CompressiveWeight Tensile Strength Strengthper cubic foot per sq. inch per sq. inchMaterial in lbs. in lbs. in lbs.Spruce.... 25 8,000 5,000Aluminum 162 16,000 ......Brass (sheet) 510 23,000 12,000Steel (tool) 490 100,000 40,000Copper (sheet) 548 30,000 40,000
As extreme lightness, combined with strength, especially tensile strength, is the great essential in flying-machine construction, it can be readily seen that the use of metal, even aluminum, for the framework, is prohibited by its weight. While aluminum has double the strength of spruce wood it is vastly heavier, and thus the advantage it has in strength is overbalanced many times by its weight. The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.50; that of spruce is only 0.403.
Things to Be Considered.
In laying out plans for a flying machine there are five important points which should be settled upon before the actual work of construction is started. These are:
First—Approximate weight of the machine when finished and equipped.
Second—Area of the supporting surface required.
Third—Amount of power that will be necessary to secure the desired speed and lifting capacity.
Fourth—Exact dimensions of the main framework and of the auxiliary parts.
Fifth—Size, speed and character of the propeller.
In deciding upon these it will be well to take into consideration the experience of expert aviators regarding these features as given elsewhere. (See Chapter X.)
Estimating the Weights Involved.
In fixing upon the probable approximate weight in advance of construction much, of course, must be assumed. This means that it will be a matter of advance estimating. If a two-passenger machine is to be built we will start by assuming the maximum combined weight of the two people to be 350 pounds. Most of the professional aviators are lighter than this. Taking the medium between the weights of the Curtiss and Wright machines we have a net average of 850 pounds for the framework, motor, propeller, etc. This, with the two passengers, amounts to 1,190 pounds. As the machines quoted are in successful operation it will be reasonable to assume that this will be a safe basis to operate on.
What the Novice Must Avoid.
This does not mean, however, that it will be safe to follow these weights exactly in construction, but that they will serve merely as a basis to start from. Because an expert can turn out a machine, thoroughly equipped, of 850 pounds weight, it does not follow that a novice can do the same thing. The expert's work is the result of years of experience, and he has learned how to construct frames and motor plants of the utmost lightness and strength.
It will be safer for the novice to assume that he can not duplicate the work of such men as Wright and Curtiss without adding materially to the gross weight of the framework and equipment minus passengers.
How to Distribute the Weight.
Let us take 1,030 pounds as the net weight of the machine as against the same average in the Wright and Curtiss machines. Now comes the question of distributing this weight between the framework, motor, and other equipment. As a general proposition the framework should weigh about twice as much as the complete power plant (this is for amateur work).
The word "framework" indicates not only the wooden frames of the main planes, auxiliary planes, rudders, etc., but the cloth coverings as well—everything in fact except the engine and propeller.
On the basis named the framework would weigh 686 pounds, and the power plant 344. These figures are liberal, and the results desired may be obtained well within them as the novice will learn as he makes progress in the work.
Figuring on Surface Area.
It was Prof. Langley who first brought into prominence in connection with flying machine construction the mathematical principle that the larger the object the smaller may be the relative area of support. As explained in Chapter XIII, there are mechanical limits as to size which it is not practical to exceed, but the main principle remains in effect.
Take two aeroplanes of marked difference in area of surface. The larger will, as a rule, sustain a greater weight in relative proportion to its area than the smaller one, and do the work with less relative horsepower. As a general thing well-constructed machines will average a supporting capacity of one pound for every one-half square foot of surface area. Accepting this as a working rule we find that to sustain a weight of 1,200 pounds—machine and two passengers—we should have 600 square feet of surface.
Distributing the Surface Area.
The largest surfaces now in use are those of the Wright, Voisin and Antoinette machines—538 square feet in each. The actual sustaining power of these machines, so far as known, has never been tested to the limit; it is probable that the maximum is considerably in excess of what they have been called upon to show. In actual practice the average is a little over one pound for each one-half square foot of surface area.
Allowing that 600 square feet of surface will be used, the next question is how to distribute it to the best advantage. This is another important matter in which individual preference must rule. We have seen how the professionals disagree on this point, some using auxiliary planes of large size, and others depending upon smaller auxiliaries with an increase in number so as to secure on a different plan virtually the same amount of surface.
In deciding upon this feature the best thing to do is to follow the plans of some successful aviator, increasing the area of the auxiliaries in proportion to the increase in the area of the main planes. Thus, if you use 600 square feet of surface where the man whose plans you are following uses 500, it is simply a matter of making your planes one-fifth larger all around.
The Cost of Production.
Cost of production will be of interest to the amateur who essays to construct a flying machine. Assuming that the size decided upon is double that of the glider the material for the framework, timber, cloth, wire, etc., will cost a little more than double. This is because it must be heavier in proportion to the increased size of the framework, and heavy material brings a larger price than the lighter goods. If we allow $20 as the cost of the glider material it will be safe to put down the cost of that required for a real flying machine framework at $60, provided the owner builds it himself.
As regards the cost of motor and similar equipment it can only be said that this depends upon the selection made. There are some reliable aviation motors which may be had as low as $500, and there are others which cost as much as $2,000.
Services of Expert Necessary.
No matter what kind of a motor may be selected the services of an expert will be necessary in its proper installation unless the amateur has considerable genius in this line himself. As a general thing $25 should be a liberal allowance for this work. No matter how carefully the engine may be placed and connected it will be largely a matter of luck if it is installed in exactly the proper manner at the first attempt. The chances are that several alterations, prompted by the results of trials, will have to be made. If this is the case the expert's bill may readily run up to $50. If the amateur is competent to do this part of the work the entire item of $50 may, of course, be cut out.
As a general proposition a fairly satisfactory flying machine, one that will actually fly and carry the operator with it, may be constructed for $750, but it will lack the better qualities which mark the higher priced machines. This computation is made on the basis of $60 for material, $50 for services of expert, $600 for motor, etc., and an allowance of $40 for extras.
No man who has the flying machine germ in his system will be long satisfied with his first moderate price machine, no matter how well it may work. It's the old story of the automobile "bug" over again. The man who starts in with a modest $1,000 automobile invariably progresses by easy stages to the $4,000 or $5,000 class. The natural tendency is to want the biggest and best attainable within the financial reach of the owner.
It's exactly the same way with the flying machine convert. The more proficient he becomes in the manipulation of his car, the stronger becomes the desire to fly further and stay in the air longer than the rest of his brethren. This necessitates larger, more powerful, and more expensive machines as the work of the germ progresses.
Speed Affects Weight Capacity.
Don't overlook the fact that the greater speed you can attain the smaller will be the surface area you can get along with. If a machine with 500 square feet of sustaining surface, traveling at a speed of 40 miles an hour, will carry a weight of 1,200 pounds, we can cut the sustaining surface in half and get along with 250 square feet, provided a speed of 60 miles an hour can be obtained. At 100 miles an hour only 80 square feet of surface area would be required. In both instances the weight sustaining capacity will remain the same as with the 500 square feet of surface area—1,200 pounds.
One of these days some mathematical genius will figure out this problem with exactitude and we will have a dependable table giving the maximum carrying capacity of various surface areas at various stated speeds, based on the dimensions of the advancing edges. At present it is largely a matter of guesswork so far as making accurate computation goes. Much depends upon the shape of the machine, and the amount of surface offering resistance to the wind, etc.
Motors for flying machines must be light in weight, of great strength, productive of extreme speed, and positively dependable in action. It matters little as to the particular form, or whether air or water cooled, so long as the four features named are secured. There are at least a dozen such motors or engines now in use. All are of the gasolene type, and all possess in greater or lesser degree the desired qualities. Some of these motors are:
Renault—8-cylinder, air-cooled; 50 horse power; weight 374 pounds.
Fiat—8-cylinder, air-cooled; 50 horse power; weight 150 pounds.
Farcot—8-cylinder, air-cooled; from 30 to 100 horse power, according to bore of cylinders; weight of smallest, 84 pounds.
R. E. P.—10-cylinder, air-cooled; 150 horse power; weight 215 pounds.
Gnome—7 and 14 cylinders, revolving type, air-cooled; 50 and 100 horse power; weight 150 and 300 pounds.
Darracq—2 to 14 cylinders, water cooled; 30 to 200 horse power; weight of smallest 100 pounds.
Wright—4-cylinder, water-cooled; 25 horse power; weight 200 pounds.
Antoinette—8 and 16-cylinder, water-cooled; 50 and 100 horse power; weight 250 and 500 pounds.
E. N. V.—8-cylinder, water-cooled; from 30 to 80 horse power, according to bore of cylinder; weight 150 to 400 pounds.
Curtiss—8-cylinder, water-cooled; 60 horse power; weight 300 pounds.
Average Weight Per Horse Power.
It will be noticed that the Gnome motor is unusually light, being about three pounds to the horse power produced, as opposed to an average of 4 1/2 pounds per horse power in other makes. This result is secured by the elimination of the fly-wheel, the engine itself revolving, thus obtaining the same effect that would be produced by a fly-wheel. The Farcot is even lighter, being considerably less than three pounds per horse power, which is the nearest approach to the long-sought engine equipment that will make possible a complete flying machine the total weight of which will not exceed one pound per square foot of area.
How Lightness Is Secured.
Thus far foreign manufacturers are ahead of Americans in the production of light-weight aerial motors, as is evidenced by the Gnome and Farcot engines, both of which are of French make. Extreme lightness is made possible by the use of fine, specially prepared steel for the cylinders, thus permitting them to be much thinner than if ordinary forms of steel were used. Another big saving in weight is made by substituting what are known as "auto lubricating" alloys for bearings. These alloys are made of a combination of aluminum and magnesium.
Still further gains are made in the use of alloy steel tubing instead of solid rods, and also by the paring away of material wherever it can be done without sacrificing strength. This plan, with the exclusive use of the best grades of steel, regardless of cost, makes possible a marked reduction in weight.
Multiplicity of Cylinders.
Strange as it may seem, multiplicity of cylinders does not always add proportionate weight. Because a 4-cylinder motor weighs say 100 pounds, it does not necessarily follow that an 8-cylinder equipment will weigh 200 pounds. The reason of this will be plain when it is understood that many of the parts essential to a 4-cylinder motor will fill the requirements of an 8-cylinder motor without enlargement or addition.
Neither does multiplying the cylinders always increase the horsepower proportionately. If a 4-cylinder motor is rated at 25 horsepower it is not safe to take it for granted that double the number of cylinders will give 50 horsepower. Generally speaking, eight cylinders, the bore, stroke and speed being the same, will give double the power that can be obtained from four, but this does not always hold good. Just why this exception should occur is not explainable by any accepted rule.
Horse Power and Speed.
Speed is an important requisite in a flying-machine motor, as the velocity of the aeroplane is a vital factor in flotation. At first thought, the propeller and similar adjuncts being equal, the inexperienced mind would naturally argue that a 50-horsepower engine should produce just double the speed of one of 25-horsepower. That this is a fallacy is shown by actual performances. The Wrights, using a 25-horsepower motor, have made 44 miles an hour, while Bleriot, with a 50-horsepower motor, has a record of a short-distance flight at the rate of 52 miles an hour. The fact is that, so far as speed is concerned, much depends upon the velocity of the wind, the size and shape of the aeroplane itself, and the size, shape and gearing of the propeller. The stronger the wind is blowing the easier it will be for the aeroplane to ascend, but at the same time the more difficult it will be to make headway against the wind in a horizontal direction. With a strong head wind, and proper engine force, your machine will progress to a certain extent, but it will be at an angle. If the aviator desired to keep on going upward this would be all right, but there is a limit to the altitude which it is desirable to reach—from 100 to 500 feet for experts—and after that it becomes a question of going straight ahead.
Great Waste of Power.
One thing is certain—even in the most efficient of modern aerial motors there is a great loss of power between the two points of production and effect. The Wright outfit, which is admittedly one of the most effective in use, takes one horsepower of force for the raising and propulsion of each 50 pounds of weight. This, for a 25-horsepower engine, would give a maximum lifting capacity of 1250 pounds. It is doubtful if any of the higher rated motors have greater efficiency. As an 8-cylinder motor requires more fuel to operate than a 4-cylinder, it naturally follows that it is more expensive to run than the smaller motor, and a normal increase in capacity, taking actual performances as a criterion, is lacking. In other words, what is the sense of using an 8-cylinder motor when one of 4 cylinders is sufficient?
What the Propeller Does.
Much of the efficiency of the motor is due to the form and gearing of the propeller. Here again, as in other vital parts of flying-machine mechanism, we have a wide divergence of opinion as to the best form. A fish makes progress through the water by using its fins and tail; a bird makes its way through the air in a similar manner by the use of its wings and tail. In both instances the motive power comes from the body of the fish or bird.
In place of fins or wings the flying machine is equipped with a propeller, the action of which is furnished by the engine. Fins and wings have been tried, but they don't work.
While operating on the same general principle, aerial propellers are much larger than those used on boats. This is because the boat propeller has a denser, more substantial medium to work in (water), and consequently can get a better "hold," and produce more propulsive force than one of the same size revolving in the air. This necessitates the aerial propellers being much larger than those employed for marine purposes. Up to this point all aviators agree, but as to the best form most of them differ.
Kinds of Propellers Used.
One of the most simple is that used by Curtiss. It consists of two pear-shaped blades of laminated wood, each blade being 5 inches wide at its extreme point, tapering slightly to the shaft connection. These blades are joined at the engine shaft, in a direct line. The propeller has a pitch of 5 feet, and weighs, complete, less than 10 pounds. The length from end to end of the two blades is 6 1/2 feet.
Wright uses two wooden propellers, in the rear of his biplane, revolving in opposite directions. Each propeller is two-bladed.
Bleriot also uses a two-blade wooden propeller, but it is placed in front of his machine. The blades are each about 3 1/2 feet long and have an acute "twist."
Santos-Dumont uses a two-blade wooden propeller, strikingly similar to the Bleriot.
On the Antoinette monoplane, with which good records have been made, the propeller consists of two spoon-shaped pieces of metal, joined at the engine shaft in front, and with the concave surfaces facing the machine.
The propeller on the Voisin biplane is also of metal, consisting of two aluminum blades connected by a forged steel arm.
Maximum thrust, or stress—exercise of the greatest air-displacing force—is the object sought. This, according to experts, is best obtained with a large propeller diameter and reasonably low speed. The diameter is the distance from end to end of the blades, which on the largest propellers ranges from 6 to 8 feet. The larger the blade surface the greater will be the volume of air displaced, and, following this, the greater will be the impulse which forces the aeroplane ahead. In all centrifugal motion there is more or less tendency to disintegration in the form of "flying off" from the center, and the larger the revolving object is the stronger is this tendency. This is illustrated in the many instances in which big grindstones and fly-wheels have burst from being revolved too fast. To have a propeller break apart in the air would jeopardize the life of the aviator, and to guard against this it has been found best to make its revolving action comparatively slow. Besides this the slow motion (it is only comparatively slow) gives the atmosphere a chance to refill the area disturbed by one propeller blade, and thus have a new surface for the next blade to act upon.
Placing of the Motor.
As on other points, aviators differ widely in their ideas as to the proper position for the motor. Wright locates his on the lower plane, midway between the front and rear edges, but considerably to one side of the exact center. He then counter-balances the engine weight by placing his seat far enough away in the opposite direction to preserve the center of gravity. This leaves a space in the center between the motor and the operator in which a passenger may be carried without disturbing the equilibrium.
Bleriot, on the contrary, has his motor directly in front and preserves the center of gravity by taking his seat well back, this, with the weight of the aeroplane, acting as a counter-balance.
On the Curtiss machine the motor is in the rear, the forward seat of the operator, and weight of the horizontal rudder and damping plane in front equalizing the engine weight.
No Perfect Motor as Yet.
Engine makers in the United States, England, France and Germany are all seeking to produce an ideal motor for aviation purposes. Many of the productions are highly creditable, but it may be truthfully said that none of them quite fill the bill as regards a combination of the minimum of weight with the maximum of reliable maintained power. They are all, in some respects, improvements upon those previously in use, but the great end sought for has not been fully attained.
One of the motors thus produced was made by the French firm of Darracq at the suggestion of Santos Dumont, and on lines laid down by him. Santos Dumont wanted a 2-cylinder horizontal motor capable of developing 30 horsepower, and not exceeding 4 1/2 pounds per horsepower in weight.
There can be no question as to the ability and skill of the Darracq people, or of their desire to produce a motor that would bring new credit and prominence to the firm. Neither could anything radically wrong be detected in the plans. But the motor, in at least one important requirement, fell short of expectations.
It could not be depended upon to deliver an energy of 30 horsepower continuously for any length of time. Its maximum power could be secured only in "spurts."
This tends to show how hard it is to produce an ideal motor for aviation purposes. Santos Dumont, of undoubted skill and experience as an aviator, outlined definitely what he wanted; one of the greatest designers in the business drew the plans, and the famous house of Darracq bent its best energies to the production. But the desired end was not fully attained.
Features of Darracq Motor.
Horizontal motors were practically abandoned some time ago in favor of the vertical type, but Santos Dumont had a logical reason for reverting to them. He wanted to secure a lower center of gravity than would be possible with a vertical engine. Theoretically his idea was correct as the horizontal motor lies flat, and therefore offers less resistance to the wind, but it did not work out as desired.
At the same time it must be admitted that this Darracq motor is a marvel of ingenuity and exquisite workmanship. The two cylinders, having a bore of 5 1-10 inches and a stroke of 4 7-10 inches, are machined out of a solid bar of steel until their weight is only 8 4-5 pounds complete. The head is separate, carrying the seatings for the inlet and exhaust valves, is screwed onto the cylinder, and then welded in position. A copper water-jacket is fitted, and it is in this condition that the weight of 8 4-5 pounds is obtained.
On long trips, especially in regions where gasolene is hard to get, the weight of the fuel supply is an important feature in aviation. As a natural consequence flying machine operators favor the motor of greatest economy in gasolene consumption, provided it gives the necessary power.
An American inventor, Ramsey by name, is working on a motor which is said to possess great possibilities in this line. Its distinctive features include a connecting rod much shorter than usual, and a crank shaft located the length of the crank from the central axis of the cylinder. This has the effect of increasing the piston stroke, and also of increasing the proportion of the crank circle during which effective pressure is applied to the crank.
Making the connecting rod shorter and leaving the crank mechanism the same would introduce excessive cylinder friction. This Ramsey overcomes by the location of his crank shaft. The effect of the long piston stroke thus secured, is to increase the expansion of the gases, which in turn increases the power of the engine without increasing the amount of fuel used.
Propeller Thrust Important.
There is one great principle in flying machine propulsion which must not be overlooked. No matter how powerful the engine may be unless the propeller thrust more than overcomes the wind pressure there can be no progress forward. Should the force of this propeller thrust and that of the wind pressure be equal the result is obvious. The machine is at a stand-still so far as forward progress is concerned and is deprived of the essential advancing movement.
Speed not only furnishes sustentation for the airship, but adds to the stability of the machine. An aeroplane which may be jerky and uncertain in its movements, so far as equilibrium is concerned, when moving at a slow gait, will readily maintain an even keel when the speed is increased.
Designs for Propeller Blades.
It is the object of all men who design propellers to obtain the maximum of thrust with the minimum expenditure of engine energy. With this purpose in view many peculiar forms of propeller blades have been evolved. In theory it would seem that the best effects could be secured with blades so shaped as to present a thin (or cutting) edge when they come out of the wind, and then at the climax of displacement afford a maximum of surface so as to displace as much air as possible. While this is the form most generally favored there are others in successful operation.
There is also wide difference in opinion as to the equipment of the propeller shaft with two or more blades. Some aviators use two and some four. All have more or less success. As a mathematical proposition it would seem that four blades should give more propulsive force than two, but here again comes in one of the puzzles of aviation, as this result is not always obtained.
Difference in Propeller Efficiency.
That there is a great difference in propeller efficiency is made readily apparent by the comparison of effects produced in two leading makes of machines—the Wright and the Voisin.
In the former a weight of from 1,100 to 1,200 pounds is sustained and advance progress made at the rate of 40 miles an hour and more, with half the engine speed of a 25 horse-power motor. This would be a sustaining capacity of 48 pounds per horsepower. But the actual capacity of the Wright machine, as already stated, is 50 pounds per horsepower.
The Voisin machine, with aviator, weighs about 1,370 pounds, and is operated with a so-horsepower motor. Allowing it the same speed as the Wright we find that, with double the engine energy, the lifting capacity is only 27 1/2 pounds per horsepower. To what shall we charge this remarkable difference? The surface of the planes is exactly the same in both machines so there is no advantage in the matter of supporting area.
Comparison of Two Designs.
On the Wright machine two wooden propellers of two blades each (each blade having a decided "twist") are used. As one 25 horsepower motor drives both propellers the engine energy amounts to just one-half of this for each, or 12 1/2 horsepower. And this energy is utilized at one-half the normal engine speed.
On the Voisin a radically different system is employed. Here we have one metal two-bladed propeller with a very slight "twist" to the blade surfaces. The full energy of a 50-horsepower motor is utilized.
Experts Fail to Agree.
Why should there be such a marked difference in the results obtained? Who knows? Some experts maintain that it is because there are two propellers on the Wright machine and only one on the Voisin, and consequently double the propulsive power is exerted. But this is not a fair deduction, unless both propellers are of the same size. Propulsive power depends upon the amount of air displaced, and the energy put into the thrust which displaces the air.
Other experts argue that the difference in results may be traced to the difference in blade design, especially in the matter of "twist."
The fact is that propeller results depend largely upon the nature of the aeroplanes on which they are used. A propeller, for instance, which gives excellent results on one type of aeroplane, will not work satisfactorily on another.
There are some features, however, which may be safely adopted in propeller selection. These are: As extensive a diameter as possible; blade area 10 to 15 per cent of the area swept; pitch four-fifths of the diameter; rotation slow. The maximum of thrust effort will be thus obtained.
In laying out plans for a flying machine the first thing to decide upon is the size of the plane surfaces. The proportions of these must be based upon the load to be carried. This includes the total weight of the machine and equipment, and also the operator. This will be a rather difficult problem to figure out exactly, but practical approximate figures may be reached.
It is easy to get at the weight of the operator, motor and propeller, but the matter of determining, before they are constructed, what the planes, rudders, auxiliaries, etc., will weigh when completed is an intricate proposition. The best way is to take the dimensions of some successful machine and use them, making such alterations in a minor way as you may desire.
Dimensions of Leading Machines.
In the following tables will be found the details as to surface area, weight, power, etc., of the nine principal types of flying machines which are now prominently before the public:
MONOPLANES.Surface area Spread in Depth inMake Passengers sq. feet linear feet linearfeetSantos-Dumont.. 1 110 16.0 26.0Bleriot..... 1 150.6 24.6 22.0R. E. P..... 1 215 34.1 28.9Bleriot..... 2 236 32.9 23.0Antoinette.... 2 538 41.2 37.9No. of Weight WithoutPropellerMake Cylinders Horse Power OperatorDiameterSantos-Dumont.. 2 30 250 5.0Bleriot..... 3 25 680 6.9R. E. P..... 7 35 900 6.6Bleriot..... 7 50 1,240 8.1Antoinette... 8 50 1,040 7.2BIPLANES.Surface Area Spread in DepthinMake Passengers sq. feet linear feet linearfeetCurtiss... 2 258 29.028.7Wright.... 2 538 41.030.7Farman.... 2 430 32.939.6Voisin.... 2 538 37.939.6No. of Weight WithoutPropellerMake Cylinders Horse Power OperatorDiameterCurtiss... 8 50 600 6.0Wright.... 4 25 1,100 8.1Farman.... 7 50 1,200 8.9Voisin.... 8 50 1,200 6.6
In giving the depth dimensions the length over all—from the extreme edge of the front auxiliary plane to the extreme tip of the rear is stated. Thus while the dimensions of the main planes of the Wright machine are 41 feet spread by 6 1/2 feet in depth, the depth over all is 30.7.
Figuring Out the Details.
With this data as a guide it should be comparatively easy to decide upon the dimensions of the machine required. In arriving at the maximum lifting capacity the weight of the operator must be added. Assuming this to average 170 pounds the method of procedure would be as follows:
Add the weight of the operator to the weight of the complete machine. The new Wright machine complete weighs 900 pounds. This, plus 170, the weight of the operator, gives a total of 1,070 pounds. There are 538 square feet of supporting surface, or practically one square foot of surface area to each two pounds of load.
There are some machines, notably the Bleriot, in which the supporting power is much greater. In this latter instance we find a surface area of 150 1/2 square feet carrying a load of 680 plus 170, or an aggregate of 850 pounds. This is the equivalent of five pounds to the square foot. This ratio is phenomenally large, and should not be taken as a guide by amateurs.
The Matter of Passengers.
These deductions are based on each machine carrying one passenger, which is admittedly the limit at present of the monoplanes like those operated for record-making purposes by Santos-Dumont and Bleriot. The biplanes, however, have a two-passenger capacity, and this adds materially to the proportion of their weight-sustaining power as compared with the surface area. In the following statement all the machines are figured on the one-passenger basis. Curtiss and Wright have carried two passengers on numerous occasions, and an extra 170 pounds should therefore be added to the total weight carried, which would materially increase the capacity. Even with the two-passenger load the limit is by no means reached, but as experiments have gone no further it is impossible to make more accurate figures.
Average Proportions of Load.
It will be interesting, before proceeding to lay out the dimension details, to make a comparison of the proportion of load effect with the supporting surfaces of various well-known machines. Here are the figures:
Santos-Dumont—A trifle under four pounds per square foot.
Bleriot—Five pounds.
R. E. P.—Five pounds.
Antoinette—About two and one-quarter pounds.
Curtiss—About two and one-half pounds.
Wright—Two and one-quarter pounds.
Farman—A trifle over three pounds.
Voisin—A little under two and one-half pounds.
Importance of Engine Power.
While these figures are authentic, they are in a way misleading, as the important factor of engine power is not taken into consideration. Let us recall the fact that it is the engine power which keeps the machine in motion, and that it is only while in motion that the machine will remain suspended in the air. Hence, to attribute the support solely to the surface area is erroneous. True, that once under headway the planes contribute largely to the sustaining effect, and are absolutely essential in aerial navigation—the motor could not rise without them—still, when it comes to a question of weight-sustaining power, we must also figure on the engine capacity.
In the Wright machine, in which there is a lifting capacity of approximately 2 1/4 pounds to the square foot of surface area, an engine of only 25 horsepower is used. In the Curtiss, which has a lifting capacity of 2 1/2 pounds per square foot, the engine is of 50 horsepower. This is another of the peculiarities of aerial construction and navigation. Here we have a gain of 1/4 pound in weight-lifting capacity with an expenditure of double the horsepower. It is this feature which enables Curtiss to get along with a smaller surface area of supporting planes at the expense of a big increase in engine power. Proper Weight of Machine.
As a general proposition the most satisfactory machine for amateur purposes will be found to be one with a total weight-sustaining power of about 1,200 pounds. Deducting 170 pounds as the weight of the operator, this will leave 1,030 pounds for the complete motor-equipped machine, and it should be easy to construct one within this limit. This implies, of course, that due care will be taken to eliminate all superfluous weight by using the lightest material compatible with strength and safety.
This plan will admit of 686 pounds weight in the frame work, coverings, etc., and 344 for the motor, propeller, etc., which will be ample. Just how to distribute the weight of the planes is a matter which must be left to the ingenuity of the builder.
Comparison of Bird Power.
There is an interesting study in the accompanying illustration. Note that the surface area of the albatross is much smaller than that of the vulture, although the wing spread is about the same. Despite this the albatross accomplishes fully as much in the way of flight and soaring as the vulture. Why? Because the albaboss is quicker and more powerful in action. It is the application of this same principle in flying machines which enables those of great speed and power to get along with less supporting surface than those of slower movement.
Measurements of Curtiss Machine.
Some idea of framework proportion may be had from the following description of the Curtiss machine. The main planes have a spread (width) of 29 feet, and are 4 1/2 feet deep. The front double surface horizontal rudder is 6x2 feet, with an area of 24 square feet. To the rear of the main planes is a single surface horizontal plane 6x2 feet, with an area of 12 square feet. In connection with this is a vertical rudder 2 1/2 feet square. Two movable ailerons, or balancing planes, are placed at the extreme ends of the upper planes. These are 6x2 feet, and have a combined area of 24 square feet. There is also a triangular shaped vertical steadying surface in connection with the front rudder.
Thus we have a total of 195 square feet, but as the official figures are 258, and the size of the triangular-shaped steadying surface is unknown, we must take it for granted that this makes up the difference. In the matter of proportion the horizontal double-plane rudder is about one-tenth the size of the main plane, counting the surface area of only one plane, the vertical rudder one-fortieth, and the ailerons one-twentieth.
Having constructed and equipped your machine, the next thing is to decide upon the method of controlling the various rudders and auxiliary planes by which the direction and equilibrium and ascending and descending of the machine are governed.
The operator must be in position to shift instantaneously the position of rudders and planes, and also to control the action of the motor. This latter is supposed to work automatically and as a general thing does so with entire satisfaction, but there are times when the supply of gasolene must be regulated, and similar things done. Airship navigation calls for quick action, and for this reason the matter of control is an important one—it is more than important; it is vital.
Several Methods of Control.
Some aviators use a steering wheel somewhat after the style of that used in automobiles, and by this not only manipulate the rudder planes, but also the flow of gasolene. Others employ foot levers, and still others, like the Wrights, depend upon hand levers.
Curtiss steers his aeroplane by means of a wheel, but secures the desired stabilizing effect with an ingenious jointed chair-back. This is so arranged that by leaning toward the high point of his wing planes the aeroplane is restored to an even keel. The steering post of the wheel is movable backward and forward, and by this motion elevation is obtained.
The Wrights for some time used two hand levers, one to steer by and warp the flexible tips of the planes, the other to secure elevation. They have now consolidated all the functions in one lever. Bleriot also uses the single lever control.
Farman employs a lever to actuate the rudders, but manipulates the balancing planes by foot levers.
Santos-Dumont uses two hand levers with which to steer and elevate, but manipulates the planes by means of an attachment to the back of his outer coat.
Connection With the Levers.
No matter which particular method is employed, the connection between the levers and the object to be manipulated is almost invariably by wire. For instance, from the steering levers (or lever) two wires connect with opposite sides of the rudder. As a lever is moved so as to draw in the right-hand wire the rudder is drawn to the right and vice versa. The operation is exactly the same as in steering a boat. It is the same way in changing the position of the balancing planes. A movement of the hands or feet and the machine has changed its course, or, if the equilibrium is threatened, is back on an even keel.
Simple as this seems it calls for a cool head, quick eye, and steady hand. The least hesitation or a false movement, and both aviator and craft are in danger.
Which Method is Best?
It would be a bold man who would attempt to pick out any one of these methods of control and say it was better than the others. As in other sections of aeroplane mechanism each method has its advocates who dwell learnedly upon its advantages, but the fact remains that all the various plans work well and give satisfaction.
What the novice is interested in knowing is how the control is effected, and whether he has become proficient enough in his manipulation of it to be absolutely dependable in time of emergency. No amateur should attempt a flight alone, until he has thoroughly mastered the steering and plane control. If the services and advice of an experienced aviator are not to be had the novice should mount his machine on some suitable supports so it will be well clear of the ground, and, getting into the operator's seat, proceed to make himself well acquainted with the operation of the steering wheel and levers.
Some Things to Be Learned.
He will soon learn that certain movements of the steering gear produce certain effects on the rudders. If, for instance, his machine is equipped with a steering wheel, he will find that turning the wheel to the right turns the aeroplane in the same direction, because the tiller is brought around to the left. In the same way he will learn that a given movement of the lever throws the forward edge of the main plane upward, and that the machine, getting the impetus of the wind under the concave surfaces of the planes, will ascend. In the same way it will quickly become apparent to him that an opposite movement of the lever will produce an opposite effect—the forward edges of the planes will be lowered, the air will be "spilled" out to the rear, and the machine will descend.
The time expended in these preliminary lessons will be well spent. It would be an act of folly to attempt to actually sail the craft without them.