Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, Parts I and II: Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Volume 27 Number 3, Publication 1948, 1911Langley, S. P. (Samuel Pierpont)
History
Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, Parts I and II: Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Volume 27 Number 3, Publication 1948, 1911
Langley, S. P. (Samuel Pierpont)
Aeronautics; Flight
“3. What is the effect of pressure on the aeolipile tank, or in
how far does the steam generated depend on what may be called the
pressure of the flame? This is also an important point which remains
for quantitative solution. It can be approached in two ways: either
by finding the steam evaporated in terms of the tank pressure, or by
finding the temperature of the flame pyrometrically.
“4. What speed of water circulation best conduces to steam
generation? A good pump is now installed by which the circulation
can be varied. If water can be put into the boiler just fast enough
to come out dry steam at the other end, the efficiency ought to be
a maximum, but it does not follow that it will be so, for one can
imagine a wet circulation sponging up more heat than one which is
just dry at the end.”
1895
During January and February, 1895, the experiments with boilers and
burners were continued and even better and more uniform results than
those given above were obtained. The boilers of Aerodrome No. 5 were
finally brought to such a state of efficiency, that under favorable
conditions a lift of nearly sixty per cent of the flying weight was
secured. This was much more than was required for flight, but it was
decided to postpone the trials until No. 4 could also be made ready
for a test and the frame of No. 5 could itself be strengthened in
many weak places.
Upon examining No. 4, which had been put aside since the trials in
December, it was found to have rusted so badly throughout and to be
so unfit in every way for trial, that a complete reconstruction of
the whole would be necessary. So many advantages had been gained in
No. 5 by the double midrod type of construction that it was decided
to rebuild No. 4 on a modification of the same plan, as shown in
Plate 11, retaining, however, the same engines which had been used
before.
In this a very guarded return was made to the type which had proved
so unsatisfactory in No. 0, that is, making the hull support rods at
the front and rear for attaching the wings and tail. In this case,
however, the hull was constructed very rigidly, and the tubes at the
front and rear were firmly attached and braced so that they could
withstand a considerable strain without undue distortion. The work on
this frame was completed in March, but the other parts were not in
entirely efficient condition even in May, when the aerodromes were
taken to Quantico for trial. Moreover, it was found that the weight
of this aerodrome had increased far beyond the original estimates.
[p076]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account