PL. 14. AERODROME NO. 5,DECEMBER 3, 1895.PLAN VIEW.RUDDER REMOVED◊
PL. 14. AERODROME NO. 5,DECEMBER 3, 1895.PLAN VIEW.RUDDER REMOVED◊
PL. 15. AERODROME NO. 5,DECEMBER 3, 1895.SIDE VIEW◊
PL. 15. AERODROME NO. 5,DECEMBER 3, 1895.SIDE VIEW◊
While these changes were being made in No. 5, similar ones were also being carried out in New No. 4, and the addition of the rear wings to No. 4, together with other slight changes, made it such a distinctively different machine from what it had been, that it was now designated as No. 6. After making extensive[p079]repairs to the extremely light frame of No. 6 (formerly New No. 4) it was thought to be in suitable condition for flight and was accordingly boxed preparatory to sending it to Quantico.
The year, therefore, closed with No. 6 apparently in condition for test, but it was decided not to take it to Quantico until No. 5, which was still undergoing repairs, could also be got ready.
A few days after the beginning of the new year, while the repairs on No. 5 were being completed, it was decided that the frame of No. 6 which had been boxed ready to be carried into the field for trial, was so weak that before putting it to an actual test in flight it would be best to make some tests on the strength of its frame. While testing the frame for torsional strength, it broke under the moderate test of a weight of 500 grammes placed at the tips of the wings, the angle of deflection just prior to its breaking being 35°, while the frame of Old No. 4 in March, 1895, had shown a deflection of only 10.5° under a similar test. This breaking of the frame showed very plainly that the worst fears in regard to it had been realized and that by some means or other the frame must be strengthened. This was finally accomplished by making the midrod continuous through the smoke-stack as had already been done in No. 5, and at the same time an additional improvement was made in the means of attaching the Pénaud tail, whereby it was lowered in order to give it a greater clearance in passing under the launching car in actual test. Later the boilers proved defective and new ones were substituted, but except for some minute details no further changes were made in Aerodrome No. 6 prior to its test in May.
On May 6, No. 6 was unsuccessfully tried at Quantico just prior to the very successful test of No. 5. In this test no serious damage was done to the frame, but before going to Europe in the summer, Mr. Langley ordered that both aerodromes be completely overhauled and put in condition for further experiments in the fall. In this remodelling practically no changes were introduced in the frame of either No. 5 or No. 6, but the engines of No. 6 were refitted and a new boiler was substituted, which, with slight improvements in the burner, resulted in a somewhat increased power in the engines.
A complete description, giving all essential details of both Aerodromes Nos. 5 and 6, will be found in Chapter X◊.