FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1911
1911 - 0284.PDF
'be classified as lying between these two distinct types, inas much as they have Antoinette bodies with wings that certainly bear more resemblance to the Bleriot pattern than the Antoinette, and are, at any rate, trussed only to one central mast. In the Kny, Piggott, Handley Page and Nieuport monoplanes the body form predomi nates over all other characteristics, but in the principle of the non-lifting tail they are alike. Ths Kny has its wing spars individually trussed more or less on the Antoinette principle, but in the other machines mentioned the wing spars are not thus reinforced. Properly speaking the real distinction in monoplanes of this classification should be drawn between the tail behind and tail first types, and in the latter category the Valkyrie is at present the only example on view. This machine is of essentially British design and construction. It is characterised by a fixed load-carrying leading plane in front of the main plane, which leading plane must not be confused with the movable elevator that is also provided. In the Valkyrie machines the propeller, engine and pilot are likewise all in front of the main plane. In the Antoinette monoplane the APRIL I, 1911. The object of the design is the acquisition of natural stability, and the purpose of sloping back the wings is to acquire an overall length for the machine as distinct from the chord dimen sion. This increment in length virtually intro duces the principle of a tail, and the change in the angle of incidence throughout the succeeding sections of the wings confers the principle of the dihedral angle on the relative attitude of the virtual tail portion in respect to the central leading portion of the machine. In fundamental principle the Valkyrie appears to be not dissimilar to the Dunne, although there is no structural likeness whatever. The leading plane in the Valkyrie, however, may be likened to the central portion of the Dunne machine, and it makes a dihedral angle in respect to the main plane, the extremities of which correspond to the rearward tips of the Dunne wings. This comparison is, perhaps, not altogether conclusive as thus briefly drawn, but it has been made with the object of emphasising that it is in the underlying principle rather than in the form of the machine that types should be compared on a common scien tific basis. The Handley Page monoplane, for example, has MULUNER. • "KNYPLANE! engine and propeller are both appreciably in front of the main plane, and on the Bleriot monoplane the engine and propeller are still in front, but distinctly closer to the leading edge. Inasmuch as the central portion of the Valkyrie main plane is recessed to take the propeller, the engine—supposing it to be a Gnome rotary —is not really so much further forward of the leading edge proper than it is on the Antoinette, and thus the essential distinction is more or less confined to the change in the position of the pilot. 1 Appearances are therefore apt to be a little 'deceptive in respect to the relative dis tribution of weight with this particular design. A monoplane that is altogether in a class by itself is the. Dunne, which is, so far as practical flying machines are concerned, an evolution of the Dunne biplane. The biplane was in itself, however, originally evolved from still earlier monoplane models. A characteristic feature of this machine is the absence of a tail and the V-plan form of the wings, which also have a varying angle of incidence from root to tip. the sloped back wings arranged with a crescent plan form of leading edge, and the dihedral angle is present in a minor degree by the use of upturned flexible wing tips. Apart from the shape of its wings, however, the Dunne monoplane is characterised by its underhung load, the engine and pilot being situated beneath the wings. In the Sanders biplane, which in this respect represents the principle of the early Wright flyer, the elevator may be regarded as a forward tail ; but as its attitude can be varied at will, stability is essen tially dependent on the action of the pilot. Thus far we have discussed the machines that are already familiar to readers of FLIGHT, and indeed it is one of the most satisfactory features of the present Exhibition that so much of the display is admittedly within the realm of suc cessful practice. No one can possibly say that the present Exhibition lacks originality in aero plane design, and yet it is singularly free from freaks. Practicallj- the onlv purely speculative designs are the tandem monoplane exhibited by Messrs. William Cole, and the machine exhibited by Mr. F. L. Bartelt. Of these the former is unfinished, and is thus possibly in some degree exempt from criticism, so we would therefore confine ourselves to saying that it labours 286
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
