11–20 of 23 posts
The Wright brothers were the original patent trolls and they held up US aviation for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war They would file and stretch their patents to try and cover what others invented.
> The brothers were not the first to try to build a flying machine. They were the first to achieve controlled, powered flight. An overlooked, but crucial, part of their achievement is they developed the first mathematical theory of propellers. It enabled designs that were 90% efficient, about double that of other experimenters. This, of course, nearly doubled the effective horsepower of their engine. This is a major…
Putting the elevator in front does not necessarily lead to instability if you get the geometry right, as Burt Rutan, among many others, has demonstrated [1]. As with the conventional rear stabilizer/elevator combination, part of it must either be fixed or function as if it is fixed by augmentation with centering devices such as springs or balance tabs, and the forward surface must have an angle of incidence greater t…
You're not wrong but nobody knew this in 190x nor could it have been reliably predicted because most of our knowledge about how low pressure gasses flow over surfaces in unconstrained environments (i.e. the atmosphere) comes from aviation which didn't yet exist in 190x.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting the elevator in front does not necessarily lead to instability if you get the geometry right, as Burt Rutan, among many others, has demonstrated [1]. As with the conventional rear stabilizer/elevator combination, part of it must either be fixed or function as if it is fixed by augmentation with centering devices such as springs or balance tabs, and the forward surface must have an angle of incidence greater t…
>Putting the elevator in front does not necessarily lead to instability if you get the geometry right, as Burt Rutan, among many others, has demonstrated [1]. As with the conventional rear stabilizer/elevator combination, part of it must either be fixed or function as if it is fixed by augmentation with centering devices such as springs or balance tabs, and the forward surface must have an angle of incidence greater…
The state of aerodynamics in 190x was more advanced than I suspect you imagine, with Lanchester on the right track in thinking about vorticity. Here's an interesting article on the divide between theorists and practitioners (which the Wrights partially, but not completely, bridged - and the theorists were evidently not all communicating with each other, either), and it also mentions the flawed assumption, of flying being like boating, that I mentioned in my earlier post.
https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4846/fw-lanchester-and-the...
It also shows that Lanchester, regardless of his theoretical chops, was not a successful airplane designer! He comes across as putting too much emphasis on how he thought things should be.
The Wright brothers were the original patent trolls and they held up US aviation for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war They would file and stretch their patents to try and cover what others invented.
This is a disputed claim according to your wikipedia link
> The brothers were not the first to try to build a flying machine. They were the first to achieve controlled, powered flight. An overlooked, but crucial, part of their achievement is they developed the first mathematical theory of propellers. It enabled designs that were 90% efficient, about double that of other experimenters. This, of course, nearly doubled the effective horsepower of their engine. This is a major…
Putting the elevator in front does not necessarily lead to instability if you get the geometry right, as Burt Rutan, among many others, has demonstrated [1]. As with the conventional rear stabilizer/elevator combination, part of it must either be fixed or function as if it is fixed by augmentation with centering devices such as springs or balance tabs, and the forward surface must have an angle of incidence greater t…
The Wrights clearly didn't. Around 1979 a Caltech scientist did a study on it, and determined that the flights of the 1903 Flyer went about as far as they could have due to the instability. At the 100th anniversary, a couple of exacting flying replicas were built, and flew about the same distance.
I'm not sure about this, but the mathematics of stability and control theory had not been invented at the time. These theories were developed alongside electronics.
However, it was still known that one puts the feathers on the back of the arrow, not the front. Just try shooting an arrow with the feathers on the front. It promptly turns around so the feathers are at the back.
The Wright brothers did not create from the void, they copied lots of things from other innovators, specially Otto Liliental, whom they admired a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal This is important because, for example they did not invent ailerons, but blended the wing and constant litigation from their patents block all progress in aviation in the US for a long time because they wanted to take posse…
1. first mathematical propeller theory combining blade element theory with momentum theory, producing 90% efficient propellers
2. first lightweight aviation engine
3. first 3-axis control system
4. first use of wind tunnel to evaluate wing design of area, aspect ratio, airfoil section and tip shape
5. first research and development program using a series of prototypes to test each feature
6. correctly identifying that control was the primary problem
7. correctly identifying that an airplane must bank in order to turn
8. correctly identifying "adverse yaw" and the rudder as solution
The Wright brothers were the original patent trolls and they held up US aviation for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war They would file and stretch their patents to try and cover what others invented.
Edison was not only a patent troll, but was besieged by other patent trolls. He spent much of his career in court defending his patents and trying to overturn others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a disputed claim according to your wikipedia link
It is true!!. A dispute that had no basis. If they had asked reasonable royalties it would have been OK, but they refused to licence many makers - yet they failed to make their own planes in volume for related bad business reasons. Did you read where the early USAF on that era was forced to buy French a dn British planes due to the bad management by the Wrights
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting the elevator in front does not necessarily lead to instability if you get the geometry right, as Burt Rutan, among many others, has demonstrated [1]. As with the conventional rear stabilizer/elevator combination, part of it must either be fixed or function as if it is fixed by augmentation with centering devices such as springs or balance tabs, and the forward surface must have an angle of incidence greater t…
> Putting the elevator in front does not necessarily lead to instability if you get the geometry right The Wrights clearly didn't. Around 1979 a Caltech scientist did a study on it, and determined that the flights of the 1903 Flyer went about as far as they could have due to the instability. At the 100th anniversary, a couple of exacting flying replicas were built, and flew about the same distance. I'm not sure about…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is true!!. A dispute that had no basis. If they had asked reasonable royalties it would have been OK, but they refused to licence many makers - yet they failed to make their own planes in volume for related bad business reasons. Did you read where the early USAF on that era was forced to buy French a dn British planes due to the bad management by the Wrights
Yes, the Wrights were poor businessmen. That does not take away from their great success at flight. They still managed to become wealthy.