Chapter IX. The failure was attributed to the twisting of the wings
under pressure to such an extent that not only was their effective area greatly reduced, but the outer portions were upturned so as to catch the air upon the upper surfaces, the result being in part a downward pressure.
On the following day a pair of the wings was inverted and a weight of sand equal to the air pressure to which they were subjected in flight, was distributed over their surfaces. Under the action of this, the twisting of the wing was seen to increase from the root, which was held with comparative rigidity, up to the tip, where in spite of the cross-ribs it amounted to 45°. The resistance to torsion lay chiefly in the front rib, which, in addition, could be bent easily, allowing the surface to become distorted with great loss of lifting power.
The experiments of 1894 had demonstrated the urgent necessity for greater rigidity in the sustaining surfaces, which might, as it seemed, be obtained either by increasing the strength of the framing (which meant additional weight) or by resorting to some new and untried construction, or by a proper system of guying. Guying seemingly offered the most feasible solution of the problem; but although the system of wire guying was thoroughly tried, the result was very unsatisfactory, as the wings continued to twist and bag in a way that was extremely discouraging.
1895
I accordingly had recourse in 1895 to the system of wooden guy-sticks shown in Fig. ‹D›, Plate 16, which necessarily added greatly to the weight of the sustaining surfaces. Each wing was separately strengthened by means of a light rod of spruce, in cross-section about the size of the main front rib, extending across the upper surface of the wing, at a distance of about one-third the width of the wing behind the front rib. It was tied to each of the cross-ribs and to the outer bent portion of the front rib, and at its root was fastened to the frame of the aerodrome.
This effectually prevented the bending of the front rib and the consequent bagging of the cover, and to that extent marked a decided advance in wing construction. But it was faulty, in that, not being supplemented by wire guying, it offered little resistance to the twisting of the wing about the main front rib, the rear tip of the wing being free to turn up under pressure, as it had done on former occasions. A similar guy-stick was stretched across the tail. To guard against torsion, rods extending diagonally across the wings and tail were used, which, with the aid of the guy-sticks just described, prevented the surfaces from twisting greatly. In addition, a rod joining the front ribs and stretching across from wing to wing tended to maintain a fixed diedral angle. [p086]
The wings as thus guyed were rigid enough, and in the field-trials of No. 5 on May 8 and June 6, did not yield noticeably under pressure, and there seemed to be no serious default in their lifting power, but the guy-sticks were heavy and the system was not again employed. The wings used in these trials, shown in Fig. ‹C›, Plate 16, had a frame of hickory, consisting of a front rib and nine cross-ribs, over which the silk was tightly stretched. The curvature of the wings, which is shown in the cross-sectional drawing, had a rise of about one-twelfth the width, the highest point of curvature occurring about one-fourth the distance from front to rear. Each wing was 64 cm.×192 cm. (25.25 in.×75.75 in.), the two with the tail, in surface equal to a single wing, having an area of 3.7 square metres (40 sq. ft.). The combined weight of the wings was 1150 grammes (2.53 pounds), and of the tail, 583 grammes (1.28 pounds).
The evolution of a vertical rudder had meanwhile been going steadily forward. Those first used had been small, rectangular, stiff, and heavy, but in the experiments of May 8 a much lighter and larger construction, consisting of a frame 92 cm.×76 cm. (36 in.×30 in.) covered with paper, was used, and on June 7 this was replaced by a long, diamond-shaped rudder, having a spruce frame covered with silk, very light and seemingly more effective than any hitherto used.
I had in the meantime designed a “tail-rudder,” consisting of a horizontal tail and vertical rudder combined, each having an area of about 0.6 square metres (6.5 sq. ft.) which, however, was not used until 1896.
In August was begun the construction of a deeply curved and arched pair of wings for No. 4, which consisted of a light framing of spruce elaborately guyed and covered with gold-beater’s skin drawn tight as a drum-head with pyroxelene varnish. In their construction a new feature, foreshadowed in the method of guying the separate wings used in the field-trials of May and June, was introduced, which was adopted in all subsequent constructions--the guy-stick, previously described as stretching lengthwise across the wing being now made a part of the wing itself, which was thus provided with two longitudinal ribs instead of one. The additional rib occupied a central position, and like the front rib was attached to the midrod by means of a strong wing clamp. Its outer end was united to the front rib, which was here bent into a quadrant of a circle. This pair of wings had an expanse of 435 cm. (14.3 feet), an area of 2.5 square metres (26.8 sq. ft.), a weight of 660 grammes (1.45 pounds), and a depth of curvature equal to one-tenth their width.
This construction offered a two-fold advantage in its resistance to both torsion and bagging, for as the pressures upon the wing were nearly balanced about the middle rib, the tendency to twist was reduced to a minimum, while the bagging, which results from the bending of the framework, as distinct from [p087] its twisting, was greatly reduced by the manner in which the frame was put together, the whole construction permitting a return to the system of wire guying at first adopted, which had been found inapplicable to a wing having but a single longitudinal rib forming its front margin. When completed, the wings were strongly guyed with piano wire, both above and below, to guy-posts attached to the midrod, and each cross-rib was separately guyed with wire chords. Although these wings had cost much in time and labor, and contained many points of improvement, they were eventually found to be too weak to support the aerodrome, and were therefore abandoned without a trial in the field.
For the plane horizontal tail hitherto used a pair of curved wings was substituted, similar in all respects to those just described, but having only half their area, and these were later replaced by a pair equal in size and in every way the counterpart of the front wings. The tail as hitherto used accordingly disappeared, and gave place to another having a wholly different function to perform; for while the old tail, like the rear pair of wings which superseded it, was intended to bear a definite part of the weight of the aerodrome, the new tail which was now added behind the rear pair of wings was not supposed to bear any part whatever of the weight, but to act solely as a guide, and this new feature, first introduced in October, 1895, was continued to the end.
This arrangement of the surfaces is quite different from that adopted by Pénaud in 1872, in which the tail became automatic in its action through its small angle of elevation as compared with that of the wings, while still acting as a supporting surface, whereas in the present arrangement the function of the tail was solely one of guidance. This, I believe, was one of the important changes which perhaps as much as any other led to final success.
During the fall of 1895 a large number of experiments were made both in free flight with gliding models, and in constrained flight with the whirling-table, to determine the relative lifting power of the front and rear wings per unit of area, and from these the following new rules were deduced for finding the center of pressure:
If a following wing is the size of the leader, assume that its efficiency is 66 per cent per unit of surface.
If it is half the size of the leader, assume that its efficiency is 50 per cent per unit of surface.
If it is half as large again as the leader, assume that its efficiency is 80 per cent per unit of surface.
For intermediate sizes of surface, proportionate values per unit of surface may be assumed.
If we consider the area of the front wing to be unity, and that of the rear wing to be ‹n›, and if ‹m› be the efficiency of the rear wing per unit of surface, [p088] the above is expressed in the following formulæ, which it will be remembered take account only of wings following each other in the same or nearly the same plane, and are not applicable where one wing is either above or below the plane of the other. In the formulæ, ‹CP› is the resultant center of pressure upon both wings expressed in the notation described in