Skip to main content
Aviation

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • $\begingroup$ You are asking a theoretical question which no one can really answer because the Wright brothers never built a longer launching catapult. You are also assuming that longer means faster. That might not be true. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ Lauching rail, actually. The catapult and the track were different systems. But yes, I think longer may not mean faster. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 13:10
  • $\begingroup$ You'd have to calculate the maximum speed the Flyer could achieve on the track with the available thrust in still air, and for that you'd have to know the increase in rolling friction of their track system to be able to calculate if the thrust could overcome that friction plus air drag and how far it would take. They built their catapult system with the weight tower to overcome just that problem when demo-ing the Flyer inland. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 13:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The Wright monument is on a large dune next to the site of the first flight. When "why did they not put the rail on the hill?" was asked, the answer was they needed flight from flat ground to be "official". (but headwinds apparently were allowed) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 1:00
  • $\begingroup$ I think the low angle of attack and therefore low induced drag during takeoff roll easily compensates friction, yet I cannot prove it. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 14, 2022 at 13:40