FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1910
1910 - 0564.PDF
It is obvious that if the trestles were placed sufficiently close together near the centre, the weight, in a suitable form, such as a dry sand-bag, might be thrown on the aeroplane without making the wings bend too much, whereas they might not support the weight if the two trestles were at the extreme tips. A discussion on the right place for the trestles might eclipse the discussion on the dihedral angle. Earl's Court. W. LANGDO.N-DAVIES. THE "R.E." BIPLANE. [622] Am sending you a sketch I made from my own ideas which I have had by me about twelve months now, and seeing the photos of the " Dunne " biplane I was surprised to notice a similarity in the two designs, and have enclosed sketch with explanation to same for you to publish if you care to, the idea being one of several of my own ideas in aeroplanes. I have called it the " R.E." biplane, and the main features and parts are as follows :— Main planes set back at angle of 45° to chassis, which is built of bamboo, resembling skeleton hull of a boat. It is driven by large Beadle tractor in front, and two Beadle propellers between main and rear planes, supported by framework attached to the chassis, the rear plane having an adjustable extension, as shown per diagram, which is worked by lever from aviator's seat in front of engine. BEADLE TRACTOR Another idea is adjustable ailerons worked in similar fashion by lever and wire running over pulleys up to seat of the driver, object being to regulate circle of movement of biplane in turning round. The rear part consists of keel on top and bottom, and tail to which is attached two small planes which act as elevators, and when required can be dropped to right angles to chassis, acting as a brake on speed of machine, and designed to act in conjunction with one of the ailerons, and so act as pivot for turning, the main plane being set at angle of 450 to offer less resistance to wind. The extension of rear plane is to afford as much surface over all from tip to tip as main plane, C, for rising from ground, and when up, say, 100 ft. or so, can be closed in to smaller dimension when flying is in full swing, the extension to act as greater stability and more lifting area as necessity may occur; also to be used for landing purposes for steadying the coming to earth. The outline of machine is, as you will see, very similar to Lieut. Dunne's biplane, though my sketch was drawn in March, 1909, and is entirely my own design. It may be of interest to some of the readers of your excellent paper, FLIGHT. Wishing your paper continued success, which it well deserves. Chatham. SAPPER GOSLING, R.E. JULY 16, 1910. ENGINE AND PILOT. [623] I wish to draw attention to a point in design that has not yet been discussed by your correspondent. It appears to me to be one of considerable importance. This concerns the relative position of the engine and the pilot. I notice that it is common practice for machines to be built with the pilot's seat in front, doubtless with a view of giving him a clear outlook. On the other hand it ought to be remembered that we are not as yet out of the wood and a smash is probable at any time. If the pilot sits in front of the engine there is every likelihood that the engine will fall on top of the pilot in the event of an accident, and for my own part I should prefer to have the engine in front in any machine I was using. Moreover, I think in that position it is better situated in respect to the pilot's hearing if the engine is working properly. Dulwich. R. SHAPLAND. [The question is one that is much discussed among aviators, who recognise the danger, but also appreciate the desirability of an unobstructed view. It is occasionally overlooked, however, that improved methods of construction may do much to remove some at least of the danger in which the pilot is placed in the event of an accident. So long as the engine does nor carry away from its frame the chances of the pilot being smashed by its fall are less serious.—ED.] HELICOPTER V. AEROPLANE. [624] Please could you, or any reader of FLIGHT, inform me of the meaning of longitudinal stability, also why could not helicopter machines be made as successful as our ordinary flying machines of the present day ? Wishing your paper everlasting success, I conclude a regular reader of FLIGHT. Chesterfield. F.A.V.S.W. [Longitudinal stability is steadiness in the direction of flight, that is to say, stability against pitching and tossing. A machine or a model aeroplane is stable longitudinally if, when disturbed, the oscillations thus created tend to die out naturally. If such oscilla tions tend to augment, the phugoid path of the flyer will terminate in an inverted semi-circle, and the machine will fall tail first to the ground. The ballasted plane (see " Flight Manual," N. 48) affords a simple means of demonstrating longitudinal stability. A helicopter has to lift the entire weight of the machine and pilot, whereas the propeller of an aeroplane only has to thrust against a small part of that weight. If the problem of the helicopter be studied mathematically [see " Flight Manual," F. 100 and N. 92), it will be found that the best design of helicopter is theoretically that in which the diameter is infinitely great. A circle with an infinitely great diameter has a circumference represented by a straight line, so that a blade of a helicopter designed to travel in a straight line would represent the conditions of maximum efficiency. Now, in principle, an aeroplane and the blade of a propeller are identical, and the aeroplane may therefore be regarded as the blade of a screw designed to travel in-a straight line. By this reasoning an aeroplane becomes the helicopter of greatest efficiency.—ED.] EARLY DESIGNS. [625] I am writing to ask if any of your readers can give me any information concerning the design of aeroplane that the Aerial Transit Co. of 1843 intended to use? From a drawing I have, it appears to have been a monoplane of considerable spread, with a monoplane tail, a boat-like hull, and steam for its motive power ; except for the latter it appears (in general outline) to have been very similar to the modern aeroplane, although the planes were apparently flat. Was the machine ever constructed, and if so, did it ever lift itself? I should also be glad of information concerning an aeroplane constructed by an Austrian (Herr Wilhelm Kress) in 1901 ; it appears it had three wings (I do not know their position in relation to each other), five screws, two lor driving and three for steering (?), which were driven by a petrol engine weighing 700 lbs. It is said to have lifted itself from the water, in which it was afterwards lost. Details of these early attempts would be of much interest to me. Thanking you for the information I have already received from FLIGHT from No. 1 to the present time. Regent's Park. NOEL M. VERNHAM. [The first machine referred to in our correspondent's letter was, in all probability, based on the designs of Henson and Stringfellow, who were, it is supposed, influenced by the writings of Sir George Cayley. The design is particularly interesting, because it is so close an approximation to the modern monoplane ; indeed, the trussing of the main spars is practically identical with that of the Antoinette.— ED.] 562
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
