Wright aircraft

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

mystical nonsense snipped

I guess he didn't have much to say.


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

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

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

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

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".

"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.

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

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

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