Flying Machines: construction and operation Part 6

Services of Expert Necessary.

No matter what kind of a motor may be selected the services of an expert will be necessary in its proper installation unless the amateur has considerable genius in this line himself. As a general thing $25 should be a liberal allowance for this work. No matter how carefully the engine may be placed and connected it will be largely a matter of luck if it is installed in exactly the proper manner at the first attempt. The chances are that several alterations, prompted by the results of trials, will have to be made. If this is the case the expert's bill may readily run up to $50. If the amateur is competent to do this part of the work the entire item of $50 may, of course, be cut out.

As a general proposition a fairly satisfactory flying machine, one that will actually fly and carry the operator with it, may be constructed for $750, but it will lack the better qualities which mark the higher priced machines. This computation is made on the basis of $60 for material, $50 for services of expert, $600 for motor, etc., and an allowance of $40 for extras.

No man who has the flying machine germ in his system will be long satisfied with his first moderate price machine, no matter how well it may work. It's the old story of the automobile "bug" over again. The man who starts in with a modest $1,000 automobile invariably progresses by easy stages to the $4,000 or $5,000 cla.s.s. The natural tendency is to want the biggest and best attainable within the financial reach of the owner.

It's exactly the same way with the flying machine convert. The more proficient he becomes in the manipulation of his car, the stronger becomes the desire to fly further and stay in the air longer than the rest of his brethren. This necessitates larger, more powerful, and more expensive machines as the work of the germ progresses.

Speed Affects Weight Capacity.

Don't overlook the fact that the greater speed you can attain the smaller will be the surface area you can get along with. If a machine with 500 square feet of sustaining surface, traveling at a speed of 40 miles an hour, will carry a weight of 1,200 pounds, we can cut the sustaining surface in half and get along with 250 square feet, provided a speed of 60 miles an hour can be obtained. At 100 miles an hour only 80 square feet of surface area would be required. In both instances the weight sustaining capacity will remain the same as with the 500 square feet of surface area--1,200 pounds.

One of these days some mathematical genius will figure out this problem with exact.i.tude and we will have a dependable table giving the maximum carrying capacity of various surface areas at various stated speeds, based on the dimensions of the advancing edges. At present it is largely a matter of guesswork so far as making accurate computation goes.

Much depends upon the shape of the machine, and the amount of surface offering resistance to the wind, etc.

CHAPTER IX. SELECTION OF THE MOTOR.

Motors for flying machines must be light in weight, of great strength, productive of extreme speed, and positively dependable in action.

It matters little as to the particular form, or whether air or water cooled, so long as the four features named are secured. There are at least a dozen such motors or engines now in use. All are of the gasolene type, and all possess in greater or lesser degree the desired qualities.

Some of these motors are:

Renault--8-cylinder, air-cooled; 50 horse power; weight 374 pounds.

Fiat--8-cylinder, air-cooled; 50 horse power; weight 150 pounds.

Farcot--8-cylinder, air-cooled; from 30 to 100 horse power, according to bore of cylinders; weight of smallest, 84 pounds.

R. E. P.--10-cylinder, air-cooled; 150 horse power; weight 215 pounds.

Gnome--7 and 14 cylinders, revolving type, air-cooled; 50 and 100 horse power; weight 150 and 300 pounds.

Darracq--2 to 14 cylinders, water cooled; 30 to 200 horse power; weight of smallest 100 pounds.

Wright--4-cylinder, water-cooled; 25 horse power; weight 200 pounds.

Antoinette--8 and 16-cylinder, water-cooled; 50 and 100 horse power; weight 250 and 500 pounds.

E. N. V.--8-cylinder, water-cooled; from 30 to 80 horse power, according to bore of cylinder; weight 150 to 400 pounds.

Curtiss--8-cylinder, water-cooled; 60 horse power; weight 300 pounds.

Average Weight Per Horse Power.

It will be noticed that the Gnome motor is unusually light, being about three pounds to the horse power produced, as opposed to an average of 4 1/2 pounds per horse power in other makes. This result is secured by the elimination of the fly-wheel, the engine itself revolving, thus obtaining the same effect that would be produced by a fly-wheel. The Farcot is even lighter, being considerably less than three pounds per horse power, which is the nearest approach to the long-sought engine equipment that will make possible a complete flying machine the total weight of which will not exceed one pound per square foot of area.

How Lightness Is Secured.

Thus far foreign manufacturers are ahead of Americans in the production of light-weight aerial motors, as is evidenced by the Gnome and Farcot engines, both of which are of French make. Extreme lightness is made possible by the use of fine, specially prepared steel for the cylinders, thus permitting them to be much thinner than if ordinary forms of steel were used. Another big saving in weight is made by subst.i.tuting what are known as "auto lubricating" alloys for bearings. These alloys are made of a combination of aluminum and magnesium.

Still further gains are made in the use of alloy steel tubing instead of solid rods, and also by the paring away of material wherever it can be done without sacrificing strength. This plan, with the exclusive use of the best grades of steel, regardless of cost, makes possible a marked reduction in weight.

Multiplicity of Cylinders.

Strange as it may seem, multiplicity of cylinders does not always add proportionate weight. Because a 4-cylinder motor weighs say 100 pounds, it does not necessarily follow that an 8-cylinder equipment will weigh 200 pounds. The reason of this will be plain when it is understood that many of the parts essential to a 4-cylinder motor will fill the requirements of an 8-cylinder motor without enlargement or addition.

Neither does multiplying the cylinders always increase the horsepower proportionately. If a 4-cylinder motor is rated at 25 horsepower it is not safe to take it for granted that double the number of cylinders will give 50 horsepower. Generally speaking, eight cylinders, the bore, stroke and speed being the same, will give double the power that can be obtained from four, but this does not always hold good. Just why this exception should occur is not explainable by any accepted rule.

Horse Power and Speed.

Speed is an important requisite in a flying-machine motor, as the velocity of the aeroplane is a vital factor in flotation. At first thought, the propeller and similar adjuncts being equal, the inexperienced mind would naturally argue that a 50-horsepower engine should produce just double the speed of one of 25-horsepower. That this is a fallacy is shown by actual performances. The Wrights, using a 25-horsepower motor, have made 44 miles an hour, while Bleriot, with a 50-horsepower motor, has a record of a short-distance flight at the rate of 52 miles an hour. The fact is that, so far as speed is concerned, much depends upon the velocity of the wind, the size and shape of the aeroplane itself, and the size, shape and gearing of the propeller. The stronger the wind is blowing the easier it will be for the aeroplane to ascend, but at the same time the more difficult it will be to make headway against the wind in a horizontal direction. With a strong head wind, and proper engine force, your machine will progress to a certain extent, but it will be at an angle. If the aviator desired to keep on going upward this would be all right, but there is a limit to the alt.i.tude which it is desirable to reach--from 100 to 500 feet for experts--and after that it becomes a question of going straight ahead.

Great Waste of Power.

One thing is certain--even in the most efficient of modern aerial motors there is a great loss of power between the two points of production and effect. The Wright outfit, which is admittedly one of the most effective in use, takes one horsepower of force for the raising and propulsion of each 50 pounds of weight. This, for a 25-horsepower engine, would give a maximum lifting capacity of 1250 pounds. It is doubtful if any of the higher rated motors have greater efficiency. As an 8-cylinder motor requires more fuel to operate than a 4-cylinder, it naturally follows that it is more expensive to run than the smaller motor, and a normal increase in capacity, taking actual performances as a criterion, is lacking. In other words, what is the sense of using an 8-cylinder motor when one of 4 cylinders is sufficient?

What the Propeller Does.

Much of the efficiency of the motor is due to the form and gearing of the propeller. Here again, as in other vital parts of flying-machine mechanism, we have a wide divergence of opinion as to the best form. A fish makes progress through the water by using its fins and tail; a bird makes its way through the air in a similar manner by the use of its wings and tail. In both instances the motive power comes from the body of the fish or bird.

In place of fins or wings the flying machine is equipped with a propeller, the action of which is furnished by the engine. Fins and wings have been tried, but they don't work.

While operating on the same general principle, aerial propellers are much larger than those used on boats. This is because the boat propeller has a denser, more substantial medium to work in (water), and consequently can get a better "hold," and produce more propulsive force than one of the same size revolving in the air. This necessitates the aerial propellers being much larger than those employed for marine purposes. Up to this point all aviators agree, but as to the best form most of them differ.

Kinds of Propellers Used.

One of the most simple is that used by Curtiss. It consists of two pear-shaped blades of laminated wood, each blade being 5 inches wide at its extreme point, tapering slightly to the shaft connection. These blades are joined at the engine shaft, in a direct line. The propeller has a pitch of 5 feet, and weighs, complete, less than 10 pounds. The length from end to end of the two blades is 6 1/2 feet.

Wright uses two wooden propellers, in the rear of his biplane, revolving in opposite directions. Each propeller is two-bladed.

Bleriot also uses a two-blade wooden propeller, but it is placed in front of his machine. The blades are each about 3 1/2 feet long and have an acute "twist."

Santos-Dumont uses a two-blade wooden propeller, strikingly similar to the Bleriot.

On the Antoinette monoplane, with which good records have been made, the propeller consists of two spoon-shaped pieces of metal, joined at the engine shaft in front, and with the concave surfaces facing the machine.

The propeller on the Voisin biplane is also of metal, consisting of two aluminum blades connected by a forged steel arm.

Maximum thrust, or stress--exercise of the greatest air-displacing force--is the object sought. This, according to experts, is best obtained with a large propeller diameter and reasonably low speed. The diameter is the distance from end to end of the blades, which on the largest propellers ranges from 6 to 8 feet. The larger the blade surface the greater will be the volume of air displaced, and, following this, the greater will be the impulse which forces the aeroplane ahead. In all centrifugal motion there is more or less tendency to disintegration in the form of "flying off" from the center, and the larger the revolving object is the stronger is this tendency. This is ill.u.s.trated in the many instances in which big grindstones and fly-wheels have burst from being revolved too fast. To have a propeller break apart in the air would jeopardize the life of the aviator, and to guard against this it has been found best to make its revolving action comparatively slow.

Besides this the slow motion (it is only comparatively slow) gives the atmosphere a chance to refill the area disturbed by one propeller blade, and thus have a new surface for the next blade to act upon.

Placing of the Motor.

As on other points, aviators differ widely in their ideas as to the proper position for the motor. Wright locates his on the lower plane, midway between the front and rear edges, but considerably to one side of the exact center. He then counter-balances the engine weight by placing his seat far enough away in the opposite direction to preserve the center of gravity. This leaves a s.p.a.ce in the center between the motor and the operator in which a pa.s.senger may be carried without disturbing the equilibrium.

Bleriot, on the contrary, has his motor directly in front and preserves the center of gravity by taking his seat well back, this, with the weight of the aeroplane, acting as a counter-balance.