Wickramasinge at it again

David Spain wrote:
Peter Stickney writes:
The only problem with that argument is that the Wrights didn't use the
catapult until they started flying from Huffman Prairie, outside of Dayton.
At Kitty Hawk, they used a simple rail, with a small trolley,
The photographs taken at the time clearly show this.

I had seen that stated in another blog as well.

Assuming that's the case, so much for the 14Bis argument that the Wright flyer
didn't count because it required take-off assist!

Besides didn't the 14Bis have turning issues as well?

Looking at the design it doesn't look like it could turn at all due to
an inability to bank because of all the wing dihedral.
It wasn't very well thought out compared to the Flyer, which wasn't bad
at all for a first effort, although it would have been better if it had
had wheels instead of landing skids and its launch track.
Although there weren't runways around in 1903, there were roads, and it
could have used those for takeoff and landings.
One thing you don't see discussed much is what to do with the Flyer if
it lands someplace else than its takeoff point; you either have to take
the launch track to it, or tow it back to the launch track, and that's
not very practical for something that was primarily designed to do
aerial reconnaissance work for military customers.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

One thing you don't see discussed much is what to do with the Flyer if it
lands someplace else than its takeoff point; you either have to take the
launch track to it, or tow it back to the launch track, and that's not very
practical for something that was primarily designed to do aerial
reconnaissance work for military customers.

Yeah, I never figured out why Fireball XL-5 needed a launch rail either
considering it had VTOL capability (and I was wondering that when I was
in 4th grade!).

It's also an issue for SpaceShipTwo, but at least if it lands somewhere
the WhiteKnightTwo can land and take off from, you can go get it.

I think the Wrights were quick to put wheels on the next version. Certainly
I believe they were on the model 3? And did they also increase the horsepower
of the engine on the later models so that the rail wasn't needed? I know from
the movies I've seen the later models were much more airworthy.

Dave

David Spain wrote:


Yeah, I never figured out why Fireball XL-5 needed a launch rail either
considering it had VTOL capability (and I was wondering that when I was
in 4th grade!).

You know, I never thought about that, it doesn't make any sense at all.


It's also an issue for SpaceShipTwo, but at least if it lands somewhere
the WhiteKnightTwo can land and take off from, you can go get it.

I think the Wrights were quick to put wheels on the next version. Certainly
I believe they were on the model 3? And did they also increase the horsepower
of the engine on the later models so that the rail wasn't needed? I know from
the movies I've seen the later models were much more airworthy.

They wanted to stick with the track, catapult, and skids, but it was
apparent that it was hurting the thing's sales appeal, and making a buck
off of it was why they invented it in the first place.
One interesting story that had a very long range impact on aviation was
their legal dispute with Glenn Curtiss over patent infringement.
When the Wrights invented the Flyer, they went out of their way to
patent everything about its design they could with the intention of
making it impossible for any competitor to build an aircraft without
infringing at least one of their patents.
One of their patents was on wing warping for roll control; Curtiss built
his June Bug and incorporated ailerons (he may have invented that term
BTW, as IIRC before that they had been called "flappers") onto it to
avoid infringing on the Wright wing-warping patent.
The Wrights took him to court, but the judge found in favor of Curtiss,
and a major legal hurdle to others making their own aircraft designs in
the US was cleared. Which is a very good thing, as by the beginning of
WWI the wing-warping concept was pretty much dead, due to the far easier
construction of aircraft using ailerons.

Pat

David Spain wrote:

Peter Stickney writes:
The only problem with that argument is that the Wrights didn't use the
catapult until they started flying from Huffman Prairie, outside of
Dayton. At Kitty Hawk, they used a simple rail, with a small trolley,
The photographs taken at the time clearly show this.

I had seen that stated in another blog as well.

Assuming that's the case, so much for the 14Bis argument that the Wright
flyer didn't count because it required take-off assist!

Wounded Brazilian Pride trumps documented fact.
Which is a pity, because Alberto Santos-Dumont was a
true pioneer, what with building and flying the first dirigible
and the first powered heavier than air flight in Europe, all
on his own, since the Wrights weren't big on Press Releases and
held their technical details very close to the vest.


Besides didn't the 14Bis have turning issues as well?

Yes - it did. The thing that the Wrights knew - not only through their
observation of nature, but their systematic experimentation (Which nobody
else had done) and extensive experience - They spent their Fall Vacations at
Kitty Hawk in 1900, 1901 and 1902 flying their butts off in their gliders.
By December 1903 they had more flight time than the rest of the world
combined. That's the biggest thing that set them apart from the other
pioneers - they learned _hoe_ to fly first. -
Anyway- - they knew that steering an airplane wasn't shoving over the rudder
like you would in a boat to change course - what you do it point the nose
off to one side and keep moving along your original vector until the natural
stability of the airplane starts slowly changing the course, (A Slip, in
aviation parlance) but by directing the lift vector in the direction you
want the airplane to turn (rolling it, in other words) and using the rudder
to keep the pointy part going into the relative wind.
The 14bis didn't have any roll control, relying on extreme dihedral to try
and ensure roll stability.
It also had problems climbing out of ground effect.


--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option.
It comes bundled with the system

Pat Flannery wrote:

David Spain wrote:
Peter Stickney writes:
The only problem with that argument is that the Wrights didn't use the
catapult until they started flying from Huffman Prairie, outside of
Dayton. At Kitty Hawk, they used a simple rail, with a small trolley,
The photographs taken at the time clearly show this.

I had seen that stated in another blog as well.

Assuming that's the case, so much for the 14Bis argument that the Wright
flyer didn't count because it required take-off assist!

Besides didn't the 14Bis have turning issues as well?

Looking at the design it doesn't look like it could turn at all due to
an inability to bank because of all the wing dihedral.
It wasn't very well thought out compared to the Flyer, which wasn't bad
at all for a first effort, although it would have been better if it had
had wheels instead of landing skids and its launch track.

Not a lot of use for wheels in the dunes of North Carolina, or the
grasslands of Central Ohio, Pat.
Although there weren't runways around in 1903, there were roads, and it
could have used those for takeoff and landings.

Erm, Pat, do you have any idea what a road consisted of at that time?
Outside of the main streets of cities, they were dirt tracks, heavily
rutted, not graded, and with little or no clearance to the sides.
Early automobile and truck traffic found traveling on the railroad roadbeds,
ties (sleepers for you Brits) and all, to be much superior.
There wasn't much of an effort to pave roads until after World War 1.

(I'm very familiar with that subject, being a member of the American Truck
Historical Society, the Military Vehicle Preservation Association, and the
family that built the first paved roads in Central New England.)

One thing you don't see discussed much is what to do with the Flyer if
it lands someplace else than its takeoff point; you either have to take
the launch track to it, or tow it back to the launch track, and that's
not very practical for something that was primarily designed to do
aerial reconnaissance work for military customers.

In 1903 - 1908, they were working more on making it fly well, and
in formalizing the science of flying. The US Army spec didn't include
"Land and Take Off from Anywhere". (Of course, asking that at that time
would be like asking that the B-70 be a VTOL)

Yes, it is a tactical handicap. Consider the case of the prototype
Ar 234 the Germans sent to France to fly recce missions during the Normandy
Invasion. The airplane got there in hours. The takeoff trolley and rocket
packs took weeks, since the roads were so heavily interdicted by Allied
aircraft. By they time they were able to fly a couple of missions, there
was no doubt where the Allies were.

--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option.
It comes bundled with the system

Pat Flannery wrote:

David Spain wrote:


Yeah, I never figured out why Fireball XL-5 needed a launch rail either
considering it had VTOL capability (and I was wondering that when I was
in 4th grade!).

You know, I never thought about that, it doesn't make any sense at all.


It's also an issue for SpaceShipTwo, but at least if it lands somewhere
the WhiteKnightTwo can land and take off from, you can go get it.

Otherwise you sent a truck.

I think the Wrights were quick to put wheels on the next version.
Certainly I believe they were on the model 3? And did they also increase
the horsepower of the engine on the later models so that the rail wasn't
needed? I know from the movies I've seen the later models were much more
airworthy.

The Model B certainly did - (Cal Rogers and the Vin Fiz, flying across the
USA one crash at a time in 1911.
(Heh - doing a quick Web check, there's a bunch of folks in Portsmouth, NH
who are prepping for the 100th Anniversary, including remanufacturing a
Vin Fiz-like soda (Tonic, to us Rugged New Englanders).
Somebody should tell them about the flying Wright Model B replica that the
Owl's Head Transportation Museum in Maine has.

They wanted to stick with the track, catapult, and skids, but it was
apparent that it was hurting the thing's sales appeal, and making a buck
off of it was why they invented it in the first place.
One interesting story that had a very long range impact on aviation was
their legal dispute with Glenn Curtiss over patent infringement.
When the Wrights invented the Flyer, they went out of their way to
patent everything about its design they could with the intention of
making it impossible for any competitor to build an aircraft without
infringing at least one of their patents.
One of their patents was on wing warping for roll control; Curtiss built
his June Bug and incorporated ailerons (he may have invented that term
BTW, as IIRC before that they had been called "flappers") onto it to
avoid infringing on the Wright wing-warping patent.
The Wrights took him to court, but the judge found in favor of Curtiss,
and a major legal hurdle to others making their own aircraft designs in
the US was cleared.
But which held up airplane development in the U.S. for years.

Which is a very good thing, as by the beginning of
WWI the wing-warping concept was pretty much dead, due to the far easier
construction of aircraft using ailerons.

Tell that to the Etrich Taube and the Fokker Eindekker.
The Fokker Scourge flew on warping wings.
I can't imagine Max Immelman inventing the Immelman Turn in that beast.


--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option.
It comes bundled with the system

Peter Stickney wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

David Spain wrote:
Peter Stickney writes:
The only problem with that argument is that the Wrights didn't use the
catapult until they started flying from Huffman Prairie, outside of
Dayton. At Kitty Hawk, they used a simple rail, with a small trolley,
The photographs taken at the time clearly show this.
I had seen that stated in another blog as well.

Assuming that's the case, so much for the 14Bis argument that the Wright
flyer didn't count because it required take-off assist!

Besides didn't the 14Bis have turning issues as well?
Looking at the design it doesn't look like it could turn at all due to
an inability to bank because of all the wing dihedral.
It wasn't very well thought out compared to the Flyer, which wasn't bad
at all for a first effort, although it would have been better if it had
had wheels instead of landing skids and its launch track.

Not a lot of use for wheels in the dunes of North Carolina, or the
grasslands of Central Ohio, Pat.
Although there weren't runways around in 1903, there were roads, and it
could have used those for takeoff and landings.

Erm, Pat, do you have any idea what a road consisted of at that time?
Outside of the main streets of cities, they were dirt tracks, heavily
rutted, not graded, and with little or no clearance to the sides.
Early automobile and truck traffic found traveling on the railroad roadbeds,
ties (sleepers for you Brits) and all, to be much superior.
There wasn't much of an effort to pave roads until after World War 1.

ISTR that a young Army lite colonel's bad experiences during the 1919
Army Convoy provided part of the inspiration for the Interstate Highway
System. Fortunately he later became president so that he could make that
inspiration a reality, and the system was later named for him.

Peter Stickney wrote:

That's the biggest thing that set them apart from the other
pioneers - they learned _hoe_ to fly first.

Their aerial prostitution business! A fascinating concept, as it allowed
quick getaways from the police, and would lead to The Wright Mile High
Club in the years to come.
The exploits these bold women were a source of inspiration to the
songwriters of the day:
http://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archi...phine_1910.jpg

Pat

Peter Stickney wrote:
Not a lot of use for wheels in the dunes of North Carolina, or the
grasslands of Central Ohio, Pat.

Although the sand dunes were a no-go or wheels, they should have worked
fine on grassland as long as it wasn't too rocky.

Although there weren't runways around in 1903, there were roads, and it
could have used those for takeoff and landings.

Erm, Pat, do you have any idea what a road consisted of at that time?

Yeah, just like most of the farm roads around here.

Outside of the main streets of cities, they were dirt tracks, heavily
rutted, not graded, and with little or no clearance to the sides.
Early automobile and truck traffic found traveling on the railroad roadbeds,
ties (sleepers for you Brits) and all, to be much superior.
There wasn't much of an effort to pave roads until after World War 1.

Okay, just take off of any convenient piece of flat grassland like all
their competitors around the world who used wheels did.


(I'm very familiar with that subject, being a member of the American Truck
Historical Society, the Military Vehicle Preservation Association, and the
family that built the first paved roads in Central New England.)

One thing you don't see discussed much is what to do with the Flyer if
it lands someplace else than its takeoff point; you either have to take
the launch track to it, or tow it back to the launch track, and that's
not very practical for something that was primarily designed to do
aerial reconnaissance work for military customers.

In 1903 - 1908, they were working more on making it fly well, and
in formalizing the science of flying. The US Army spec didn't include
"Land and Take Off from Anywhere". (Of course, asking that at that time
would be like asking that the B-70 be a VTOL)

Thy were trying to sell it to other countries from January 1905
forwards: http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analwright.htm
The British and French actually got their foot in the door ahead of the
US Army.
As far as land and takeoff from anywhere, the Army contract from the above:

[Paragraph 8] “It should be so designed as to ascend in any country
which may be encountered in field service. The starting device must be
simple and transportable. It should also land in a field without
requiring a specially prepared spot and without damaging its structure.”

That sounds like anywhere you can lay the track for takeoff, and any
convenient farm field for landing.
What happens next is the odd part, as it's supposed to be taken apart
and transported back in a wagon if it can't get back to its launch spot:

[Paragraph 2] “It is desirable that the flying machine should be
designed so that it may be quickly and easily assembled and taken apart
and packed for transportation in Army wagons. It should be capable of
being assembled and put in operation in about one hour.”



Yes, it is a tactical handicap. Consider the case of the prototype
Ar 234 the Germans sent to France to fly recce missions during the Normandy
Invasion. The airplane got there in hours. The takeoff trolley and rocket
packs took weeks, since the roads were so heavily interdicted by Allied
aircraft. By they time they were able to fly a couple of missions, there
was no doubt where the Allies were.


Of course the Germans were takeoff trolley crazy, and by the time the
production models came along they had normal tricycle landing gear.
You can see the trolley/skid approach being used on the Me-163 because
of its small size and to keep the weight down, but Arado didn't have
that excuse on the Ar-234, so its use was a design slip on a otherwise
outstanding aircraft.
BTW, both the twin engined and four engined trolley/skid-equipped Ar-234
prototypes could get airborne without the use of the Walter ATO rocket
pods, though it would obviously mean using a longer runway, and I don't
know how much fuel could be carried when flown in this way:
http://www.airrecce.co.uk/graphics/A...e/Ar234-67.jpg

Pat

Peter Stickney wrote:
Tell that to the Etrich Taube and the Fokker Eindekker.
The Fokker Scourge flew on warping wings.
I can't imagine Max Immelman inventing the Immelman Turn in that beast.

The Taube was obsolete from day one of the war, and once aircraft
started carrying machine guns aloft was relegated to behind the lines
and training purposes.
I never could figure out how the Eindecker could do that maneuver
either, though I think the rotary engine maybe had something to do with
it when used in combination with the wing warping and hard rudder input
- turning the aircraft to the side with the mass of the engine spinning
like a gyroscope could generate a force at ninety degrees to the
aircraft's direction of travel, so turn it one way and the left wing
dips, and the other way and the left wing climbs.
That was a trick used by the Sopwith Camel to maneuver, although the
pilot had to be careful not to get into a flat spin.
But I could never see it having the "umph" to do the vertical climb at
the start of the turn.
I almost bought a replica Eindecker ultralight plane when I was working
out a Jamestown airport, but I was too heavy for it, and besides I don't
think it would be legal to fly it off of the runways unless you started
putting radios in it, adding yet more weight.
But the thought of getting off work at 7 AM and hopping into my Fokker
for dawn patrol was very enticing indeed:
http://www.airdromeairplanes.com/Fok...4scale%7D.html
It would of course have borne the markings of my evil alter ego,
Wolfgang Von Fritz (a four leaf clover with each of the leaves being a
green skull) the dread "Herr Tod" of the western front, and sworn enemy
of the the RFC's Goodwin "Goodie" Godwin, and his DH.2, "Mercy".
See the handicapped children at the Ann Carlson School looking up in
wonder as the Fokker flies low overhead...see them stumbling for safety
on their crutches as the water balloons full of red latex paint begin to
descend onto their heads.
HA-HA-HA! Soon they shall be bending their crippled knees before the
Kaiser's throne! ;-)

Herr Tod