FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1910
1910 - 0680.PDF
WING WARPING. [697] May I, as an admirer of your most excellent journal, FLIGHT, venture to take the opportunity of obtaining information from you which will, no doubt, greatly increase my small knowledge of aviation ? I am anxious to know how warping is carried on in biplanes, and whether it is a real necessity or not; and, also, what is the use of ailerons, and how are they controlled ? What are balancing-flaps ? Should the tail planes of a biplane have the same camber as that of the main planes ? On a model biplane of 3-ft. span would it be necessary to use twin-propellers ? How can the revs, per min. be counted on a model with elastic motor? Have models with a dihedral angle any advantages ? East Kirkby. LESLIE WAGGOTT. [Warping is effected on the Wright biplane as shown in the first of the accompanying sketches. A lever, which can be moved sideways, is attached by means of diagonal wires and pulleys to the rear corners of the upper-deck. The corners of the lower-deck are coupled together by a diagonal wire, as shown in sketch ; when the lever is pushed to one side it causes the extremity at one end of the plane to be deflected downwards while the opposite extremity becomes less cambered than it was originally, or, if it is practically flat to start with, the effect of the manoeuvre will be to warp the edge upwards. The lower-deck follows the movements of the upper-deck by virtue of the connections formed by the struts and the wires. Ailerons, or balancing flaps as they are termed in English, produce the same effect as wing-warping by another means. They consist as their name implies of hinged flaps attached to the trailing edges of the decks, and as they are entirely separate members their presence does not interfere with the rigid construction of the planes themselves in the way that warping necessarily does. The balancing flaps are allowed to trail in the wind, the control- lever being employed to forcibly depress one pair or the other. The object of these devices is to provide a means of dynamic control over the lateral equilibrium of the machine. The effect of drawing a balancing flap downwards is to virtually increase the camber of the plane at that point, and consequently to give it an increased lift for the same velocity. If that side of the machine happens to be canted downwards the effect of such a manoeuvre, properly carried out, is to restore equilibrium. The effective angle of the tail of the machine should be less than that of the main planes. The question of using one or two propellers on a model must be left to the designer. The total number of revolutions made by a propeller driven by an elastic motor will be equal to the number of turns that were initially put into the elastic. If the duration of the action of the propeller be timed with a watch, then the revolutions per minute will be approximately represented by dividing the total number of tarns by the time. Some designers consider the dihedral angle to be a useful method of obtaining a certain amount of natural lateral stability.—ED.] AUGUST 20, 191c AERONAUTICAL TERMINOLOGY. [698] Seeing that you invite correspondence on this subject I would like to unburden myself. As a record of agreement would be more or less waste of space I will confine myself to the captious side of the matter ! First, I would protest against airman. It is better than the awful bird-man, but that is about all. It is merely a using up of seaman (an extinct naval term) for aerial purposes, and comes in the same category as motor man evolved from coachman. Is not the American driver a better word ? It is shorter and easier to the tongue. In motoring it has won its way against all other terms. There are objections, of course, for one thing, it does not explain itself like chauffeur used to do in the early motoring days. But on the other hand driver doesn't explain itself on the earth, for all that it satisfies. Air driver could be used when requisite, just as motor driver or coach driver is. Generally the prefix is not required. As regards the absurdity of airman; let anyone put seaman into any account of naval manoeuvres or yacht racing, like airman is used, to see the superfluity. I am not suggesting driver as an ideal substitute, because I take it that an equivalent to sailor is the word sought. I fancy that the proper word will have to invent itself later on. Pilot was pretty good till—like airman—it became offensive from over-using. When we do get the right word it won't do that. Next, for the noble effort of Aerocar as a generic term for all things that fly. It is a good attempt, but I cannot see it existing any more than did " autocar," for what the public calls a Motor. Automobile has lived in a way, but mainly, I fancy, because of the R.A.C. and the American way of pronouncing the word. We need a word equivalent to ship or bike, i.e., something short. I rather fancy that the American term flyer is likely to get a vogue eventually as a generic term ; failing it, airship, which is to-day the American generic ; sub-divisions, dirigible and plane. Short words are bound to win through whatever sound reasons there may be for some other, and airship is two short syllables. That we use it now for dirigibles hardly counts. It is handy because of its semblance to warship or steamship. A destroyer is a warship when a generic term is required, but that never leads to its being confused with other types. Elevator will, I fancy, have to go, as too long. They have evolved riser in America, but I fancy that lifter will be the eventual word. It comes easier to the tongue. I don't think much of port and starboard. They survive afloat, but it is a case of survival: and left and right are slowly killing them. Fore and aft are, however, likely to get into the air, because they are shorter than front and rear. I think it would help matters if all who suggest terms, before trying to hit on fancy words, asked themselves how such words as throttle, spark, cruiser, aft, funnel, boiler, tender, &c., came into general use, and keep well before them the advantages of brevity in a term, and ease in saying it. Also to remember how many very appropriate enough terms, such as ironclad, locomotive, self- propelled vehicle, horseless-carriage, motorman, &c, have died out. Likewise and also, I would suggest that all who advocate terms ought to bind themselves to sacrifice their own suggestions if some other term meets with more favour. We are making words for our descendants, and we have our American cousins to think of, as they use the same language. I think, by the way, that America ought to be consulted. Summarised, my suggestions are :— Ah ship, anything whatever that mechanically goes up in the air. (Sub-divisions, Dirigible and 'Plane (or Flyer.) (Air) Driver, whoever controls an Airship. (Sub-divisions Aeronaut and Aviator. I don't pretend that these terms are ideal, but I do contend that they blend British and American use. I would further suggest that we use the metric system to the extent of millimetres only for bore and stroke of engines, and of 'planes and cubic capacity of dirigibles. The attempts made to reckon engines in inches and fractions of an inch confuse and are unscientific also. I'm afraid this is a fearfully long letter, and all in the face of my advocacy of brevity ; but the subject is a difficult one to get into a nutshell. FRED. T. JANE. [In common with Mr. Jane, we have little admiration for the term air-man, but the fact remains that a generic is required and the special significance that now attaches to the term pilot, as implying an aviator or an aeronaut possessed of a certificate, rather debars that term from further generic use. The sense in which it is required is scarcely adequately supplied by Mr. Jane's alternative driver. One speaks of a man as being an ardent yachtsman or a
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
