The Greatest Ever Series

[kool kitty89]

Gustave Whitehead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somthing interesting to note, like some of the preceding pioneering glider flights. Not a fully controlable craft (similar to the earlier gliders -shifting the pilots weight to acheive roll/turn control) Not the acheivments of the Wrights, but a significant note, particularly given Whitehead's background.

Certainly a bigger note than the spectacular failure that was Langley's "Aerodrome." The Smithsonian's insistance on Langley that "he was first" consequently the reason the Wright Flyer not being part of the Smithsonian until 1948 and with the coresponding leagal "contract" which unfortunately prevents Whitehead's recognition. (though thechnically Whitehead's acheivement wouldn't contradict that as it wasn't a truely "controlled" flight)


The biggest acheivement of the Wright designs was the development of full directional control. (pitch, yaw, and roll)

 

[kool kitty89]

Did not Glen Curtiss develop the aileron allowing banking turns rather then wing warping, and the Wrights were aholes for suing Curtiss

They didn't sue Curtiss over the ailerons, but over their patents on the aircraft design. (Curtiss's 1908 "June Bug" did use the same general configuration as the Wright aircraft, save for the ailerons and propeller)

Somewhat ironically Curtiss ended up merging with the later Wright Aernautical to form the Curtiss-Wright corporation. (albeit a year before Glen Curtiss died)

The Wright was a deliberately unstable canard (like the Eurofighter Typhoon!) whereas most aircraft that followed were stable tailed designs, exemplefied by the RAF BE2. Also the Wright was not a fighter either, and was itself derived from the work of Cayley, Stringfellow, Chanute, Lillienthal and others.

That canard layout was used for a good while in early designs, being fairly prevalent in Curtiss's early designs Curtiss Aircraft not to mention others like the Bristol Boxkite.

 

[Marcel]

Not true.

The Wright was a deliberately unstable canard (like the Eurofighter Typhoon!) whereas most aircraft that followed were stable tailed designs, exemplefied by the RAF BE2. Also the Wright was not a fighter either, and was itself derived from the work of Cayley, Stringfellow, Chanute, Lillienthal and others.

The one thing that he Wrights "invented" was controllability over all 3 axis, while all previous pioneers only thought of the vertical and horizontal dimentions. That is where the Wrights were had their influence. All other pioneers learned from the Wright brothers how to really control an airplane. To say the Flyer was not influential is like saying that Amsterdam is not in the Netherlands.

 

[Waynos]

Yes, it was influential, of course it was. And historic, KK provided a list of aircraft with a common layout that owed much to the Wright. That does not contradict anything I said.

However, The Antoinette was not, the Demoiselle was not, the Roe was not and the Bleriot was not based on the Wright Flyer, neither was the etrich Taube or indeed anything at all of any note that was built much after 1911. All of these were designed to be stable, as was everything else until the FBW era arrived, which was a different philosophy to that used by the Wrights.

That does not take away from the Wright achievement, but it is far cry from saying that everything that followed it was based on the Wright Flyer, because that was the point I took issue with. What is so hard to understand there?

It is the same as people who say things like the Wright Brothers invented the aeroplane. No, they did not. Many aeroplanes were built between 1840 and 1903 and several of them left the ground. It was all part of the learning process that started in earnest with George Cayley a century before the Wrights when he investigated, discoverd and set out the principles of flight that the Wrights themselves (and all the rest) used in their own research.

But they did achieve sustained powered and controlled flight before anyone else and that achievement was epoch making, but it isn't the same thing. Why is it that people seem unable to separate the two?

 

[kool kitty89]

I agree on that acheivement, as I posted in post #21. The control mechanisms they developed were important. (and wing warping was more sucessful early on than ailerons)

I think that Whitehead's flight of "number 21" Number 21 (plane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in 1901 was probably the closest to a controlled, powered, manned, flight pror to the Wright Flyer. Pitch controlled by "tail wing" (elevator), some degree of yaw control by varying propeller thrust, no roll control other than shifting the pilot's weight.

The configuration of "Number 21" was also much closer to to later aircraft (particularly early monoplanes like the Taube)



But, as pointed out earlier, none of this has anyhing to due with fighter aircraft.

And if you want to talk revolutions in aircraft design, you'd have to include the Junkers J 1, first all-metal (sheet steel) cantilever monoplane. (1915) And the J 2 experimental fighter of similar construction. (1916)

And in terms of fighters, the J 9, the first all-metal (corrugated aluminum) cantilever monoplane fighter to enter service. (in 1917)

 

[Waynos]

Agreed, discussing the pioneers would be better suited to another board.

 

[delcyros]

The Tripehound was a better plane than the DR1. Faster, better built. Underarmed in comparison. But the manuverability of the Sop was not the reason the three wings were used. It was for visability.

The Germans got it wrong, thought it was for climb and manuver.

Technically aerodynamically, the Fokker DR-I is a generation ahead of the Triplane. It had a larger envelope of flight, more foregiving stall charackteristics, better climb, roll turn.
It was one of the first braceless designs and the first to use Göttingen airfoils instead of thin ones. Judging from the low performance powerplant, it´s speed implies a very clean aerodynamic concept, much more advanced than that of the Sopwith.

 

[davparlr]

The Wright plane was not a fighter. Sorry for hijacking my own thread, but I can't let this ride.

and was itself derived from the work of Cayley, Stringfellow, Chanute, Lillienthal and others.

Concerning the contributions of previous designers, Wilbur Wright wrote
"Of all the men who attacked the flying problem in the 19th century, Otto Lilienthal was easily the most important. ... It is true that attempts at gliding had been made hundreds of years before him, and that in the nineteenth century, Cayley, Spencer, Wenham, Mouillard, and many others were reported to have made feeble attempts to glide, but their failures were so complete that nothing of value resulted."

As valuable as Lilienthal was, it must be noted here that the Wright Brothers had to discard all of his, and all other, aero data as faulty and decided they had to develop their own data, which they did and it was quite superior. In 1903, the Wright Brothers were the preeminent aerodynamist in the world due to their wind tunnel experiments.

From Further Gliding and Wind Tunnel Experiments - 1901
"They used 38 different model airfoils for these tests. These airfoils had an assortment of cambers, thickness, and shapes, including squares, rectangles, ellipses, uneven tips, and half circles, which they tested in different combinations. They tested single-wing and multiple-wing configurations. It was tedious and exacting work, requiring each wing shape be tested at 45 different angles. But by mid-December 1901, they had discovered, much to their surprise, that Lilienthal's tables were largely correct. It was Smeaton's coefficient that was wrong. The brothers also found the camber, or curvature, of Lilienthal's wings was inefficient. To remedy this, they designed wings with more of a parabolic curve that placed the high point of the wing about one-fourth of the way back down the chord from the leading edge rather than at its center, as Lilienthal had.

There was one other area where they had erroneously relied on Lilienthal's tables. They did not correct for the differences in the aspect ratio between Lilienthal's wing and the wings of their gliders. In other words, the proportion between the wingspan and the wing's chord length was different. This also affected the amount of lift generated.

Wilbur and Orville spent the rest of 1901 using their wind tunnel to answer some remaining questions regarding the shape and location of the wings. Through their methodical approach, they had achieved what no one had done before and answered questions that had remained unanswered for years. The brothers were sure they were right. Now they were ready to return to Kill Devil Hills and fly."

They didn't actually 'invent' anything

By your definition, there probably is no such thing as an inventor, as almost every "inventor" works with things other people have discovered. In reality, people who pull all the parts together are often given the title inventor, be it Bell, Edison, Morse, or the Wright Brothers.

and if they hadn't done it in 1903, someone else would have soon afterwards because lots of designers were also on the right lines.

Huh? I don't think because the Wright flew in 1903, everybody stopped working on flight themselves, nor do I think their failure would have sped up develop work.

This was a race, it was not something that the Wright brothers pulled out of their arses completely out of the blue. However they did do it and that is their legacy, but relatively little of what followed was based on their design.

This is greatly untrue.

Did not Glen Curtiss develop the aileron allowing banking turns rather then wing warping, and the Wrights were aholes for suing Curtiss

I don't understand this comment. They won the suit. Only WWI changed everything by nullifying all legal action.

As far as ailerons are concerned, the patent that the Wright Brothers filed stated that the construction they selected did not alleviate the patent from covering other implementations that performed the same function. Little wonder they won. I would have sued too.

Yes, it was influential, of course it was. And historic, KK provided a list of aircraft with a common layout that owed much to the Wright. That does not contradict anything I said.

However, The Antoinette was not, the Demoiselle was not, the Roe was not and the Bleriot was not based on the Wright Flyer, neither was the etrich Taube or indeed anything at all of any note that was built much after 1911. All of these were designed to be stable, as was everything else until the FBW era arrived, which was a different philosophy to that used by the Wrights.

You're saying that they did not have control functions for roll, yaw and pitch. Or you are saying that those are minor functions. Saying the Wright flyer was not influential because of it canard design is like say that Karl Benz first car was not influential because it only had three wheels.

That does not take away from the Wright achievement, but it is far cry from saying that everything that followed it was based on the Wright Flyer, because that was the point I took issue with. What is so hard to understand there?

Maybe because all aircraft control roll, pitch and yaw.

It is the same as people who say things like the Wright Brothers invented the aeroplane. No, they did not. Many aeroplanes were built between 1840 and 1903 and several of them left the ground. It was all part of the learning process that started in earnest with George Cayley a century before the Wrights when he investigated, discoverd and set out the principles of flight that the Wrights themselves (and all the rest) used in their own research.

Don't forget Isaac Newton for defining his three laws, which affects everything, so I guess being an inventor is impossible.

But they did achieve sustained powered and controlled flight before anyone else and that achievement was epoch making, but it isn't the same thing. Why is it that people seem unable to separate the two?

Its close enough for government work.
This is the process these two bicycle mechanics used in developing the airplane

1. Data search
2. Utilizing known data, made design
3. built design
4. tested design
5. analyzed test comparing test results with projected results
6. Errors indicated known data in error
7. Decided to generate own data
8. Designed and Built wind tunnel
9. Designed and built wind tunnel test equipment
10. Ran test
11. Analyzed test results
12. Redesigned airplane
13. Verified test results
14. Designed and built and efficient propeller
15. Designed and built engine with considerable support from Charlie Taylor, the first aircraft mechanic.
16. Flew design
17. Documented development and flight.

Any engineer would recognize this sequence of events as the same sequence used in modern aircraft development. The Wright Brothers not only just "invented" the first successful aircraft, they engineered the invention.

I was a design engineer for advanced aircraft for 29 years and I am amazed at their genius. They were:
1. Outstanding engineers
2. Outstanding problem solvers
3. The most knowledgeable aerodynamist in world in 1900 and had the most comprehensive and accurate airfoil data in the world, which they generated.
4. The most experienced pilots in the world in 1903, and were excellent pilots. The Flyer was very difficult to fly.
5. Detailed documentation of their research and manufacture. Only their engine is poorly documented.


To fly is not hard. Make a big kite and jump off a hill. To make a controlled flight is not hard, just move your body. To make a powered controlled flight is not hard, add an engine. To design and make a powered, controlled flight in a useful manner that all future aircraft would use, with no useable aero data, took genius.

 

[Messy1]

All this from 2 bicycle mechanics! Truly amazing!

 

[Waynos]

Davparlr, that was an excellent and informative post, in outlining what the Wrights achieved you are quite correct.

Unfortunately you have misunderstood much of what I said and seem to think I was wright bashing.

You are too quick however to dismiss the achievements of those who went before.

The 'inventor' of the aeroplane was Cayley - in the sense that he was the first to etsablish that a a fixed wing, controllable tail and separate power source (driving a propeller rather than flapping the wings) was the way to do it. He was the first man to formulate the layout of the modern and practical aeroplane, he too undertook controlled experiments and established for the first time ever that a curved surface was needed for the wing. This seems obvious to us, but it wasn't then. Why would we be surprised to hear that the Wrights found flaws in his calculations? the astonishing thing would be if they did not, given that he started in the 18th century and NO ONE had done any of this before him. His understanding of the mechanics of flight ought be something that we today find amazing, rather than something to be dismissed. His design for a VTOL convertiplane that foreshadowed such as the V-22 by 150 years is an illustration of his genius. Yes, the design looks silly today, but it was a proper design, showing an understanding of what was needed rather than strapping doves to a bedstead like so many other madcap schemes.

Your dismissal that such things were 'easy' is crass and very wrong. When Clement Ader became the first man to take off in a powered aeroplane in 1890 - was that easy? Really?

Huh? I don't think because the Wright flew in 1903, everybody stopped working on flight themselves, nor do I think their failure would have sped up develop work.

Neither do I, sorry but I don't get what you are trying say here as it appears not to relate to the passage you quoted above it. Even if the Flyer 1 had failed to get off or had crashed in 1903, their invaluable work was already being replicated in other countries, Voisin was flying Wright type gliders in 1902 and was hard at work in applying the design to a powered aeroplane, which he later achieved - this is an example of where they were influential, and of course their principles of flight were definitive due to the depth of research they applied to the work, but had they themselves failed these principles would not have been forgotten, just as they took their own lead from what had gone before, so would those who followed them, that is a natural progression.

This is greatly untrue.

In the first few years it was, I'll grant you. But the design of the Flyer was a developmental dead end and everyone moved on at such a pace that only ten years later all such designs looked like antiques - rather like the Comet was the first jetliner, but was the 707 based on it? No, because Boeing found a much better waywhich WAS the basis for 99% of future jetliners, and so it was with aeroplane design in general in the first decade of powered flight.

You're saying that they did not have control functions for roll, yaw and pitch. Or you are saying that those are minor functions. Saying the Wright flyer was not influential because of it canard design is like say that Karl Benz first car was not influential because it only had three wheels.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Like I have already pointed out twice, the Wright was deliberately unstable, designers quickly moved on to designs that were naturally stable, this is a completely different princple that the wrights actually disagreed with. By your argument you seem to be saying that the QM2 is based on the SS Great Britain because it floats and is made of metal.

Here you are, the 2nd person to try and argue with me that the Wright Flyer was influential. Yes? and are you going to tell me that grass is green and water is wet too?

Maybe it is the term 'based on' that is causing the confusion? To me, when something is based on something else, it uses that as a pattern. ie the Boeing 707 was based on the 367-80, as were, over time, the 727 and 737 and E-3 etc However none of these were based on the Wright Flyer. To me this is obvious, but yet we have people arguing the point? Voisin and Bristol for example used the Wright to base their aeroplanes on as it was the best pattern available at the time. Again, read the line I am arguing with.

so I guess being an inventor is impossible

No, but its often thankless and some other herbert ends up getting the credit.

 

[kool kitty89]

Agreed, discussing the pioneers would be better suited to another board.

There is a forum for that here. 1800-1914 - Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums


The most lasting acheivement of the Wrights to be used on subsequet aircraft was the wing warping system, such used on the early monoplane millitary aircraft like the Taube and Fokker Eindecker. (which is substancially different IMO, pertaining to Curtiss's development, though others were working on similar devices I think Curtiss was the first to use it successfully)

The configuration found in nature (on birds, minus the vertical tail surface) used by Whitehead, and on the Taube is the configuration used on almost all subsequent designs: tractor propeller(s) tail surfaces to the rear on a central fuselage.

Technically aerodynamically, the Fokker DR-I is a generation ahead of the Triplane. It had a larger envelope of flight, more foregiving stall charackteristics, better climb, roll turn.
It was one of the first braceless designs and the first to use Göttingen airfoils instead of thin ones. Judging from the low performance powerplant, it´s speed implies a very clean aerodynamic concept, much more advanced than that of the Sopwith.

The use of a cantilever wing was quite innovative and came as a result of collaboration with Junkers who had previously developed the even more revolutionary all-metal cantilever monoplane J 1.

I agree on the airframe of the Dr.I. Though one of the cleanest fighter designs of the war (possibly the cleanest other than Junkers' metal designs) was the Fokker D.VIII. (with exceptional performance despite the modest powerplant)