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*

7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ They do demo runs of an exact replica of the Flyer engine at Oshkosh, complete with crankshaft blank cut out of a slab of steel using a drill press like the original. The intake valves were suck-ins, with the cam only working the exhaust valves. It sounded like a typical farm tractor motor. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ Robert, thanks for the comment. But regarding why they developed the catapult, several sources mention how impractical it already was was for them to use a track of 75 meters. They always wanted to takeoff with a headwind, so when the wind changed direction (and that happened a lot in Huffman Prairie), they had to change the whole track with it. This was a very laborious process. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 1:36
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Robert. Let me ask you something: in the case of the 1903 Flyer, the plane took off against a wind averaging 20 mph. It is correct to assume that if the aircraft had thrust to advance against a 20 mph headwind, it would also have thrust to reach 20 mph without wind? (Assuming a longer track, of course). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ @MarceloJenisch reaching a higher groundspeed on the track would have meant slightly higher friction forces from the track with no wind (if windspeed is adequate, they need no track at all, i.e. kites). With a bit of grease or oil, maybe. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. If there's no wind, the ground speed is the same as the true airspeed. I guess you mean that without wind the friction would be larger at the start of the takeoff relative to a takeoff with wind. In that case, yes. But friction also decreases with increased airspeed. So, without wind, after reaching 20 mph the friction would be the same as if the airplane was starting a takeoff with a 20 mph wind. The question for me is if the plane would still have acceleration capacity to go from 20 to 30 mph, as it reached 20 mph without any help from the wind. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 22:03