University of Virginia Library

10. CHAPTER X.

PROPER DIMENSIONS OF MACHINES.

In laying out plans for a flying machine the first thing to decide upon is the size of the plane surfaces. The proportions of these must be based upon the load to be carried. This includes the total weight of the machine and equipment, and also the operator. This will be a rather difficult problem to figure out exactly, but practical approximate figures may be reached.

It is easy to get at the weight of the operator, motor and propeller, but the matter of determining, before they are constructed, what the planes, rudders, auxiliaries, etc., will weigh when completed is an intricate proposition. The best way is to take the dimensions of some successful machine and use them, making such alterations in a minor way as you may desire.

Dimensions of Leading Machines.

In the following tables will be found the details as to surface area, weight, power, etc., of the nine principal types of flying machines which are now prominently before the public:

MONOPLANES.

      
      

Make	Passengers	Surface area sq. feet	Spread in linear feet	Depth in linear feet
Santos-Dumont	1	110	16.0	26.0
Bleriot	1	150.6	24.6	22.0
R. E. P.	1	215	34.1	28.9
Bleriot	2	236	32.9	23.0
Antoinette	2	538	41.2	37.9
Make	No. of Cylinders	Horse Power	Weight Without Operator	Propeller Diameter
Santos-Dumont	2	30	250	5.0
Bleriot	3	25	680	6.9
R. E. P.	7	35	900	6.6
Bleriot	7	50	1,240	8.1
Antoinette	8	50	1,040	7.2

BIPLANES.

     
     

Make	Passengers	Surface Area sq. feet	Spread in linear feet	Depth in linear feet
Curtiss	2	258	29.0	28.7
Wright	2	538	41.0	30.7
Farman	2	430	32.9	39.6
Voisin	2	538	37.9	39.6
Make	No. of Cylinders	Horse Power	Weight Without Operator	Propeller Diameter
Curtiss	8	50	600	6.0
Wright	4	25	1,100	8.1
Farman	7	50	1,200	8.9
Voisin	8	50	1,200	6.6

In giving the depth dimensions the length over all—from the extreme edge of the front auxiliary plane to the extreme tip of the rear is stated. Thus while the dimensions of the main planes of the Wright machine are 41 feet spread by 6 1/2 feet in depth, the depth over all is 30.7.

Figuring Out the Details.

With this data as a guide it should be comparatively easy to decide upon the dimensions of the machine required. In arriving at the maximum lifting capacity the weight of the operator must be added. Assuming this to average 170 pounds the method of procedure would be as follows:

Add the weight of the operator to the weight of the complete machine. The new Wright machine complete

weighs 900 pounds. This, plus 170, the weight of the operator, gives a total of 1,070 pounds. There are 538 square feet of supporting surface, or practically one square foot of surface area to each two pounds of load.

Method of Carrying Passenger in Wright Machine.
Placing passenger in center equalizes weight between operator and motor.

[Description: Black and white photograph: Two men on seat, feet on bar.]

There are some machines, notably the Bleriot, in which the supporting power is much greater. In this latter instance we find a surface area of 150 1/2 square feet carrying a load of 680 plus 170, or an aggregate of 850 pounds. This is the equivalent of five pounds to the square foot. This ratio is phenomenally large, and should not be taken as a guide by amateurs.

The Matter of Passengers.

These deductions are based on each machine carrying one passenger, which is admittedly the limit at present of the monoplanes like those operated for record-making purposes by Santos-Dumont and Bleriot. The biplanes, however, have a two-passenger capacity, and this adds materially to the proportion of their weight-sustaining power as compared with the surface area. In the following statement all the machines are figured on the one-passenger basis. Curtiss and Wright have carried two passengers on numerous occasions, and an extra 170 pounds should therefore be added to the total weight carried, which would materially increase the capacity. Even with the two-passenger load the limit is by no means reached, but as experiments have gone no further it is impossible to make more accurate figures.

Average Proportions of Load.

It will be interesting, before proceeding to lay out the dimension details, to make a comparison of the proportion of load effect with the supporting surfaces of various well-known machines. Here are the figures:

Santos-Dumont—A trifle under four pounds per square foot.

Bleriot—Five pounds.

R. E. P.—Five pounds.

Antoinette—About two and one-quarter pounds.

Curtiss—About two and one-half pounds.

Wright—Two and one-quarter pounds.

Farman—A trifle over three pounds.

Voisin—A little under two and one-half pounds.

Importance of Engine Power.

While these figures are authentic, they are in a way misleading, as the important factor of engine power is not taken into consideration. Let us recall the fact that it is the engine power which keeps the machine in motion, and that it is only while in motion that the machine will remain suspended in the air. Hence, to attribute

the support solely to the surface area is erroneous. True, that once under headway the planes contribute largely to the sustaining effect, and are absolutely essential in aerial navigation—the motor could not rise without them—still, when it comes to a question of weight-sustaining power, we must also figure on the engine capacity.

In the Wright machine, in which there is a lifting capacity of approximately 2 1/4 pounds to the square foot of surface area, an engine of only 25 horsepower is used. In the Curtiss, which has a lifting capacity of 2 1/2 pounds per square foot, the engine is of 50 horsepower. This is another of the peculiarities of aerial construction and navigation. Here we have a gain of 1/4 pound in weight-lifting capacity with an expenditure of double the horsepower. It is this feature which enables Curtiss

to get along with a smaller surface area of supporting planes at the expense of a big increase in engine power.

Proper Weight of Machine.

As a general proposition the most satisfactory machine for amateur purposes will be found to be one with a total weight-sustaining power of about 1,200 pounds. Deducting 170 pounds as the weight of the operator, this will leave 1,030 pounds for the complete motor-equipped machine, and it should be easy to construct one within this limit. This implies, of course, that due care

will be taken to eliminate all superfluous weight by using the lightest material compatible with strength and safety.

This plan will admit of 686 pounds weight in the frame work, coverings, etc., and 344 for the motor, propeller, etc., which will be ample. Just how to distribute the weight of the planes is a matter which must be left to the ingenuity of the builder.

Comparison of Bird Power.

There is an interesting study in the accompanying illustration. Note that the surface area of the albatross is much smaller than that of the vulture, although the wing spread is about the same. Despite this the albatross accomplishes fully as much in the way of flight and soaring as the vulture. Why? Because the albatross

is quicker and more powerful in action. It is the application of this same principle in flying machines which enables those of great speed and power to get along with less supporting surface than those of slower movement.

Measurements of Curtiss Machine.

Some idea of framework proportion may be had from the following description of the Curtiss machine. The main planes have a spread (width) of 29 feet, and are 4 1/2 feet deep. The front double surface horizontal rudder is 6x2 feet, with an area of 24 square feet. To the rear of the main planes is a single surface horizontal plane 6x2 feet, with an area of 12 square feet. In connection with this is a vertical rudder 2 1/2 feet square. Two movable ailerons, or balancing planes, are placed at the extreme ends of the upper planes. These are 6x2 feet, and have a combined area of 24 square feet. There is also a triangular shaped vertical steadying surface in connection with the front rudder.

Thus we have a total of 195 square feet, but as the official figures are 258, and the size of the triangular-shaped steadying surface is unknown, we must take it for granted that this makes up the difference. In the matter of proportion the horizontal double-plane rudder is about one-tenth the size of the main plane, counting the surface area of only one plane, the vertical rudder one-fortieth, and the ailerons one-twentieth.