FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1910
1910 - 1085.PDF
DECEMBER 31, IJIO. l/yCHT] WRIGHT BROTHERS' VIEWS ON TRICK AND SPECIAL FLYING. ON several occasions recently various reports have been circu lated as to. the opinions held by the Wright Brothers regarding flying and altitude and speed competitions. An interesting letter has just been written to our American contemporary, Aero, by Mr. Wilbur Wright, in which he defines their "exact position regarding the relative methods of fancy flying and altitude efforts, as compared with cross-city, cross-sea and cross-mountain flying. We believe," he says, " in all kinds of flying which demonstrates the merits of the machine. Among such tests we regard as valuable, demonstrations of control, duration contests, weight-carrying contests, altitude con tests and speed contests. " Of all the qualities which an aeroplane should possess, capacity of control is by far the most important, since safety in the fickle air is absolutely dependent upon abundant control. The machine which is most amenable to ready control in calm air is the one which will fly most safely in high winds or in the sudden fierce whirls which are particularly abundant on quiet sultry days. I believe that fancy flying is a more definite and much safer method of determining the merits of machines in this respect than flying in a gale, as Hoxsey, Johnstone and Brookins did at Belmont Park during the second hour on Thursday, when everyone else refused to go out. That demonstration was only a proof under extremely dangerous conditions of what they had already shown many times by their fancy flying under safer conditions. I am absolutely opposed to carrying fancy flying to extremes merely to provide ' thrillers,' but legitimate fancy flying is safe and at the same time exceedingly valuable training exercise for the purpose of acquiring presence of mind and facility in the control of machines. Without such practice Brookins, Johnstone, Hoxsey could not have safely flown in that high wind at Belmont. '' In general I am opposed to demonstrations of any quality by tests under dangerous conditions, if there is any way to determine the same quality under safer conditions. For this reason I am opposed to flights over cities, flights over seas, flights over mountains, &c. &c., in which the flying part is no different from other flying, but differs only in the consequences of a forced descent. These are not demonstrations of capacity, but of useless bravado. "Altitude flying is also an excellent test of the quality of a machine, and not dangerous to a sound man until the altitude approaches 20,000 ft. At present no machine in the world has the capacity to reach a height Teally dangerous. Very few can reach 5,000 ft. With one exception, all the men who have passed the 9,000-ft. mark have been stopped by the fact that their machines practically refused to rise higher. Altitude flying, with proper con sideration of horse-power and weight carried, is fully as good a proof of the scientific perfection of wings, screws, &c, as speed contests, and is very much safer. Altitude contests might be im proved, however, by placing a time-limit on them, so as to make the rate of ascent the real determining factor. "The most valuable contests are those which demonstrate with greatest definiteness and least danger the presence of the quality sought. The machine which will fly longest and manoeuvre best over safe grounds will in time of real need fly farthest and in the worst weather over seas, cities or mountains." CORRESPONDENCE;. The name and address of the writer (not necessarily for publication) MOST in all cases accompany Utters intended for insertion, or containing queries. Correspondents communicating with regard to letters which they have read in FLIGHT, would much facilitate ready reference by quoting the number of each such letter. NOTE.—Owing to the great mass of valuable and interesting corre spondence which we receive, immediate publication is impossible, hut each letter will appear practically in sequence and at the earliest possible moment. CRUCIFER AEROPLANE. [986] Will you kindly permit me to refer to the letter, 914, 'addressed to you from a Moseley correspondent, in which it is stated that the Crucifer aeroplane " embodies the ordinary principle of automatic lateral stability obtained by means of a pendulum," and also that the body is '' underhung." My intention is not to discuss the efficiency of the pendulum principle of automatic lateral stability, nor to compare the merits of the high and low centres of gravity, but simply, with your per mission, to disclaim the existence of the pendulum principle and the low centre of gravity in Orucifer. The pendulum in Crucifer, your correspondent states, is the "great mass, the whole mass of the body, in fact." As defined by Webster, the pendulum is: "A body so suspended from a fixed point as to swing freely to and fro by the alternate action of gravity and momentum." Where is the fixed point from •which the body of Crucifer is suspended so that it may freely swing to and fro ? It is not in the firmament or the aeroplane could not advance. It is not in the collar to which the supporting surfaces are attached, and which encircles the body, because the collar may move about the body without communicating motion to the body; and this would be impossible if the body were suspended from a fixed point in the collar. In flight, the conditions are these: at the centre of its balance the body is encircled by the collar, and, about that centre, is thus supported at all points but fixed to none. In fact, there is no fixed point. And, the necessary fixed point being absent, the body cannot swing freely to and fro. This absence of a fixed point, and of a swing to and fro, mean the absence of the constituents of a pendulum from the body of Crucifer, which is therefore, in fact, not a pendulum. Your correspondent also writes: " The underhung body would seem," &c. This is a statement that the body of Crucifer is under hung. May I refer him to your issue of FLIGHT of October 15th, in which the illustrations of the machine plainly show the body exactly midway of the gap. He will see that it is, in fact, not underhung; and if he will refer also to the FLIGHT issues of -December 3rd and 10th he will find photographs of a machine with all the weight hung under the lower plane. Contrast of these with the illustrations of Crucifer will convince him of his error. His deduction from his erroneous statement is expressed thus: "The underhung body would seem to be unwieldy when turning corners." It is not underhung, and cannot, therefore, be thus reasoned to be unwieldy. It is, in fact, not unwieldy. But should he consider it unwieldy because of its shape, I refer him to the " Rapport sur les Experiences de M. Canovetti." These " Experiences," confirmed by Renard and others, and their conclu sions publicly endorsed by you in the fourth of your series of articles entitled, "Can we fly faster for less power?"—see FLIGHT of October 22nd—would imply that the shape of the body of Crucifer is the best for aerial navigation yet conceived by the scientific mind. Haywards Heath. L. BEAUCLERC GOLDMAN. BOMB DROPPING. [987] In reference to the recent correspondence in FLIGHT regarding " Bomb dropping " might I suggest that this opportunity be taken of making it publicly known, that a would-be patriot, by firing at an enemy's aeroplane from the vicinity of a town or village, might cause such town or village to be regarded by the crew of the aeroplane as defended or fortified, and they might deem this sufficient cause for destroying it. Possibly your journal could save the lives of many non-combatants by making this widely known. Marylebone. HARRY TURRILL. HIGH-SPEED GLIDING. [988] Is a high-speed man-carryiog glider feasible, bearing maybe a considerable weight per sq. ft. of lifting surface ? By a high speed I mean speeds equal to and beyond the lifting speed of modern aeroplanes on which planing to earth is exhibited. A starting appliance would probably be necessary, and a safe mode of landing is assumed available. Descents into water would not be unfeasible with extremely high speeds. Mr. J. T. C. Moore- Brabazon has recently suggested uses for an aeroplane made to normally descend into water. Can you refer to any experiments with large-weighted models, giving initial and average speed, distance, and gliding angle ? I suggest that these data would be useful and practical if given with motion at, say, 90 ft. per sec. Apparently flight originated, at any rate as far as the Wrights were concerned, with a low-speed glider ; and another form of gliding, although not hitherto pursued with success, might never theless with modern experience throw light both on the landing IO83
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
