The Wright motor for the job - WAS: 13 horsepower

[wright1902glider]

Veedub:

Usually I defer to your great wealth of knowledge about all things
that fly. But in this case, I feel the need to point out a few
corrections to your statements about the 1903 Wright motor, per my
last reading of "The Papers of Wilbur & Orville Wright" (complied from
letters and field notes) by M. McFarland, c.1953, and the 2003 tests
of a reproduction engine built by The Wright Experience:

The 1903 Wright engine developed approx 11.8 hp on startup, which
dropped to approx. 8.3 hp at takeoff, and perhaps less by the end of
the 59 second "4th flight" of 12/17/1903.

The two propellers were 8.5" dia. and turned at 330-350 rpm, with the
ENGINE turning about 1250 rpm. By my math, that's a 3.57:1 reduction.

I the wing area of the 1903 was 510 sq. ft not counting 48 sq. ft for
the biplane canard elevator.

Orville reported the speed of the flyer through the air as 31 mph.
This was based on the measurements from the Richard anamometer and was
calculated. However, it is believed that the Richard anamometer may
have been recording about 10% low. (This is speculation - both
historic and modern and has not been tested one way or the other.)

The flyer was launched into a headwind of 21-24 mph, giving the
machine a ground speed of 6-7mph.

Having said that, I welcome any corrections that are more accurate, if
they can be documented. (I'm also working from memory, so I can
provide better references at a later date.) I am curious to know where
the information regarding modification to the engine comes from. The
original block #1 was destroyed in the blow-over of 12/17/1903 and is
now on display at Kitty Hawk (minus the cylinder that was cracked
off.) Wilbur and Charlie had 3 blocks cast in 1903 and at least one of
them was used in 1904. (This is part of the engine currently on the
machine in the Smithsonian, although the 1903 crankshaft disappeared
after an exhibition I believe in 1908, so that part isn't original
either.) The 1905 machine used the last block. Its currently on
display at Carillon Park in Dayton. (Just checked the photos, but
didn't see any sparkplugs, only the make/break points. Maybe you are
refering (sp?) to the later Wright vertical 4 and 6 cylinder engines
used in 1908-1912? If anyone has Howard DuFor's book about Charlie
Taylor, it's probably the best source. Howard is the de-facto expert
on Wright engines.

Several Wright 1903 reproduction and replica aircraft have been
powered by air-cooled "lawn tractor" engines. A buddy of mine from
Georgia used an 18hp Kholer flat twin with an intermediate belt re-
drive setup that powered the chain-redrive from the original plane.
Wright Redux used something similar for a test-flight. They can be
made to work with this aircraft.

I had on several occasions considered adding simple landing gear and
"power struts" to my glider. These would be a composed of a 31cc
Royobi weedwhacker engines driving a 14-16" model airplane props and
would be fitted in place of the 6 rear struts on my glider. Since I
never made it to the planned flight testing session in Nag's Head in
2002, I never proceeded with this plan.

In 1907, Ben Epps (of the Epps aviation clan) reportedly flew a
monoplane powered by a 15 hp Anzani v-twin.

Food for thought and research.

Harry Frey
Wright Brothers Enterprises

[[email protected]]

Dear Harry,
With regard to the Wright brothers, the foundation of my 'great wealth
of knowledge' was gleaned from my dad and grandfather when I was just
a boy, filled out by snippets gathered over the years. Your
corrections are not only welcome but encouraged.

The purpose of my original posting (ie, 13 Horsepower) was to try and
forge a link between then and now, citing -- even imperfectly -- the
Wright's accomplishments with the hope of showing that we're not as
far from our origins as most people think.

As for the figures I cited, I'm surprised to see how much of those
long-ago conversations I've managed to retain :-)
-Bob

[Morgans[_2_]]

"wright1902glider" > wrote

> I had on several occasions considered adding simple landing gear and
> "power struts" to my glider. These would be a composed of a 31cc
> Royobi weedwhacker engines driving a 14-16" model airplane props

You will probably find the props you mentioned will be too small for that
engine, at least they are for my engine.

Ideally, you would probably want a custom prop in something like 24 x 2, or
24 x 3, or perhaps even bigger. At the speeds you will be going, the bigger
and more flat pitch will perform better.

For a relatively slow RC trainer ship, I have found an 18 x 6 cut down to
around 17 1/4" worked best for that engine.

I hope you pursue your idea. It would be very un-historical, but very
hysterical!
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Harry,

I got the 510 sq ft wing area and 31 mph cruise speed.

What did the Flyer weigh?

I'd like to back through the calculations and
see about what the CL should be.

I do recall reading that the Brothers figured out that
Lilienthall's tables were a bit optimistic.

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

[wright1902glider]

On Aug 5, 8:24*pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Harry,
>
> I got the 510 sq ft wing area and 31 mph cruise speed.
>
> What did the Flyer weigh?
>
> I'd like to back through the calculations and
> see about what the CL should be.
>
> I do recall reading that the Brothers figured out that
> Lilienthall's tables were a bit optimistic.
>
> --
>
> Richard

Responding to VeeDub/Hoov/Bob first:

I couldn't agree with you more! The elevator from one of those
"connections" is hanging on my bedroom wall ! Can we build machines
that fly, in our own garages, from available materials? HELL YEAH!
Will they be great flying machines? Maybe. But will they fly? Again,
the answer is yes. Through study, research, experimentation, new
science, and a hell of a lot of hard work did the Wrights open the
door to machines that fly and more importantly, to the science behind
them. For it was the science, the research, and the experimentation
that determined what a flying machine should and would be. We have the
advantage of that knowledge plus a lot more. And with the same level
of effort, study, and dedication we all can build airplanes. We are
not so very different from Wilbur, Orville, Charlie, and maybe Ed too.
(Anyone know which Ed I'm referring to?)

Now for Richard's question:
According to the Wright notebooks published by McFarland, the machine
weighed 605 lbs. I do not know if that number included any water in
the block or the blubber tubes or if it included the fuel either.
Orville reportedly weighed in at 163 lbs, Wlibur was 146 lbs.
The main wings were 40' 4" x 6' 6" or according to the notes, 510 sq.
ft.
The all-flying canards totaled 48 sq. ft
Take-off hp has recently been estimated at 8.83 hp
headwind was 28-34 mph
ground speed was 6-7 mph

There are volumes of technical calculations in the notebooks between
late 1901 and 1903 describing both the 1902 and 1903 flying machines.
The best way to analize (sp?) the performance of the machines would be
to read "The Papers of Wilbur & Orville Wright" edited by Prof. Marvin
McFarland, Librarian of Congress, c. 1953. This work is a verbatium
compilation of the Wrights letters and notebooks as received from
Orville Wright by the Library of Congress. Having seen the original
"Notebook C" (1902-1903) and two of the letters on display in 2003, I
can tell you that the corresponding pages in McFarland are word-for-
word.

You may also want to search for the technical results of The Wright
Experience's wind tunnel testing of the 1903 machine, conducted at VA
Tech. in 2002 (I think). Funding from FORD (yep, that Ford), and Harry
Combs resulted in a few million for those experiments.

I would like to see your numbers when you compile them. Some day I too
will have time to recreate the 1901 bicycle tests. I have the bike
aparatus and the wallpaper scraps. Now all I need is the time and a
basic understanding of the mathmatics.

Harry

[Anthony W]

wright1902glider wrote:

> Now for Richard's question:
> According to the Wright notebooks published by McFarland, the machine
> weighed 605 lbs. I do not know if that number included any water in
> the block or the blubber tubes or if it included the fuel either.
> Orville reportedly weighed in at 163 lbs, Wlibur was 146 lbs.
> The main wings were 40' 4" x 6' 6" or according to the notes, 510 sq.
> ft.
> The all-flying canards totaled 48 sq. ft
> Take-off hp has recently been estimated at 8.83 hp
> headwind was 28-34 mph
> ground speed was 6-7 mph
>
> There are volumes of technical calculations in the notebooks between
> late 1901 and 1903 describing both the 1902 and 1903 flying machines.
> The best way to analize (sp?) the performance of the machines would be
> to read "The Papers of Wilbur & Orville Wright" edited by Prof. Marvin
> McFarland, Librarian of Congress, c. 1953. This work is a verbatium
> compilation of the Wrights letters and notebooks as received from
> Orville Wright by the Library of Congress. Having seen the original
> "Notebook C" (1902-1903) and two of the letters on display in 2003, I
> can tell you that the corresponding pages in McFarland are word-for-
> word.
>
> You may also want to search for the technical results of The Wright
> Experience's wind tunnel testing of the 1903 machine, conducted at VA
> Tech. in 2002 (I think). Funding from FORD (yep, that Ford), and Harry
> Combs resulted in a few million for those experiments.
>
> I would like to see your numbers when you compile them. Some day I too
> will have time to recreate the 1901 bicycle tests. I have the bike
> aparatus and the wallpaper scraps. Now all I need is the time and a
> basic understanding of the mathmatics.
>
> Harry

Do you know if that book by McFarland is still in print. I'd love to
read it for the history if nothing else I could learn from it.

Tony