Return to Answer

The Wright Flyer II, at 15 hp, was underpowered, but still able to fly a full circle by the end of the 1904 season, in spite of several crashes$^2$.

Lengthening the rail (with a lot of grease) may have helped, but the Wrights realized running down a longer rail really wasn't their issue, having enough thrust to stay airborne at the very bottom of their drag curve was.

Approximation$^1$ of Velocity given rail length and acceleration:
Wright Flyer II glide ratio 8 : 1
Weight around 420 kg
Prop thrust: around 55 kg
Rail length: 76 m

Acceleration = Newtons/Mass = 55 kg × 10 m/s$^2$/420 kg
= 1.31 m/s$^2$

V$^2$ = 2 × acceleration × distance
= 2 × 1.31 m/s$^2$ x 76 m
= 199 m$^2$/s$^2$

V = 14.1 m/s = 31.7 mph !

A little push from the wing walkers would have helped, and aerodynamic drag and rail friction would increase as airspeed increased, but rail length beyond a few meters more really would not get it to a higher speed once airborne under any circumstances.

This is why they developed the catapult. If they were lucky, they could get up and trimmed just right for lowest drag, hoping their early internal combustion engine would run well. The Flyer II also had issues with excessive pitch throws, adding to the adventure.

Their early flight logs noted that, somehow, it flew at around 30 mph, but lost airspeed and crashed if slightly slower. Top speed was 35 mph. Later models had more horsepower.

$^1$ updated thrust and Flyer II weight information
$^2$ Huffman prarie field, near Wright-Patterson AFB, has an elevation of 800 feet, but was probably a bit lower humidity than Kitty Hawk.

The Wright Flyer II, at 15 hp, was underpowered, but still able to fly a full circle by the end of the 1904 season, in spite of several crashes$^2$.

Lengthening the rail (with a lot of grease) may have helped, but the Wrights realized running down a longer rail really wasn't their issue, having enough thrust to stay airborne at the very bottom of their drag curve was.

Approximation$^1$ of Velocity given rail length and acceleration:
Wright Flyer II glide ratio 8 : 1
Weight around 420 kg
Prop thrust: around 55 kg
Rail length: 76 m

Acceleration = Newtons/Mass = 55 kg × 10 m/s$^2$/420 kg
= 1.31 m/s$^2$

V$^2$ = 2 × acceleration × distance
= 2 × 1.31 m/s$^2$ x 76 m
= 199 m$^2$/s$^2$

V = 14.1 m/s = 31.7 mph !

A little push from the wing walkers would have helped, and aerodynamic drag and rail friction would increase as airspeed increased, but rail length beyond a few meters more really would not get it to a higher speed once airborne under any circumstances.

This is why they developed the catapult. If they were lucky, a little extra energy from the push gave them a few precious seconds more to get trimmed just right for lowest drag, hoping their early internal combustion engine would run well. The Flyer II also had issues with excessive pitch throws, adding to the adventure.

Their early flight logs noted that, somehow, it flew at around 30 mph, but lost airspeed and crashed if slightly slower. Top speed was 35 mph. Later models had more horsepower.

$^1$ updated thrust and Flyer II weight information
$^2$ Huffman prarie field, near Wright-Patterson AFB, has an elevation of 800 feet, but was probably a bit lower humidity than Kitty Hawk.

The Wright Flyer II, at 15 hp, was underpowered, but still able to fly a full circle by the end of the 1904 season, in spite of several crashes.

Lengthening the rail (with a lot of grease) may have helped, but the Wrights realized running down a longer rail really wasn't their issue, having enough thrust to stay airborne at the very bottom of their drag curve was.

Approximation$^1$ of Velocity given rail length and acceleration:
Wright Flyer II glide ratio 8 : 1
Weight around 420 kg
Prop thrust: around 55 kg
Rail length: 76 m

Acceleration = Newtons/Mass = 55 kg × 10 m/s$^2$/420 kg
= 1.31 m/s$^2$

V$^2$ = 2 × acceleration × distance
= 2 × 1.31 m/s$^2$ x 76 m
= 199 m$^2$/s$^2$

V = 14.1 m/s = 31.7 mph !

A little push from the wing walkers would have helped, and aerodynamic drag and rail friction would increase as airspeed increased, but rail length beyond a few meters more really would not get it to a higher speed once airborne under any circumstances.

This is why they developed the catapult. If they were lucky, they could get up and trimmed just right for lowest drag, hoping their early internal combustion engine would run well. The Flyer II also had issues with excessive pitch throws, adding to the adventure.

Their early flight logs noted that, somehow, it flew at around 30 mph, but lost airspeed and crashed if slightly slower. Top speed was 35 mph. Later models had more horsepower.

$^1$ updated thrust and Flyer II weight information

The Wright Flyer II, at 15 hp, was underpowered, but still able to fly a full circle by the end of the 1904 season, in spite of several crashes$^2$.

Lengthening the rail (with a lot of grease) may have helped, but the Wrights realized running down a longer rail really wasn't their issue, having enough thrust to stay airborne at the very bottom of their drag curve was.

Approximation$^1$ of Velocity given rail length and acceleration:
Wright Flyer II glide ratio 8 : 1
Weight around 420 kg
Prop thrust: around 55 kg
Rail length: 76 m

Acceleration = Newtons/Mass = 55 kg × 10 m/s$^2$/420 kg
= 1.31 m/s$^2$

V$^2$ = 2 × acceleration × distance
= 2 × 1.31 m/s$^2$ x 76 m
= 199 m$^2$/s$^2$

V = 14.1 m/s = 31.7 mph !

A little push from the wing walkers would have helped, and aerodynamic drag and rail friction would increase as airspeed increased, but rail length beyond a few meters more really would not get it to a higher speed once airborne under any circumstances.

This is why they developed the catapult. If they were lucky, they could get up and trimmed just right for lowest drag, hoping their early internal combustion engine would run well. The Flyer II also had issues with excessive pitch throws, adding to the adventure.

Their early flight logs noted that, somehow, it flew at around 30 mph, but lost airspeed and crashed if slightly slower. Top speed was 35 mph. Later models had more horsepower.

$^1$ updated thrust and Flyer II weight information
$^2$ Huffman prarie field, near Wright-Patterson AFB, has an elevation of 800 feet, but was probably a bit lower humidity than Kitty Hawk.

The Wright Flyer II, at 15 hp, was underpowered, but still able to fly a full circle by the end of the 1904 season, in spite of several crashes.

Lengthening the rail (with a lot of grease) may have helped, but the Wrights realized running down a longer rail really wasn't their issue, having enough thrust to stay airborne at the very bottom of their drag curve was.

Approximation$^1$ of Velocity given rail length and acceleration:
Wright Flyer II glide ratio 8 : 1
Weight around 360 kg
Prop thrust: around 55 kg
Rail length: 76 m

Acceleration = Newtons/Mass = 55 kg × 10 m/s$^2$/360 kg
= 1.5 m/s$^2$

V$^2$ = 2 × acceleration × distance
= 2 × 1.5 m/s$^2$ x 76 m
= 228 m$^2$/s$^2$

V = 15 m/s = 33.7 mph !

A little push from the wing walkers would have helped, and aerodynamic drag and rail friction would increase as airspeed increased, but rail length beyond a few meters more really would not get it to a higher speed once airborne under any circumstances.

This is why they developed the catapult. If they were lucky, they could get up and trimmed just right for lowest drag, hoping their early internal combustion engine would run well. The Flyer II also had issues with excessive pitch throws, adding to the adventure.

Their early flight logs noted that, somehow, it flew at around 30 mph, but lost airspeed and crashed if slightly slower. Top speed was 35 mph. Later models had more horsepower.

$^1$ updated thrust and Flyer II weight information

The Wright Flyer II, at 15 hp, was underpowered, but still able to fly a full circle by the end of the 1904 season, in spite of several crashes.

Lengthening the rail (with a lot of grease) may have helped, but the Wrights realized running down a longer rail really wasn't their issue, having enough thrust to stay airborne at the very bottom of their drag curve was.

Approximation$^1$ of Velocity given rail length and acceleration:
Wright Flyer II glide ratio 8 : 1
Weight around 420 kg
Prop thrust: around 55 kg
Rail length: 76 m

Acceleration = Newtons/Mass = 55 kg × 10 m/s$^2$/420 kg
= 1.31 m/s$^2$

V$^2$ = 2 × acceleration × distance
= 2 × 1.31 m/s$^2$ x 76 m
= 199 m$^2$/s$^2$

V = 14.1 m/s = 31.7 mph !

A little push from the wing walkers would have helped, and aerodynamic drag and rail friction would increase as airspeed increased, but rail length beyond a few meters more really would not get it to a higher speed once airborne under any circumstances.

This is why they developed the catapult. If they were lucky, they could get up and trimmed just right for lowest drag, hoping their early internal combustion engine would run well. The Flyer II also had issues with excessive pitch throws, adding to the adventure.

Their early flight logs noted that, somehow, it flew at around 30 mph, but lost airspeed and crashed if slightly slower. Top speed was 35 mph. Later models had more horsepower.

$^1$ updated thrust and Flyer II weight information