|
Brazil's just being selfish. The "First in Flight" motto is the only positive historical thing North Carolina has to cling to. Other than it not being South Carolina. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Aug 7, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:So now I'm wondering, if you were in 1902 and made a vehicle that supported 99% of its weight via gas cells, and used a tiny hand-cranked propeller to lift itself, would that count for "heavier-than-air flight"? Or is there something in the official definition that bans the use of buoyancy effects entirely? Pretty obviously not. Dirigibles were a pretty well-trod path by 1902. By Santos-Dumont, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:More like a 10.3mm difference...where it counted the most. That is new (for that job), I think it just recently started flying. NG is/has replaced all of their BAC-111's after being the last operator in US and probably one of the last operators in the world to fly them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:Not sure if anyone here has been following the Bugatti 100p project that's been going on for a while. It crashed today, killing the pilot. Oh drat 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Whoops. Looks like there was no derrick in 1903 after all. I just always thought of it as there because of the track and dolly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
The catapult thing (and, well, success) didn't stop the Smithsonian and American gov't from declaring Langley's Aerodome to be the first airplane. It was the FAI themselves who declared the Wright brothers and their 1903 flyer to be the first airplane, first manned flight of a heavier-than-air craft. Their rules were in place to try to prevent the bullshit that Langley and the Smithsonian pulled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Brazil's just being selfish. The "First in Flight" motto is the only positive historical thing North Carolina has to cling to. Or being Brazil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:The catapult thing (and, well, success) didn't stop the Smithsonian and American gov't from declaring Langley's Aerodome to be the first airplane. It was the FAI themselves who declared the Wright brothers and their 1903 flyer to be the first airplane, first manned flight of a heavier-than-air craft. Their rules were in place to try to prevent the bullshit that Langley and the Smithsonian pulled. Pretty sure Red Bull Flugtag's got Langley beat in both style and flight time, for just splatting into the water. The bicycle mechanics could steer their aeroplane; Flugtag contestants, like Langley, just fall in a flatter-than-pure-ballistic trajectory. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 04:30
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Pretty sure Red Bull Flugtag's got Langley beat in both style and flight time, for just splatting into the water. Hey, every now and then a Flugtag contestant enters a Daedalus or Gossamer Condor clone, and even rarer the spars don't snap like toothpicks and a real flight happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
From what I recall from the David McCullough book about the Wright brothers is that the thing that blew their competitors away when they finally made public flights was the degree of control. At a time when the French (including Santos) were struggling to limp along with a positively stable aircraft that could really only go straight, the wright flyer was under full three axis control. It was more than just getting off the ground, they understood that aircraft had to be able to roll and pitch; they could not be designed to stay level like a ship and be turned with a ship style rudder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Pretty obviously not. Dirigibles were a pretty well-trod path by 1902. By Santos-Dumont, for instance. One‐percent‐heavier‐than‐air is still heavier‐than‐air.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
vessbot posted:In your analogy, it would be as if Carl Benz's car was only shown to run after being rolled down a hill and then trundling on for few hundred feet. First car? Maybe, maybe not. If someone built a car a little later that could start from a standstill, they'd have a very legitimate contention. The first car is Cugnot's Fardier.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:From what I recall from the David McCullough book about the Wright brothers is that the thing that blew their competitors away when they finally made public flights was the degree of control. At a time when the French (including Santos) were struggling to limp along with a positively stable aircraft that could really only go straight, the wright flyer was under full three axis control. It was more than just getting off the ground, they understood that aircraft had to be able to roll and pitch; they could not be designed to stay level like a ship and be turned with a ship style rudder. This. The one thing the Wrights got that nobody at the time did was three dimensional control. That and wind tunnels. Their form of control (wing-warping) is wholly unconventional, even today, but it's the one thing that put them into the history books ahead of Langley, Santos, and everyone else. Also, making models and prototypes that they tested over and over before the actual flight helped. I don't know if anyone had done as much extensive testing as the Wrights, and I'm certain that Langley didn't. Langley was close to the answer though; it only took a few people (with notes from the Wright brothers) to fix his aircraft and make it work (which unfortunately was used to prop up Langley as the "first airplane"); but that'd be like claiming some other person built the first car, but didn't get credit because it had square wheels and the engine wasn't actually attached to anything, and still required a team of horses to steer it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Wasn't the Wright Flyer only able to lift because of WIGE, like the Spruce Goose? Someone find out the REAL first (non-ground effect) heavier-than-air self-powered non-gear-discarding aircraft, we have a hidden hero mistreated by history to laud, and if it's not the US, a nation's meaningless pride to massage!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Wasn't the Wright Flyer only able to lift because of WIGE, like the Spruce Goose? The H-4 is an awful comparison, since it was never designed as a WIGE vehicle, and has never been able to prove its specified performance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Wasn't the Wright Flyer only able to lift because of WIGE, like the Spruce Goose? Pterosaur - Early Cretaceous Europe
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Crossquoting from gbs Olympic threadElias_Maluco posted:Brazilians are very passionate about this whole "we invented the air plane" thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
This ol' thing has been doing low flypasts for two days straight now. Pretty cool!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Or being Brazil. Because americans aren't being american, right? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Wasn't the Wright Flyer only able to lift because of WIGE, like the Spruce Goose? No, not at all. The first flight probably never left ground effect, but they quickly moved on. Again, while their competition was doing low, level flights the length of a cow pasture they were flying laps around Long Island.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:No, not at all. The first flight probably never left ground effect, but they quickly moved on. Again, while their competition was doing low, level flights the length of a cow pasture they were flying laps around Long Island. yeah and the wrights were laying chemtrails around new york city while santos labored to free mankind from gravity so he should be lionized wake up sheeple
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Wasn't the Wright Flyer only able to lift because of WIGE, like the Spruce Goose? This is starting to sound like that Top Gear episode where they tried to find the first car as we know it today; that is a car with the control configuration that all cars come with today, steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, and electric starter. I think it ended up being something from the 30s or 40s, but even then I think they skipped some of the first cars that had electric starters because they used a pedal rather than turning the key. Inacio posted:Because americans aren't being american, right? We did everything first and best. Got a problem with that, well then you can just get out!  
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:This is starting to sound like that Top Gear episode where they tried to find the first car as we know it today; that is a car with the control configuration that all cars come with today, steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, and electric starter. I think it ended up being something from the 30s or 40s, but even then I think they skipped some of the first cars that had electric starters because they used a pedal rather than turning the key. That's kind of my point, I'm trying to find ways to narrow it down even further (discarding popular 'firsts' as we go) as a game
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
simplefish posted:That's kind of my point, I'm trying to find ways to narrow it down even further (discarding popular 'firsts' as we go) as a game first airplane to have somethingawful.com user midjack in seat 8c
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
First airplane where you could take a poo poo at Mach 0.8.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Ola posted:First airplane where you could take a poo poo at Mach 0.8. Germans have you beat already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
simplefish posted:That's kind of my point, I'm trying to find ways to narrow it down even further (discarding popular 'firsts' as we go) as a game Blériot's monoplanes would be a solid contender. The VIII flew in 1908, carried its gear, and had sufficient power and control to fly in circles around the field. The XI flew across the Channel in July 1909 (first flight in Jan 1909). The only competitors I can think of for these would be either the Farman III (first flight April 1909) or the Wright's Model B (first flight in 1910). e: the XI is also probably the first airplane in the "standard modern" configuration (monoplane w/rear horizontal stab)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Hey. Hey hey. Hey hey hey. Hey thread. Gustave Whitehead 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:This is starting to sound like that Top Gear episode where they tried to find the first car as we know it today; that is a car with the control configuration that all cars come with today, steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, and electric starter. I think it ended up being something from the 30s or 40s, but even then I think they skipped some of the first cars that had electric starters because they used a pedal rather than turning the key. Actually I watched that episode on re-runs just today - they gave the nod to the Cadillac Type 53 (1916) and then (like the Brazilians and Santos-Dumont) 'revealed' that while the Cadillac may have been the first it was the British Austin Seven (1924) which made the modern control lay-out stick on a global scale because it was mass-produced and built under license around the world. Which completely overlooked the Dodge Model 30 (1914) which had the conventional control lay-out and an electric starter (albeit with a pedal switch rather than a key, but the Seven never had a starter key either) and was the one to really popularise the design; it sold more than the Austin in just five years on sale (the Seven was sold for 15), it just wasn't sold in Britain  But, like the 'first real aeroplane' argument, you can split hairs almost infinitely. The Cadillac, the Dodge and the Austin all had wheel-mounted throttle levers as well as an accelerator pedal and all had manual ignition timing adjustment levers too. These were considered just as vital to the process of making a car go as the wheel, clutch, brake and accelerator. So the first car that an average driver of 2016 could hop into and drive without any real trouble would probably be from the late 1940s (from a British perspective at least). None of which changes the fact that Karl Benz and his 1hp tiller-steered motorwagen was the first practical self-propelled internal-combustion powered motorised carriage. Saying that Santos-Dumont was the first to make an aeroplane is like saying that De Dion Bouton made the first car just because theirs had four wheels rather than three.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Midjack posted:first airplane to have somethingawful.com user midjack in seat 8c DC-3, probably 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Ola posted:First airplane where you could take a poo poo at Mach 0.8. You'd probably poo poo if you were in any early airplane at that speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You'd probably poo poo if you were in any early airplane at that speed. The Comet was probably the first 0.8 mach plane you could take a poo poo in with something resembling a toilet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The Comet was probably the first 0.8 mach plane you could take a poo poo in with something resembling a toilet. Then take another poo poo as the square windows tear the plane apart
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
The Komet could go Mach .8, and I'd poo poo myself if I was sitting inches in front of the stuff in those fuel tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Then take another poo poo as the square windows tear the plane apart Actually, it seems the Comet's cruising speed was .6 Mach, so it's likely that the Dash 80 was the first plane you could almost drop a transonic deuce in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Actually I watched that episode on re-runs just today - they gave the nod to the Cadillac Type 53 (1916) and then (like the Brazilians and Santos-Dumont) 'revealed' that while the Cadillac may have been the first it was the British Austin Seven (1924) which made the modern control lay-out stick on a global scale because it was mass-produced and built under license around the world. Which completely overlooked the Dodge Model 30 (1914) which had the conventional control lay-out and an electric starter (albeit with a pedal switch rather than a key, but the Seven never had a starter key either) and was the one to really popularise the design; it sold more than the Austin in just five years on sale (the Seven was sold for 15), it just wasn't sold in Britain I'll have to watch that again. I remember them leaving out the Dodge and thought it rather odd that an enthusiast show would do that; but entertainment that sells always comes first. So, here's the rule: First mono-wing, aluminum monocoque or semi-monocoque construction, stressed/load bearing aluminum skin, contemporary control configuration, "tricycle" landing gear configuration (that is, mains in the rear), with a proper lavatory where you could take a poo poo at Mach 0.8.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Richard Pearse springs to mind While there is very little proof he achieved what people claim he did, his designs appear to be more modern in nature: Wikipedia posted:Though it lacked an aerofoil section wing (the most crucial aspect of an airplane), in general layout his flying machine resembled modern aircraft design much more than did the Wright brothers' machine: monoplane rather than biplane; tractor rather than pusher propeller; stabiliser and elevators at the back rather than the front; and ailerons rather than wing-warping for controlling banking (although much the same can be said for the much earlier, and unsuccessful Adar Avion III, excluding the ailerons). It bore a certain resemblance to modern microlight aircraft. Wikipedia posted:With a 15 horsepower (11 kW) engine, Pearse's design had an adequate power-to-weight ratio to become airborne (even without an aerofoil). He continued to develop the ability to achieve fully controlled flight. Pearse incorporated effectively located (albeit possibly rather small) "ailerons". The design's low centre of gravity provided pendulum stability. However, diagrams and eyewitness recollections agree that Pearse placed controls for pitch and yaw at the trailing edge of the low-aspect-ratio kite-type permanently stalled wing. This control placement (located in turbulent air-flow, and close to the centre of gravity) would have had minimal, possibly inadequate, turning moment to control the pitch or yaw of the aircraft. The principles of his design, however, accord precisely with modern thinking on the subject.[citation needed] The Wright brothers, in comparison, successfully applied the principles of airfoil wing-profile and three-axis control to produce fully controlled flight, although their design, using wing warping and forward-mounted pitch controlling surface (canard), soon became obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You'd probably poo poo if you were in any early airplane at that speed. Particularly the rotaries that used castor oil in their total-loss oiling systems
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Is there a particular reason that pusher props fell out of fashion? The only thing I can think of is weight and balance considerations, and possibly the ability for the pilot to see the engine in an emergency situation (for example: is it on fire?).YF19pilot posted:So, here's the rule: Also, out of curiosity, has there been any significantly-produced jet with conventional gear (as opposed to tricycle)? I can't think of one offhand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Cooling is a big one, I think. It's a lot easier to cool the engine when it's right up front with nothing impeding the airflow. Also I could imagine there being some STOL benefits to having prop wash over the wings but I dunno if that is a big consideration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 04:44
|
|
