Is it any chance to fly 62 lb for each horsepower?

jesse said:
Ok, I've been thinking about this all day, and I've read your posts again. You convinced me. The Wrights never got that thing flying. Thank you for correcting history.

Now what happens?
Click to expand...

Brush up on your french?

"La tour Hawthorne, Bonanza sees keelo uneeform c'est a la downwind gauche, atterissage runway deux-cinq, a capitulation."

I assume "surrender" is the french aviation term for "full stop" :D
 
Last edited:
I've always suspected they were the Wrong brothers. :D
 
simplex1 said:
I will prove mathematically that the minimum take off power is the same as the power required to maintain level flight and that the faster you want to rise from the ground the more power you need above level flight power.

Assuming we have a plane with mass m that require the minimum power P to fly parallel to the ground then the necessary power to rise this airplane at a height h from the ground in the time t will be:

Take off Power = P + mgh/t

where g=9.81 m/s^2

As you see if t -> infinity (you can afford a long take off time) then mgh/t vanishes and Take off Power = P

As an example, we take the case of the alleged Flyer II 1904 which had the mass m= 925 lb (419.57 kg).
For rising at 1 m/s (vertical speed) Flyer II would have needed:

Take off Power = P + 5.6 HP

For rising at only 5 cm/s same Flyer would have required just:

Take off Power = P + 0.28 HP =~ P (the level flight power)

So, one uses supplemental power (it can be delivered by a catapult) at take off just to get up quickly in the air at a comfortable height. You can take off with that minimum level flight power P assuming you can afford to rise at a few cm/s.
Click to expand...

Oh boy.

You fly airplanes in a vacuum.

Stop trying to lecture physics when you don't understand it. If you're going to make energy conservation arguments, (a) you have to stop confusing limits with averages, and (b) you need to account for all the sources and sinks of energy.

Are you SURE all that engine power goes into raising the airplane under all circumstances? Really? How does this all change at higher airspeed? How about on a turf runway?

Dude, you're either light years smarter than those of us too stupid to understand high school physics despite going many years beyond that in professional study, or you're delusional. You can guess which one I'm putting my money on.
 
Last edited:
The much celebrated 66% efficiency of the 1903 propellers not confirmed by wind tunnel tests

In a March 6, 1903 note, with calculations regarding the efficiency of their propellers, (see http://www.localhangar.com/cgi-bin/...?POP=yes&CLUBNO=6&reason=show_page&PAGEID=116 ) the Wright brothers simply applied a known elementary relation:

Efficiency_propeller=Thrust*Plane_speed/Power_available, 66%=90lbf*24mph/8.73HP

They simply needed a 90lbf propeller at 24mph considering a 8.73HP engine was available and they calculated that their propeller should be at least 66% efficient otherwise the required 90lbf thrust to keep the plane aloft would not have been reached. Their calculations show just how great the performance of the propeller should have been not how great it really was.

This efficiency was never obtained by the people from Wright Experience project. The site http://archive.today/0pne0 says that many tests were effectuated and efficiencies between 75% and 82% were obtained which in not 66%. They also say they reconstructed, with the help of computers, the propellers using badly damaged parts of the original ones. However, in their reconstructions, they made some assumptions that could have alter the efficiency. In conclusion that 66% efficiency is not confirmed. When a team wants to replicate the results or predictions of some inventors the team has to obtain exactly the same results not much better!

In the article "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, O. and W. Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908, pag. 648-649, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-5 ", WB themselves wrote:

"Our first propellers, built entirely from calculations, gave in useful work 66 per cent. of the power expended. This was about one third more than had been secured by Maxim or Langley."

The text is clear, the two brothers calculated and then obtained a 66% efficiency.

An advanced high efficiency propeller, made by Lucien Chauviere, can be seen in L'Aerophile from May 15, 1908, pag. 182 (see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f192.image.r=helice.langEN ). It is above the propellers presented by WB on Aug. 8, 1908 and clearly made before WB's propellers became known. Definitely, Europeans or other inventors did not learn from the Wright Brothers how to make efficient propellers. The opposite seems to be true.
 
MAKG1 said:
Oh boy.

You fly airplanes in a vacuum.

Stop trying to lecture physics when you don't understand it. If you're going to make energy conservation arguments, (a) you have to stop confusing limits with averages, and (b) you need to account for all the sources and sinks of energy.

Are you SURE all that engine power goes into raising the airplane under all circumstances? Really? How does this all change at higher airspeed?

Dude, you're either light years smarter than those of us too stupid to understand high school physics despite going many years beyond that in professional study, or you're delusional. You can guess which one I'm putting my money on.
Click to expand...
Mak, I thought you were smarter than that. Can't you see that he obviously knows what he is talking about? All that college stuff I learned is meaningless.
 
JOhnH said:
Mak, I thought you were smarter than that. Can't you see that he obviously knows what he is talking about? All that college stuff I learned is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. You're right.

I'd better go turn in my degree and hold my head in shame. Not sure yet about my pilot certificate. I obviously don't know how to cruise an airplane.
 
MAKG1 said:
Oh yeah. You're right.

I'd better go turn in my degree and hold my head in shame. Not sure yet about my pilot certificate. I obviously don't know how to cruise an airplane.
Click to expand...
Just be sure that outside air pressure is greater than zero and you'll be fine.
 
MAKG1 said:
to understand high school physics despite going many years beyond that in professional study, or you're delusional.
Click to expand...
Come with a mathematical model that supports whatever theory about take offs and level flights you might want to present.
If you accumulated so many professional studies in your career than for sure you will be able to write down a few formula that support your theory.

Are you SURE all that engine power goes into raising the airplane under all circumstances? Really? How does this all change at higher airspeed?
Click to expand...

As a remark, if the plane rises slowly from the ground there will be no drag due to the vertical speed because at velocities of a few centimeters/second the aerodynamic drag = zero. So, no, the plane engine does not use any power to fight the vertical drag.

It is clear for me you have not understood the formula I wrote which is:

Take off power = Level flight power + mgh/t

If the plane rises slowly, there will be no parasitic friction due to lifting of the ground (the vertical movement of the aircraft) and also mg(h/t) will be negligible. In conclusion, Take off power =~ Level flight power.
 
Last edited:
I think a giant statue of Dumont should be erected as a central focal point at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum, and the original Wright Flyer should be burned at its base.
 
I think there should be a 156 hr manatory view marathon hosted by Jerry Lewis's corpse be shown on all channels extolling Dumonts not only aeronautical genius, but romantic prowess and enormous penis which BTW will swing proudly from the statue, while life sized latex replicas will be conveniently placed around the base of the statue so women can idolize and internalize him at the same time. Fortunately, most of the marathon will cover this in between ranting diatribes about the Wright Heresy, kinda like a PBS fund drive.
 
Henning said:
I think a giant statue of Dumont should be erected as a central focal point at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum, and the original Wright Flyer should be burned at its base.
Click to expand...

I think Newton needs to be taken down a peg too.
 
I think we should also erect a memorial at every airport to those intrepid pilots of AF447 who proved you can fly an A340 into the ocean in a perfect Falling Leaf Stall and never realize you were stalled because the plane wasn't saying "Stall, Stall, Stall."
 
The difference between an ordinary but good pilot and a good aeronautical engineer is the difference between an experienced truck driver and a capable mechanical engineer.

You are more like truck drivers on this forum not as engineers.
 
simplex1 said:
The difference between an ordinary but good pilot and a good aeronautical engineer is the difference between an experienced truck driver and a capable mechanical engineer.

You are more like truck drivers on this forum not as engineers.
Click to expand...

Haven't met many engineers that can work a 15 speed box, but I'm sure that All French engineers can.
 
simplex1 said:
The difference between an ordinary but good pilot and a good aeronautical engineer is the difference between an experienced truck driver and a capable mechanical engineer.

You are more like truck drivers on this forum not as engineers.
Click to expand...

I see. Where did you get your aeronautical engineering degree? What are you working on professionally these days?
 
simplex1 said:
As a remark, if the plane rises slowly from the ground there will be no drag due to the vertical speed because at velocities of a few centimeters/second the aerodynamic drag = zero. So, no, the plane engine does not use any power to fight the vertical drag.
Click to expand...

Vertical drag?

Have you ever taken a physics class in your life? Drag doesn't work that way.

No, I'm not going to teach an obviously unwilling student.
 
He is definitely not an aeronautical engineer. His arguments are too simplistic.
 
this is simply a rehash of the consternation in the early 1900's over the same topic. How could 2 bicycle mechanics and a grease monkey machinist working mostly on their own, manage to leapfrog so many government-funded highly-educated experts ? It's a story that repeats throughout history, no different than the formative days of microsoft or apple, with school dropouts working in a shed.

Simple(ton)X, just get over it. Disruputive advances come from unconventional places, always have and always will. The wright's were the only ones who could see the big picture. That an airplane propellor is a really a rotating wing. That exhaustive experimental testing of models beats calculations when the calculation inputs are poorly understood. That a vehicle travelling in 3-dimensions must be steerable about all 3 axis.

btw referencing my grease monkey comment, let's not forget charlie taylor, just as critical to the effort as the wright brothers. The brothers got the fame but it was a 3-man team.
 
narchee said:
He is definitely not an aeronautical engineer. His arguments are too simplistic.
Click to expand...
I am still waiting for your more complicated and realistic mathematical model of a plane!
 
How could an unqualified man have designed and built an engine in 6 weeks?!

About the engine that powered Flyer I 1903 various authors wrote that:
"The Wrights wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight power-plant. They turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers."

The article about Taylor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Taylor_(mechanic) ) also does not bring more light saying just that Taylor was a mechanic hired by Wright Brothers to repair bicycles and "He designed and built the aluminum water-cooled engine in only six weeks, based partly on rough sketches provided by the Wrights."

It is not uncommon for a mechanic to adapt a ready made engine to a specific purpose, but to design it from scratch and build it in 6 weeks is simply incredible.
 
Pictures from May 1908, The Wrights brothers' plane caught flying low in front of a tall sand dune

The images can be found here, (L'Aerophile, 1 July 1908 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f260.image.r=wright.langEN ). They still glided down the slope. How can I believe that the two brothers were able to fly about 40 minutes in 1905 in Dayton, Ohio over a flat pasture if they still needed a hill and strong winds to fly in May 1908.

In a letter published in L'Aerophile, in which the two brothers gave technical details about all their claimed flights in May 1908, they also specified the wind speed as being between 4 and 9 m/s. (see L'Aerophile 15 June 1908, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f232.image.r=wright mai.langEN ).
 
Piloting "Flyer I 1903" is "like balancing a yardstick on one finger, two at one time. If you lose it, it goes — quickly, said Fred Culick …"

(1)"EL SEGUNDO, Calif. (AP) — Aviation experts … have found the Wright stuff — in the hands of modern pilots … — is a little wrong."
(2)"I'd say it was almost a miracle they were able to fly it, said Jack Cherne"
(3)"Using that data, they created a computer flight simulator that shows the plane to be so unstable, it is nearly impossible to fly."
(4)"It's like balancing a yardstick on one finger, two at one time. If you lose it, it goes — quickly, said Fred Culick …"
(5)"Every pilot, his first try, crashed the simulator. It took less than a second, said Capt. Tim Jorris".
(6)"I thoroughly cannot imagine the Wright brothers, having very little experience in powered aircraft, getting this airborne and flying, said Major Mike Jansen. "My respect for what they did went up immediately the first time I took the controls.""
(7)"Modifications will include … . A computer feedback system will assist the pilot. We want the experience, but we don't want to kill ourselves, Cherne said."

see: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/astro/2001-07-05-wright-flyer.htm
 
simplex1 said:
How could an unqualified man have designed and built an engine in 6 weeks?!

About the engine that powered Flyer I 1903 various authors wrote that:
"The Wrights wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight power-plant. They turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers."

The article about Taylor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Taylor_(mechanic) ) also does not bring more light saying just that Taylor was a mechanic hired by Wright Brothers to repair bicycles and "He designed and built the aluminum water-cooled engine in only six weeks, based partly on rough sketches provided by the Wrights."

It is not uncommon for a mechanic to adapt a ready made engine to a specific purpose, but to design it from scratch and build it in 6 weeks is simply incredible.
Click to expand...

Not particularly if you have access to a foundry and know the techniques, engines are not particularly difficult, all of he machining techniques had bee developed over half a century prior.
 
you are right. Charlie taylor was a genius in his own right. It's only thanks to relatively recent efforts by dedicated EAA staff that he's started to get the recognition he deserves.

Have you ever taken a look at the design of the 1st engine? Of course you haven't. But if you bothered to gather some facts (and had any clue what you were looking at) you'd be amazed. Yes, crude by the standards of someone raised in a CNC world, but amazing for the tooling he had available.
 
JHW said:
you are right. Charlie taylor was a genius in his own right. It's only thanks to relatively recent efforts by dedicated EAA staff that he's started to get the recognition he deserves.

Have you ever taken a look at the design of the 1st engine? Of course you haven't. But if you bothered to gather some facts (and had any clue what you were looking at) you'd be amazed. Yes, crude by the standards of someone raised in a CNC world, but amazing for the tooling he had available.
Click to expand...

Actually, the quality of machine work in the 1870s was already superb in talented hands. All CNC changed was the speed and reproducibility, and eliminated the need for talented hands.
 
Henning said:
Not particularly if you have access to a foundry and know the techniques, engines are not particularly difficult, all of he machining techniques had bee developed over half a century prior.
Click to expand...

Well, it's very difficult to make a good engine without some pretty substantial tools. But all the Wrights had to do was beat the state of the art, which to put it mildly, sucked donkeys in 1904.

If you and me were being chased by a bear, I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you.

But to say Charlie Taylor was "unqualified" was silly. He was a master bicycle designer prior to working on aircraft engines, and if you've ever seen a Wright bicycle from 1900 or so, you would swear it was built by Schwinn in 1970, just with a leather seat. These aren't the high-wheels people think about from the 1890s; their bicycles were amazingly modern.

All of the issues one runs into in machining an internal combustion engine show up in steam engines, too. And those were quite mature in 1900. Engine design is quite another story.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Not particularly if you have access to a foundry and know the techniques, engines are not particularly difficult, all of he machining techniques had bee developed over half a century prior.
Click to expand...
You have 6 weeks to replicate the alleged engine made by Charlie Taylor.
You can use any modern tool you want, even a CNC.
 
simplex1 said:
The difference between an ordinary but good pilot and a good aeronautical engineer is the difference between an experienced truck driver and a capable mechanical engineer.

You are more like truck drivers on this forum not as engineers.
Click to expand...
Funny. Before I owned my business I was an engineer. Before I was an engineer (while in college) I was an over-the-road truck driver. That is how I paid for college. I would drive for 3-6 months, then go to school for 3-6 months. I forgot most of it, but there was this little thing called gravity that had a downward force of 9.8m/s/s.
 
"the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908", Alpheus W. Drinkwater, telegraph operator

"Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with making their first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine on Dec. 17, 1903. But Alpheus W. Drinkwater, 76 years old, who sent the telegraph message ushering in the air age, said the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day.
Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908, he said."
Source: New York Times, Dec. 17, 1951.

The declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater corroborates well with the article "The Wright brothers in US and in France - The last tests of the Wrights' in US described by themselves", L'Aérophile, June 1908, pag. 222-223" ( http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f232.image.r=wright 6 mai.langEN ) where the two brothers talked, amongst others things, about a 337 m flight, against a 4-6 m/s headwind, that took place on May 6, 1908. As a remark, this is the first claimed powered flight mentioned by the Wright brothers after they stopped flying (also a pure claim) in October 1905.
 
This thread is nothing short of painful to read through... I'm not sure why I keep reading it as it grows. I guess it's like a train wreck?
 
I guess we all have to get new certs with pictures of different people / planes on them.

IMO pilot certs are pretty lame looking anyway.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I guess we all have to get new certs with pictures of different people / planes on them.

IMO pilot certs are pretty lame looking anyway.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest we replace their pictures with Henning and Levy
 
simplex1 said:
How could an unqualified man have designed and built an engine in 6 weeks?!
Click to expand...


ddcS2rK.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top