons for putting the horizontal surfaces
>in front. One of them was crashworthiness; they understood that everything
>may not go as hoped and wanted structure in front of them. Another was
>their belief that the pilot needed to see the position of the control
>surface in order to effectively control the machine.

I've been reading a series of books on the Wright design.

The reason for their choice of a canard is not documented.
It had the happy effect of producing different stall characteristics
in their airplanes, which meant that their early airplanes mushed
down relatively safely compared to other early designs.
The canard provided extra lift and stalled before the
wings did. That meant that the wings were kept in a
better angle of attack in slow flight regimes. See
Peter L. Jakab, Visions of a Flying Machine, for the
full analysis of the historical record and the aerodynamics
of the early Flyers.

Marty

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> Apparently they did not do that, and put
> part of their tail feathers up front. That was really kind of dumb,
> wouldn't you say?
>

Uh, no. Why? Ever heard of Canard designs.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Cub,

> "Little did Orville Wright realize that his achievement would lead in
> less than half a century to the incinceration of Hiroshima by an
> American bomb..."
>

Which would be at least half-wrong. The Wrights did see the military
potential in their achievement. In fact, they thought it would end all
wars since it would make it so easy to directly attack/bomb the heads
of state initiating the war - and thus really hitting the people
responsible for it. Didn't work out that way.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've been reading a series of books on the Wright design.
>
> The reason for their choice of a canard is not documented.
>

That you haven't encountered it in the books you've read does not
necessarily mean it is not documented. It could mean you haven't read all
the documents.

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Rhodes" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:20:25 -0500, Margy Natalie >
| wrote:
|
| >hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at
Kitty Hawk
| >didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott
Crossfield
| >all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to
disrespect the
| >Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).
| >
|
| Is this out of politeness to comrades? Or the worship of mystics?

<mystical nonsense snipped>

I guess he didn't have much to say.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike Rhodes wrote:
>
> That was really kind of dumb, wouldn't you say?

The Rutan brothers don't think so.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:08:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>That you haven't encountered it in the books you've read does not
>necessarily mean it is not documented. It could mean you haven't read all
>the documents.

That's a true and self-evident principle.

The folks who have worked might and main to dig up all of the
Wright's notes report that they did not leave documentation about
why they chose the canard for their earliest gliders and powered
planes. Once they had experienced a few stalls, they were very
happy that they had done so--that is in the documentation.

Marty

[Dave Stadt]

"Mike Rhodes" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:20:25 -0500, Margy Natalie >
> wrote:
>
> >hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at
Kitty Hawk
> >didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott
Crossfield
> >all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to
disrespect the
> >Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).
> >
>
> Is this out of politeness to comrades? Or the worship of mystics?
> This first is understood by all, for most all should know the meaning
> of the word 'grace.' The second (if actually taken that far -- and I
> think this is much to common), will likely isolate, and recall a bad
> connotation onto the word 'comrade.' Even though common (and
> therefore 'understood' by even many), I refuse grace at this point.
>
> I know this party line of questioning to be a dangerous one. It is
> accusational, and therefore can't help but be disrespectful. But I
> don't care about those hurt feelings.
> I've learned to have a certain amount of distaste for clubs -- of
> any kind. I believe such a group psychology has a negative impact on
> everyone. Groups tend to multiply feelings. If good then they heep
> them up high. If bad then everyone gets that kind of drunk together.
> They don't want that, so, (if they think they can get away with it),
> they tend to tell everyone everything is a-okay. Some of us prefer
> circumstances to be seen for what they are, not for what they would
> have wanted them to be.
>
> All the Wright brothers had to do was observe the arrow, as it flies a
> precise flight; and consider what might happen if they changed that
> very simple design. And all they had to do was observe the bird in
> its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that, and put
> part of their tail feathers up front.

Way wrong. Wilbur spent considerable time studying soaring birds. That is
how he came up with wing warping and ultimately controlled flight. He was
also smart enough to figure out the little wings would work on either end
and there is a strong argument that in some cases having them up front is
significantly better.

[Victor]

Just curios, huch much horsepower did the original aircraft have and
how much horsepower does this replica have?

[Bob Fry]

Mike Rhodes > writes:

> And all they had to do was observe the bird in
> its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that,

I'm pretty sure that in fact one or both of the Wrights did spend a
lot of time observing birds in flight, and that is how they invented
wing-warping for direction control.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On 04 Dec 2003 20:54:48 -0800, Bob Fry > wrote:

>Mike Rhodes > writes:

>> And all they had to do was observe the bird in
>> its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that,

>I'm pretty sure that in fact one or both of the Wrights did spend a
>lot of time observing birds in flight ...

They did, but the records that the left about the value of doing
so disagree. Orville said it did help them. Wilbur said it was
like watching a magician. Only after you already knew what
the trick was could you see it in action. The dates of these
contradictory remarks are from long after 1901, when the
brothers made the fundamental decision to test wing
warping on a 5' glider.

> ... and that is how they invented
>wing-warping for direction control.

The canonical story is that Wilbur was talking with a customer
who had come in to buy a new inner tube. While talking
with the customer, he absentmindedly played with the
cardboard box. He suddenly realized that the box was just
like a biplane glider with the fore-and-aft guy wires removed
and that twisting the wings as he was twisting the box would
present different angles of attack on each side to the
air flow, thus causing one side to gain lift and the other to
lose it.

Watching turkey vultures use their tip feathers to turn may
or may not have helped in reaching this insight. Ideas are
funny things, and they may have a lot more background than
even the discoverer realizes.

Marty

[Jay Beckman]

"Victor" > wrote in message
om...
> Just curios, huch much horsepower did the original aircraft have and
> how much horsepower does this replica have?

IIRC...The original had a 12hp engine...sorry, dunno about the replicas
being readied for 12/17/03.

Jay In AZ

[Thomas Borchert]

Victor,

12 HP. As for replicas, they vary widely. The one flying at Kitty Hawk
now and possibly on the 17th has an exact replica of the original
engine with 12 HP.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike Rhodes]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:20:17 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Rhodes" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> All the Wright brothers had to do was observe the arrow, as it flies a
>> precise flight; and consider what might happen if they changed that
>> very simple design. And all they had to do was observe the bird in
>> its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that, and put
>> part of their tail feathers up front. That was really kind of dumb,
>> wouldn't you say?
>>
>
>No, I wouldn't. They had sound reasons for putting the horizontal surfaces
>in front. One of them was crashworthiness; they understood that everything
>may not go as hoped and wanted structure in front of them. Another was
>their belief that the pilot needed to see the position of the control
>surface in order to effectively control the machine.
>

Steven,

If they were trying for a stable machine first then the
crashworthiness problem might've been assisted with a simple (though
Heavy) structure up front built for that purpose.
The idea of 'full' control in flight might make the second argument
also difficult to get around. I would want to see the position of the
control suface. Birds, however, do quite well without watching every
feather. And bicycles, or any other vehicle they had during that
time, do not need to have their wheels watched to know what to do with
steering.
They likely did feel a strong need to see the position of the
control surface. But couldn't they have decided to trust the position
of the control stick? This if they had wanted to trust nature in its
flight design. I'm not sure they even saw it. Putting the elevator
up front, even from their perspective, is historically unusual. And
for aero engineers to expect me to accept it in that position (almost
without question) I feel is an insult to me. Hence the nature of my
previous post.

Mike

[Mike Rhodes]

>
><mystical nonsense snipped>
>
>I guess he didn't have much to say.
>

Mr. Campbell, I really thought I did have something to say.

[Mike Rhodes]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:26:56 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Mike Rhodes wrote:
>>
>> That was really kind of dumb, wouldn't you say?
>
>The Rutan brothers don't think so.
>

Just tell me the canard was an accident, and I'll be happy. I'm pretty
sure that is what it was, despite the silence I hear. But to tell me
that would then empty the reasoning (I think) from a notable part of
the Wright's design.

For the record... I know the canard assists stall characteristics by
stalling first and allowing the nose of the aircraft to drop and
regain airspeed.
And, by lifting up the heavy nose, it also removes downward loading
from the elevator in the rear. This improves the efficiency of
flight. The rear elevator pushing down increases wing loading and
therefore fuel consuming drag. (Equal to ~twice that of the elevator,
since the wing is also support it's push.) However, the moment arm
of the rear elevator is longer than that of the canard. So it doesn't
require as much drag-inducing push. The canard simply compliments the
wing's work in supporting the plane.

Mike

[Mike Rhodes]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:44:58 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>Way wrong. Wilbur spent considerable time studying soaring birds. That is
>how he came up with wing warping and ultimately controlled flight. He was
>also smart enough to figure out the little wings would work on either end
>and there is a strong argument that in some cases having them up front is
>significantly better.
>

_Only_ up front? Where?
Other than the immobile canard (that is what you are referring
to?), the only other place I've seen 'little wings' up front are on
anti-aircraft missiles. And those are computer controlled. I think
they are movable. Are they, and the Wright's (and those who copied
the Wrights) the ONLY movable forward control surfaces on record? I
would not be surprised if there were military aircraft with such
devices, but they would likely also be computer controlled.

I feel dissed. Felt that way even before posting on this thread. I
have made the decision not to put up with it, even for the sake of the
Wright's. Of course I realized this might make some people angry. So
I approached this subject in a fighting mood. I would prefer not to
be that way.

Mike

[Mike Rhodes]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:20:25 -0500, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at Kitty Hawk
>didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott Crossfield
>all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to disrespect the
>Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).
>
>Margy
>

Apologies,

I did not mean to be disrespectful to you in particular. The
subject, and your approach, poked at a difficulty I have. And, though
I tried not to be personal, I think I pushed back a bit too hard.
My replies to the replies were less heavy than that to you. So
that may make some wonder. But when I saw how the thread had expanded
(as if I should've been surprised), I kind of wimped out before I
actually read them, and that showed up in my posts. Though I feel a
certain amount of comfort in discussing the subject of the thread, RAP
is not my domain.

Mike

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike Rhodes wrote:
>
> Just tell me the canard was an accident, and I'll be happy. I'm pretty
> sure that is what it was, despite the silence I hear.

But it wasn't, at least not in the case of the Rutans. They were trying for
efficiency by making all the surfaces lifting surfaces. Several of the early
aircraft, however, had lifting tails, and it was widely known that these planes
exhibited dangerous stall characteristics and were abnormally difficult to take
off and land.

In the case of the Wrights, they were building on years of work by themselves
and other people (the most famous of which is probably Lilienthal). They were
wrong about some things (such as believing that anhedral would be stabilizing),
but nothing they did in aviation was accidental.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> The folks who have worked might and main to dig up all of the
> Wright's notes report that they did not leave documentation about
> why they chose the canard for their earliest gliders and powered
> planes. Once they had experienced a few stalls, they were very
> happy that they had done so--that is in the documentation.
>

Might and main?

We're not discussing why they chose the canard for their earliest gliders,
we're discussing why they chose it for the 1903 Flyer.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:01:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Might and main?

Yes. There were inquiring minds even before the advent of
the internet. Replicas were made in 1943 and 1948.
A multitude of books have been written. I've read three
of them since last Saturday:

On Great White Wings by Culick and Dunmore (coffee
table book, lots of photos).

Visions of a Flying Machine by Jakab (oriented toward
the technical and scientific aspects).

A Dream of Wings by Crouch.

I also watched the DVD, Kitty Hawk by Garrigus.

I got all four items from a friend who has family who live
near the Outer Banks and who has tickets to attend
the December 17 re-enactment.

>We're not discussing why they chose the canard for their earliest gliders,
>we're discussing why they chose it for the 1903 Flyer.

The 1903 Flyer is a lineal descendent of the three glider
designs (1900, 1901, and 1902). All three had a forward
elevator (they called it a "rudder"). Here's what Jakab said
about the issue in 1990:

"The Wrights stayed with a canard configuration for years
because it offered several benefits that were unique to the
design beyond the basic functions of pitch control. From an
historical perspective, however, documenting their decision
to use the forward elevator is as slippery a matter as
determining exactly how they arrived at wing warping for
lateral control. The brothers, and many tellers of the Wright
story that followed them, invariably point to the advantages
derived from the canard arrangement. However, there are only
a few, hazy clues as to why they adopted it in the first place.
Here again, despite their voluminous records, another of the
most significant aspects of their inventive work remains
unclear" (70-1).

The Wrights experimented with the elevator on the rear
in 1900. "Orville remarked that they had tried the machine
'with tail in front, behind, and every other way. When we
got through, Will was so mixed up he couldn't even theorize"
(Crouch, 238).

Chanute and Herring had a biplane glider with rearward
empennage in 1896. After Lilienthal's death, Herring was
the most accomplished glider pilot in the world. The
Wrights knew both men--both came to Kitty Hawk for
longer or shorter visits, with and without their own gliders
to test. It's not as though the Wrights didn't realize that
there were other ways to skin the cat.

Jakab guesses that the Wrights may have been trying to
forestall (pun intended) dying like Lilienthal, whose
monoplane glider with rearward empennage stalled and
spun in from a height of 50 feet (71). "As it turned out,
the Wrights' forward elevator was extremely effective in
reducing the violent reaction of a stall. Following a
stall at low altitudes, the Wrights canard design settled
to the ground almost parachute style rather than going
into a chilling spin common to aircraft with the stabilizer
in the rear. The glider hit with a fairly good jolt upon
landing, but it was usually not hard enough to damage
the machine or to injure the pilot" (71).

"The automatic stall recovery of the forward-elevator design
was decidedly beneficial. It saved Wilbur and Orville from
serious injury on several occasions before they came to
understand stalls and to recognize how to logically
avoid them. A stable, well-designed airplane with the
stabilizer in the rear will also offer gentle, controllable
stall characteristics. But with an unstable aircraft
such as the Wrights', a canard configuration offered
a far better chance of safe recovery ... It is possible that
the Wrights intuitively decided that placing the stabilizer
ahead of the wings would hep alleviate the deadly nosedive
that claimed Lilienthal's life. They alluded to this in later
years. Recalling the experiments of 1900, Orville stated
in 1924, 'We retained the elevator in front for many years
because it absolutely prevented a nose dive such as
that in which Lilienthal and many others since have met
their deaths'" (73).

So they chose it for the 1903 flyer because it worked well
on the 1900, 1901, 1903 gliders. The question that Jakab
says is obscure is why they chose it for the 1900 glider
in the first place--why did they start with the canard. That's
where the documentation is lacking. Once they had it, they
found out that it had some benefits.

Marty

[Mike Rhodes]

Thanks, Marty, for the 'detail'. I think this answers my question.
The Wrights _were_ familiar with the dangers of the stall. The only
weakness I think I now see is in their decision to view it as an
either/or situation. I don't think it would've been that difficult to
consider putting another stabilizer in the back.
But given the amount of experimentation that one might have to do
to eventually get in the air successfully (without that much fear),
and that such attempts invariably would've been tentative in nature;
if someone had not used the canard then the repeating deaths by stalls
would've been very discouraging. It _was_ the Wright's canard that
spelled success for early flight. These days the pilots are commanded
to watch their airspeed -- as the aviation world remains stuck on
designs not conducive to the installation of a canard, I suppose.
You write that they eventually learned to understand the stall.
Were they really able to see (logically) how airflow could separate
from the back side of the up-tilted wing?


On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:11:32 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:

>
>"The Wrights stayed with a canard configuration for years
>because it offered several benefits that were unique to the
>design beyond the basic functions of pitch control. From an
>historical perspective, however, documenting their decision
>to use the forward elevator is as slippery a matter as
>determining exactly how they arrived at wing warping for
>lateral control. The brothers, and many tellers of the Wright
>story that followed them, invariably point to the advantages
>derived from the canard arrangement. However, there are only
>a few, hazy clues as to why they adopted it in the first place.
>Here again, despite their voluminous records, another of the
>most significant aspects of their inventive work remains
>unclear" (70-1).
>
>The Wrights experimented with the elevator on the rear
>in 1900. "Orville remarked that they had tried the machine
>'with tail in front, behind, and every other way. When we
>got through, Will was so mixed up he couldn't even theorize"
>(Crouch, 238).
>
>Chanute and Herring had a biplane glider with rearward
>empennage in 1896. After Lilienthal's death, Herring was
>the most accomplished glider pilot in the world. The
>Wrights knew both men--both came to Kitty Hawk for
>longer or shorter visits, with and without their own gliders
>to test. It's not as though the Wrights didn't realize that
>there were other ways to skin the cat.
>
>Jakab guesses that the Wrights may have been trying to
>forestall (pun intended) dying like Lilienthal, whose
>monoplane glider with rearward empennage stalled and
>spun in from a height of 50 feet (71). "As it turned out,
>the Wrights' forward elevator was extremely effective in
>reducing the violent reaction of a stall. Following a
>stall at low altitudes, the Wrights canard design settled
>to the ground almost parachute style rather than going
>into a chilling spin common to aircraft with the stabilizer
>in the rear. The glider hit with a fairly good jolt upon
>landing, but it was usually not hard enough to damage
>the machine or to injure the pilot" (71).
>
>"The automatic stall recovery of the forward-elevator design
>was decidedly beneficial. It saved Wilbur and Orville from
>serious injury on several occasions before they came to
>understand stalls and to recognize how to logically
>avoid them. A stable, well-designed airplane with the
>stabilizer in the rear will also offer gentle, controllable
>stall characteristics. But with an unstable aircraft
>such as the Wrights', a canard configuration offered
>a far better chance of safe recovery ... It is possible that
>the Wrights intuitively decided that placing the stabilizer
>ahead of the wings would hep alleviate the deadly nosedive
>that claimed Lilienthal's life. They alluded to this in later
>years. Recalling the experiments of 1900, Orville stated
>in 1924, 'We retained the elevator in front for many years
>because it absolutely prevented a nose dive such as
>that in which Lilienthal and many others since have met
>their deaths'" (73).
>
>So they chose it for the 1903 flyer because it worked well
>on the 1900, 1901, 1903 gliders. The question that Jakab
>says is obscure is why they chose it for the 1900 glider
>in the first place--why did they start with the canard. That's
>where the documentation is lacking. Once they had it, they
>found out that it had some benefits.
>
> Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 07:23:33 -0600, Mike Rhodes
> wrote:

>Thanks, Marty, for the 'detail'.

You're welcome.

>The Wrights _were_ familiar with the dangers of the stall. The only
>weakness I think I now see is in their decision to view it as an
>either/or situation. I don't think it would've been that difficult to
>consider putting another stabilizer in the back.

I'm not an expert on what the Wrights did or didn't think was
difficult or worthwhile. This thread just happens to have caught
me with three books and a DVD in my hands, borrowed from
a friend a week ago. But the Wrights definitely knew what other
people had tried, and I ***imagine*** (without proof) that they
considered incorporating features from other people's designs
into their own. I also ***imagine*** that they had their own
reasons for rejecting the mulitiplication of stabilizers.
I may be wrong in thinking this way.

> But given the amount of experimentation that one might have to do
>to eventually get in the air successfully (without that much fear),
>and that such attempts invariably would've been tentative in nature;
>if someone had not used the canard then the repeating deaths by stalls
>would've been very discouraging.

Yes, I think Lilienthal found that his death pretty discouraging.
He didn't do any more glider experiments afterward. ;o)

More than any of the other pioneers of flight, the Wrights
concentrated on flight training. For example, the man who
tried twice to fly Langley's Great Aerodrome had never flown
anything in his life. Both Wright brothers had thousands of
glider rides under their belts before they boarded the Flyer.
Their 1906 patent was based on the 1902 glider, which
had three-axis control surfaces, and not on anything new
in the Flyer (engine, chain drive, propellors).

> It _was_ the Wright's canard that
>spelled success for early flight.

It's one major ingredient. It seems to have kept them
alive in crashes from altitudes that had killed other pilots.
Other ingredients:

Design of airfoils with the high point closer to
the leading edge. Lilienthal and others had
used circular arcs.

Perception of the importance of three-axis control.
Others sought automatic equilibrium.

Light, strong, flexible structures that survived
rough handling or could be easily repaired in
the field.

Dedication to flight training.

Correction of Smeaton's coefficient of lift and
Lilienthal's tables for lift and drag.

Discovery of correct theory for design and
testing of propellors.

> You write that they eventually learned to understand the stall.

Well, to be fair, I think I just quoted or paraphrased my sources.

>Were they really able to see (logically) how airflow could separate
>from the back side of the up-tilted wing?

I didn't see any analysis along those lines. But they did very
clever wind-tunnel tests with hundreds of model airfoils, and
they had plenty of experience of stalling in the field with their
kite and gliders. They knew a great deal about relative wind
and angle of attack--you can see them drawing vectors on
their notes. So in that sense they "understood the stall."
They knew that "too much up makes you go down."

The "tragedy" of the Wright brothers' story, if that is not too
dramatic a term to use, is that after unlocking the fundamentals
of flight, they were not able to keep up with the pace of
innovation in the field. Their arch-foe, Curtis, kept up with
the field until well after WWI, I think. The Wrights were
essentially marginalized by the time of Wilbur's death in
1911. Anything they could do others did better.

I hope to go on pilgrimage to Kitty Hawk some day...

Marty

[Mike Rhodes]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 10:07:53 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:


>It's [the canard] one major ingredient. It seems to have kept them
>alive in crashes from altitudes that had killed other pilots.
>Other ingredients:
>
> Design of airfoils with the high point closer to
> the leading edge. Lilienthal and others had
> used circular arcs.
>

Wow. I wondered where that first originated. The pictures I have of
the Wright's airplanes do not show that aspect of their wing design.
It looks like they kept the wing trim and slim, to reduce drag. But
if they had broadened it a bit it would've reduced the stall problem
even more.

Mike

--------------------

I have an opinion, a 'belief', on the Wright's First Flights. Since
I'm serious about it then some will think it silly. I know that I
have not studied the matter as much as others, but I still think it is
valid. With regard to the aforementioned silliness, my opinion has to
do with mysticism.
The Wright's unusual road to success causes me to wonder _why_ it
happened the way it did. I said it is unusual, but there is only one
part that is, and it is the canard. Everything else they did is,
well, 'logical.' Excepting pure horsepower, I believe it was the
canard that really got flight going.
It would've been logical to put the control surfaces behind the
aircraft, not in front. And to stick with that design. I've read in
this thread where they had engineering reasons, of the mechanical
type. And I've read that there is no known explanation of why they
began with their design. But there are too many aeronautical
examples, having simple reasons, for _not_ putting them where they
did. Just why did they it do that way! I think the question deserves
an exclamation mark.
They seem blinded to the need of stability from the rear. But it
was this blindness that put the canard in place, and actually
_safetened_ the attempt at flight enough so that success could be had.
What I believe is that it was God who blinded the Wright's so they
would do it the way they did. If it was their own intelligence that
solved the launch into the air then I think they would have no problem
seeing a need for the stabilizer in the back, and it would have been
there. The lack of it points strongly at an unusual occurrence. It
points at something they should have seen but incredibly did not. I
believe the lack of that tail feather, as they continued their
flights, was God's mark on that event. Flight, though dangerous (it
can surely kill!), was actually a Gift from God.

Be careful,
Mike

[Mike Rhodes]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:39:48 -0600, Mike Rhodes
> wrote:

(To Margy)

>Apologies

But with regard to the rest of the group I think a misunderstanding
remains. (And this should put us at odds again.)
If I see an obvious gap and point at it, and say, "Hey, that's
missing!" then you can be sure I will not accept a dissing "No, you
look over there!", while ignoring my direct question, which is valid.
What you will do is say, "Yep, its missing. Now, this is why..." or
"Yes, this is why we think why." or "You know, we just don't know
why."
If I see something unusual, and am dissed for it for royalty's
reputation, then what I will really want to do is truck over to Kitty
Hawk, find a witness, and then spit on 'hallowed' grounds.
I have no intention of being put down by pilots just because they
are pilots. You may think you rule the skies, but that's only until
you don't survive the next landing. Given the amount of work required
one might wonder who is a slave to whom. You fly for yourself, for
the feeling of self-accomplishment. Good! You also fly for others,
to insure there is a system available that makes it possible for all.
Fine. One thing flying is not is a singular achievement. So pilots
care about other pilots, even unto their manhood. That's natural, I
suppose. But it's also common elsewhere, and therefore ignorable by
those who do other things. Suit yourself. I will, just haven't quite
made it there yet.
I tried to approach the Wright's design question in this group, and
felt I recieved a _deceptive_ response. But now I think they just
didn't know what to say. Apparently that's because no one wants (or
has the guts) to say the Wright's made a rather glaring error.
This question has troubled me for a while. What I've read hinted
there might be a stability problem with their flyer (of course), but
this by stating someone else's design "was stable", without directly
answering any questions that would bring. This is not a difficult
subject! So what do those who should be in the know say, when pushed?
After I queried, and recieved a canard non-answer; then, for just a
moment, I thought men had sent a woman to do a man's job; which was to
defend the "party line." To protect the Wright's reptutation, if
nothing else. (Surely not the canard. Almost no one actually uses
the thing, with the propeller being in the wrong place. Hell, they
won't even use it on fancy jets. Mach drag? Stick pushers.) Anyway,
I feel deserving of the apology, not the other way around. But I also
think many who are in the know don't really know quite what to say.
Please think about it.
I'm beginning to think the Wright's refused the rear stabilizer so
they wouldn't be copying somebody else. It would be their own unique
design, so it would be their 'protected' manhood. What it is is a
silly gap in an otherwise really nice accomplishment.

Mike

[Margy Natalie]

I don't think so. Some other poster (I forget who) quoted Peter Jakobs
book and I spoke to Peter on Sat (I love my job!!!). He said that the
Wrights never really made a clear statement, but made inferences to the
canard as saving them from some bad stalls. The '03 Wright Flyer is not
very stable and the Wrights later went on to make other planes that were
more stable. They seemed to stick with the carnard because they felt it
helped them with the stall characteristics. The Wrights are known for
keeping very detailed but sometimes not very complete details. They
didn't want others to know what they were doing.

Margy

Mike Rhodes wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:39:48 -0600, Mike Rhodes
> > wrote:
>
> (To Margy)
>
> >Apologies
>
> But with regard to the rest of the group I think a misunderstanding
> remains. (And this should put us at odds again.)
> If I see an obvious gap and point at it, and say, "Hey, that's
> missing!" then you can be sure I will not accept a dissing "No, you
> look over there!", while ignoring my direct question, which is valid.
> What you will do is say, "Yep, its missing. Now, this is why..." or
> "Yes, this is why we think why." or "You know, we just don't know
> why."
> If I see something unusual, and am dissed for it for royalty's
> reputation, then what I will really want to do is truck over to Kitty
> Hawk, find a witness, and then spit on 'hallowed' grounds.
> I have no intention of being put down by pilots just because they
> are pilots. You may think you rule the skies, but that's only until
> you don't survive the next landing. Given the amount of work required
> one might wonder who is a slave to whom. You fly for yourself, for
> the feeling of self-accomplishment. Good! You also fly for others,
> to insure there is a system available that makes it possible for all.
> Fine. One thing flying is not is a singular achievement. So pilots
> care about other pilots, even unto their manhood. That's natural, I
> suppose. But it's also common elsewhere, and therefore ignorable by
> those who do other things. Suit yourself. I will, just haven't quite
> made it there yet.
> I tried to approach the Wright's design question in this group, and
> felt I recieved a _deceptive_ response. But now I think they just
> didn't know what to say. Apparently that's because no one wants (or
> has the guts) to say the Wright's made a rather glaring error.
> This question has troubled me for a while. What I've read hinted
> there might be a stability problem with their flyer (of course), but
> this by stating someone else's design "was stable", without directly
> answering any questions that would bring. This is not a difficult
> subject! So what do those who should be in the know say, when pushed?
> After I queried, and recieved a canard non-answer; then, for just a
> moment, I thought men had sent a woman to do a man's job; which was to
> defend the "party line." To protect the Wright's reptutation, if
> nothing else. (Surely not the canard. Almost no one actually uses
> the thing, with the propeller being in the wrong place. Hell, they
> won't even use it on fancy jets. Mach drag? Stick pushers.) Anyway,
> I feel deserving of the apology, not the other way around. But I also
> think many who are in the know don't really know quite what to say.
> Please think about it.
> I'm beginning to think the Wright's refused the rear stabilizer so
> they wouldn't be copying somebody else. It would be their own unique
> design, so it would be their 'protected' manhood. What it is is a
> silly gap in an otherwise really nice accomplishment.
>
> Mike

[G.R. Patterson III]

Margy Natalie wrote:
>
> They didn't want others to know what they were doing.

Later in life, they also didn't want people to know if they got an idea from
someone else. They felt that evidence of that would hamper their patent suits.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".