|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
Henry Spencer wrote:
And a pilot aboard. If I recall correctly, Langley flew an *unmanned* internal-combustion powered aircraft quite successfully a few years earlier. Assuming you are referring to Aerodrome Number 5, it was powered by a steam engine. Pat |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
Pat Flannery wrote:
And a pilot aboard. If I recall correctly, Langley flew an *unmanned* internal-combustion powered aircraft quite successfully a few years earlier. Assuming you are referring to Aerodrome Number 5, it was powered by a steam engine. He's referring to Langley's 1/4-scale aerodrome which was internal- combustion engine powered and flew on August 8, 1901. The earlier aerodromes 5 and 6, which were steam powered, flew in 1896. Jim Davis |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
Jim Davis wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: And a pilot aboard. If I recall correctly, Langley flew an *unmanned* internal-combustion powered aircraft quite successfully a few years earlier. Assuming you are referring to Aerodrome Number 5, it was powered by a steam engine. He's referring to Langley's 1/4-scale aerodrome which was internal- combustion engine powered and flew on August 8, 1901. The earlier aerodromes 5 and 6, which were steam powered, flew in 1896. I assumed he was refering to the number 5 or 6, as both flew more succesfully than the 1/4 scale internal combustion powered one; Number 5 flew twice on May 6, 1896; in the first it flew 3,300 feet, in the second it covered 2,300 feet. The next day Number 6 flew 4,790 feet. In contrast, the 1/4 scale one only covered 1000 feet in its longest flight: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...ft/langley.htm Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|