If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Wright motor for the job - WAS: 13 horsepower
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Wright motor for the job - WAS: 13 horsepower
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Wright motor for the job - WAS: 13 horsepower
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Wright motor for the job - WAS: 13 horsepower
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) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Wright motor for the job - WAS: 13 horsepower
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Wright motor for the job - WAS: 13 horsepower
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
13 Horsepower | [email protected] | Home Built | 15 | August 21st 08 06:39 AM |
q horsepower | Euro-Motors | Aerobatics | 2 | May 19th 08 12:25 AM |
more horsepower | T-Bone | Piloting | 11 | March 20th 06 10:56 PM |
The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience | John Carrier | Military Aviation | 54 | October 12th 03 04:59 AM |
Horsepower | Andre | Home Built | 3 | July 18th 03 10:50 AM |