Slashdot Mirror

>An airplane wing does not produce lift because it is angled downwards,
>it generates lift almost purely because of its shape.

Actually, you are quite mistaken.

I am an aerospace engineer. I have a BS in Aerospace Engineering and 16 years experience conducting flight test on a dozen aircraft ranging from Cessna- to 707-sized. I have also published papers on the process.

A wing produces lift according to this basic equation:
Lift = 0.5 * Coefficient of Lift * Density of the Air * Wing Area * Airspeed squared
This includes a few approximations since I can't type various symbols in plain test. You can look at the properly written equation here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/ q0015b.shtml

Coefficient of lift, part of that equation, is itself a direct function of Angle of Attack - the angle at which the chord of the wing meets the air. ("Chord" is defined, roughly, as a line between the front and back edges of the wing.)

The wing curvature, or camber as you correctly call it, is a contributor, but far from the only one, to the equation of lift coefficient versus angle of attack. A flat, or non-cambered, wing will produce zero lift at zero angle of attack. Increase the camber, up to a point, and you increase the lift at zero angle of attack. Or you can increase the angle of attack at zero camber to increase the lift. For that matter, you can spin a cylinder in an airflow and generate lift - zero camber, zero angle of attack (it's a circular cross section, so there's no angle!). So there are MANY factors influencing lift - any combination of these is possible; you just need to select which ones are most beneficial to a given design requirement.

As a matter of fact, the first documented equation to describe lift included only angle of attack and speed. It wasn't until decades later that careful observation of bird wing structure revealed the importance of camber. There's an intriguing story here about the Wright brothers and their development of the theory of lifting bodies, and how they overturned decades of established wisdom: http://www.first-to-fly.com/Adventure/Workshop/lif t_and_drift.htm

In a very simple and small wing (like most insects, which obviously can fly), it's almost ALL angle of attack, and no camber. Consider a dragonfly. The wings are perfectly flat. And the creature must create not only lift but also forward thrust with those wings. Quick and repetitive motions (as mentioned in this article) are perfect for this requirement. Camber has nothing to do with it, and camber, in fact, would impede the dragonfly, because the wing must also be capable of generating lift while moving backwards - and any effective camber is usually detrimental while going backwards. Finally, in the case of insects, the qualities of air are different at small scales (the so-called Reynolds Number effects) and lift operates somewhat differently from in large airplanes.

Consider also a dime-store balsa wood glider. In its cheapest form, the wing is completely flat. Yet it flies just fine. Or consider the paper airplane. It flies just fine with a slab of paper for a wing.

In short, you can take this article at face value regarding simple wings and lift. There are other wishful comments, but the aerodynamic description is quite fine.

He turned to monoplanes and produced four unsuccessful models, but the fifth -- the Demoiselle, first flown in 1909 -- was a winner. Tiny and quick, it was the first practical light aircraft, although pilots reported that it was a handful in the air. In a grand and magnanimous gesture, Santos Dumont offered the plans to the public free of charge. They were published worldwide -- in America, they appeared in Popular Mechanics -- enabling hopeful young aviators of limited means to get into the air inexpensively. In this way, Santos Dumont and his Demoiselle helped fuel the phenomenal growth of aviation in the years before World War 1.

The airplane was actually developed for civilian uses first, and only became a military technology after entrepreneurs worked out the fundimental problems of control surfaces, navigation, range, and cargo capacity.

From this historical profile: The first sustained flight by the Wright brothers was in December of 1903. By the end of 1904 they had improved the initial design into a practical vehicle. In 1905 they began contacting the U.S. Department of War attempting to sell flying machines for military uses. In 1907, the U.S. Army Signal Corps took them up on the offer. The addition of extra capacity (the ability to carry a pilot and a passenger) was added at the explicit request of the Army Signal Corps.

Clearly, while the Wright flyer was developed at private expense, the Wrights were thinking about military applications. At least some of the early development of additional cargo/passenger capacity was funded directly for military purposes.

They didn't exactly go and try to sell their plane. The Flyer didn't exactly fly much. :) This link has more information on the years after the first Kitty Hawk flight.

Most good skeptics doubt the Wright Brothers' flight, and I doubt the flight itself as well, actually. The thing is, they weren't up for long, and they couldn't repeat the feat without building a new airplane, and they developed their catapult system. THey later proved they didn't need the catapult to launch, but they did need it in the early days, and they didn't have it at Kitty Hawk. Why would their first plane not need a catapult, but their third plane did? The Flyer II, as you indicated, never flew.

The Wrights' made a few mistakes, and are one of the well-known examples for intellectual property hording and how it backfires. IN the end, the only way they managed to make any money off their invention (outside of winning prizes similar to the X-Prize) was in their school. They spent too much time fighting over the technology and not enough time advancing it. There's a very important lesson in there that is every bit applicable to the world of software today.

Interesting.

November 12 - Albertos Santos-Dumont, France, flies 722 feet in his 14-Bis. This is considered the first true flight of a powered aircraft in Europe.

He does get a claim to fame, after all. :) And he was quite a pioneer in the area of flight.

Hmm, I read some more on Langley, and you might be right about his craft not flying. His aerodrome had two sets of wings, one fore and one aft (do they use those naval terms for planes? ;) ), and a motor in the middle with propellors on each end. Presumably he just strapped props onto the crank on both sides of the engine. Looks like he picked one of the more powerful engines of the time, and it may have been more powerful than the Wrights', but I haven't found specs on the Wrights'. Anyway, it also looks like he hadn't figured out how to control it because he spent his time focusing on propulsion, where the Wrights worked on control first.

Interesting enough, Langley tried to contact the Wrights and they blew him off. Looks like if they had put their minds together, let Langley put together propulsion while the Wrights worked out control, they might have been able to build the first flyer and fly it to London. ;)

As far as this brazilian wanting to make Santos-Dumont the first flyer, yes he has a slant. :) In the article you referenced, he asks us to redefine what makes the first "true airplane". If I were to cite a "first true airplane", I'd have to say one that could fly as long as it had fuel. And the Frenchies and the Wrights seemed to be very close to one another, close enough that it's highly likely that whoever we credit, we'll be wrong. The other thing is "public demonstration". As far as the Wrights were concerned, they demonstrated publicly at Kitty Hawk in 1903 that they could fly. SO they didn't "publicly" demonstrate again until 1908, they did privately demonstrate for the military and sell the first military planes before then.

IN the end, it all comes with a grain of salt. Whether or not the Wrights' first flyer flew doesn't make a lot of difference in the grand scheme of things. They showed that it can be done, and it was done. They also trained the first pilots, which is a big deal. They also made a lot of bad business decisions which meant that they could only claim the first flight, but they didn't get to claim getting rich off their invention becuase they spent too much time fighting the "bad guys". I always wonder who were the bad guys in the Wrights' world...

Whitehead was a joke, and nothing but a two-bit con-man. Read this

Also read this for a thorough debunking of most of the other competitive claims. There is also a special section for Santos Dumont, the infamous Brazilian.

The closest to beating the Wrights were Samuel Langley and Charles Manly, working with government funding over the Potomac. It is a popular opinion among aeronautic historians that if the Wrights hadn't succeeded in 1903, Langley and Manly would have been first, possibly that same year. Coincidentally, there was a bit of collaboration between the Wrights and L & M.

But Whitehead was definitely a joke. :) A pretty funny one, too. I'm reminded of the Music Man whenever I hear about Whitehead. He was just selling boy's bands.

Whitehead was a joke, and nothing but a two-bit con-man. Read this

Also read this for a thorough debunking of most of the other competitive claims. There is also a special section for Santos Dumont, the infamous Brazilian.

The closest to beating the Wrights were Samuel Langley and Charles Manly, working with government funding over the Potomac. It is a popular opinion among aeronautic historians that if the Wrights hadn't succeeded in 1903, Langley and Manly would have been first, possibly that same year. Coincidentally, there was a bit of collaboration between the Wrights and L & M.

But Whitehead was definitely a joke. :) A pretty funny one, too. I'm reminded of the Music Man whenever I hear about Whitehead. He was just selling boy's bands.

Those two guys invented the idea of aeronautical engineering and figured it all out.

Well, let's see. They sure in the hell weren't the only group trying to achieve manned, controlled, and motorized flight. However, the three basic concepts involved in flight were actually pioneered by Sir George Cayley:

It wasn't until the turn of the nineteenth century that an English baronet from the gloomy moors of Yorkshire conceived a flying machine with fixed wings, a propulsion system, and movable control surfaces. This was the fundamental concept of the airplane. Sir George Cayley also built the first true airplane -- a kite mounted on a stick with a movable tail. It was crude, but it proved his idea worked, and from that first humble glider evolved the amazing machines that have taken us to the edge of space at speeds faster than sound.

more here

So, what exactly do you mean by "aeronautical engineering"? Especially considering that the Wright Brothers only built and flew the first model that was truly successful. They didn't actually dream up anything new, they just proved existing theories...

Should we continue to give the Wrights credit for the first powered flight when they had to rely on 25mph winds? Seems the 1903 Wright flyer was more like a glider.

No, we should be giving them credit for what they actually achieved.

Wilbur and Orville Wright wished to be remembered for making the first controlled and sustained powered flight. Their greatest contribution to aviation was the development of three-axis aerodynamic controls -- roll, pitch, and yaw -- and the piloting skills needed to use them effectively.

From first-to-fly

Gustav Weisskopf was a Fraud

Since you have just about Slashdotted the poor little Glenn Curtiss Museum just down the road from me, let me give you some highlights about this amazing man. More information at the Glenn Curtiss Historical Site.

Glenn Curtiss was not only a true pioneer in the world of aviation, but also in motorcycles. He had the distinction of being the "Fastest Man Alive" for a good period of time after putting his V-8 motorcycle to the speed test. The motorcycle featured at the small museum in Hammondsport, NY - about 1 hour south of Rochester, NY in the heart of New York's Wine Country. The motorcycle, really just a huge engine with a very small seat, is quite an impressive little beast.

Curtiss also developed and implemented seaplanes and aircraft carriers. My wife's grandfather actually saw Glenn Curtiss piloting one of his "Flying Boats". Her grandfather was beaten by his blind father for insisting that there was a boat flying over Keuka Lake!

If you are ever in Upstate NY I highly recommend the Glenn Curtiss Museum. The last time I was there, they even had a great exhibit of classic comic book covers by Dick Ayers.

Two brothers in North Carolina have apparently developed a new transportation device, which allows you to move through the air. They're calling this vehicle an aeroplane, or plane for short. Initial tests look very promising, and some of the designs look good.

I think something like this would be incredibly useful for getting from Alaska to Sibera both easily and quickly. Ice is very slippery! Perhaps one day you could even fly from major US cities such as New York to major Russian cities like Moscow. Give it a century, and these aeroplanes will be everywhere!

Two brothers in North Carolina have apparently developed a new transportation device, which allows you to move through the air. They're calling this vehicle an aeroplane, or plane for short. Initial tests look very promising, and some of the designs look good.

I think something like this would be incredibly useful for getting from Alaska to Sibera both easily and quickly. Ice is very slippery! Perhaps one day you could even fly from major US cities such as New York to major Russian cities like Moscow. Give it a century, and these aeroplanes will be everywhere!

In aviation, there is no such thing as too cautious! You are totaly underestimating the level of danger involved. Anything that flies that is hard to control, is underpowered, and very fragile, like all early airplanes is potentially deadly, even though the craft may fly slow. Orville was almost killed in this crash, and his passenger became the first victim of a powered flight. This was in an improved airplane, too! So, please give a little more credit to people that want to recreate the first flight, not the first crash.