Woodithadflown?

[retread]

I am curious if anyone has ever attempted to fly a recreation of Samuel Langley's "aerodrome" of the type of December 8, 1903 with a replica of Charles Manly's 53 HP engine and if so, the results? I know Glenn Curtiss flew a modified version of Langley's aircraft during patent wars with the Wright brothers but am curious if Langley's aircraft engine/airframe were capable of sustained flight (albeit barely controled) as was on the date mentioned above? Was it bad luck that foiled Langley's claim to fame or was the aircraft still as yet incapable of producing the result of any sort of sustained flight ?
Is anyone aware if there is a source detailing Manly's engine? I suppose the Smithsonian may well have detailed information regarding it.

Thanks.

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by retread

---
Is anyone aware if there is a source detailing Manly's engine? I suppose the Smithsonian may well have detailed information regarding it.

Thanks.

There is a very comprehensive study about the engine of Langley, 193 pages !

Meyer, Robert B. 1971. Langley's aero engine of 1903. Smithsonian annals of flight, no. 6. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press; [for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.].

I happen to have this one (somewhere) in my collection. Lately PDF's have appeared of the Smithsonian annals of flight.

Cheers

Kees

[retread]

A sincere thank you. While I was unable to download a PDF for " Langley's Aero Engine" I did find " The Liberty Engine 1918-1942", "The Wright Brother's Engines and Their Design" and "The Curtiss D-12 Aero Engine". Also,I was able to locate a copy of " Langley's Aero Engine" via a book search at a reasonable price. A gold mine. Outstanding!

[Wind In The Wires]

The 1903 Langley Aerodrome had no pitch control, roll control was provided only by the fixed dihedral and yaw control was provided by a split rudder located too close to the center of gravity to be effective. The structure was too weak to sustain anything other than gentle level flight (the Wright's 1903 Flyer was designed to support 5.5 times it's own weight). Langley's propellors were pieces of canvas stretched between crossed tubes and probably didn't have enough pitch to drive the Aerodrome at flying speed.

For an interesting take on the Aerodrome see:

att.net/~dannysoar2/Langley.htm" target="_blank">Langley

[aerohydro]

In his book "Taking Flight", Richard Hallion wrote that the Langley Aerodrome "was frail beyond imagining, and a wire plucked or a wing spar jostled would set the entire structure aquiver".

This was something that Richard Hallion could personally verify to, as when he was working as a curator at the Smithsonian, he did both to the (now restored) Aerodrome. The plane jiggled for nearly half a minute.

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by aerohydro

In his book "Taking Flight", Richard Hallion wrote that the Langley Aerodrome "was frail beyond imagining, and a wire plucked or a wing spar jostled would set the entire structure aquiver".

This was something that Richard Hallion could personally verify to, as when he was working as a curator at the Smithsonian, he did both to the (now restored) Aerodrome. The plane jiggled for nearly half a minute.

I know the machine of Langley is proudly hanging on the ceiling in the NASM, but I thought it was a replica (no original parts there). Looking at pictures of the machine it is amazing how big the machine is, judging from the size of other machines in the neighbourhood (Caudron G.4).

Contemporary drawings (Aeronautics May 30, 1914) give a span of 48 feet and a length of 52 feet.

Cheers

Kees

[retread]

As from the link provided by "Wind in the Wire" the list of alterations compiled by Wilber Wright contrasting the original Aerodrome vs. that flown by Glenn Curtiss at Hammondsport is fairly extensive.
It certainly seems informed , objective opinion leans heavily toward the result of the December 8, 1903 experiment being an exercise in probability if not inevitability.
One article I would like to read was published by the "Journal of Flight " in 1964. The "Analysis of the Flight of Samuel Langley's Great Aerodrome" was the result of wind tunnel tests performed on either a model or replica of Langley's December 1903 Aerodrome. Should be interesting if I can dig it up.

[SCMc]

Even if the Aerodrome had a successful flight, it is doubtful that it would have qualified as a controlled flight. He would not have been breaking any new ground. Clement Ader's Ecole had managed and uncontrolled human flight in 1890, during which it took off under its own power.

If Langley had the time and resources, I think he would have eventually succeeded in human powered flight. His success with flying models showed his ability to work through problems and failures.

Steve

[Wind In The Wires]

Probably not.

Langley had spent 10 years and over $50,000 by December of 1903 and had had the assistance of Augustus Herring who brought with him what he had learned working with Chanute. Yet Langley remained unaware of the need for pitch and roll control, had very inefficient propellors and had no clue as to the air loadings his craft would experience.

Hiram Maxim had also demonstrated that powered flight was possible but made no attempt to investigate the control systems required to make it practicable.

[aerohydro]

Hello All

Nowlen Aero, a small Californian aeromodeling concern, sells both plans and kitsets for a Langley Aerodrome model. There's is a rubber-powered free-flight model, built to peanut scale rules, which means it has a 13 inch wingspan.

I have a copy of their plans and can atest to just how well designed the model is. For such a small item, it is a surprisingly accurate representation of the full-sized original. If you're not interested in making a flying model, then the Nowlen Aero model would also make for a nice static display.

Details about their kits and plans can be found at
Wright-brothers.org and at Peck-polymers.com.

Cheers,
Paul