Construction and Operation
U >>
Unknown >> Construction and Operation
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 | 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13
This weight of less than 100 pounds, it must be
remembered, is not for the motor alone; it includes the
entire power plant equipment.
The "thrust" of the propeller is also extraordinary,
being between 250 and 260 pounds. The force of the
wind displacement is strong enough to knock down a
good-sized boy as one youngster ascertained when he
got behind the propeller as it was being tested. He
was not only knocked down but driven for some distance
away from the machine. The propeller has four
blades which are but little wider than a lath.
Machine Built by Students.
Students at the University of Pennsylvania, headed by
Laurence J. Lesh, a protege of Octave Chanute, have
constructed a practical aeroplane of ordinary maximum
size, in which is incorporated many new ideas. The
most unique of these is to be found in the steering gear,
and the provision made for the accommodation of a
pupil while taking lessons under an experienced aviator.
Immediately back of the aviator is an extra seat and
an extra steering wheel which works in tandem style
with the front wheel. By this arrangement a beginner
may be easily and quickly taught to have perfect control
of the machine. These tandem wheels are also
handy for passengers who may wish to operate the car
independently of one another, it being understood, of
course, that there will be no conflict of action.
Frame Size and Engine Power.
The frame has 36 feet spread and measures 35 feet
from the front edge to the end of the tail in the rear. It
is equipped with two rear propellers operated by a Ramsey
8-cylinder motor of 50 horsepower, placed horizontally
across the lower plane, with the crank shaft running
clear through the engine.
The "Pennsylvania I" is the first two-propeller biplane
chainless car, this scheme having been adopted in order
to avoid the crossing of chains. The lateral control is
by a new invention by Octave Chanute and Laurence J.
Lesh, for which Lesh is now applying for a patent. The
device was worked out before the Wright brothers' suit
was begun, and is said to be superior to the Wright
warping or the Curtiss ailerons. The landing device is
also new in design. This aeroplane will weigh about
1,500 pounds, and will carry fuel for a flight of 150 miles,
and it is expected to attain a speed of at least 45 miles
an hour.
There are others, lots of them, too numerous in fact
to admit of mention in a book of this size.
CHAPTER XVIII.
DEMAND FOR FLYING MACHINES.
As a commercial proposition the manufacture and sale
of motor-equipped aeroplanes is making much more
rapid advance than at first obtained in the similar
handling of the automobile. Great, and even phenomenal,
as was the commercial development of the motor
car, that of the flying machine is even greater. This is
a startling statement, but it is fully warranted by the
facts.
It is barely more than a year ago (1909) that attention
was seriously attracted to the motor-equipped aeroplane
as a vehicle possible of manipulation by others
than professional aviators. Up to that time such actual
flights as were made were almost exclusively with the
sole purpose of demonstrating the practicability of the
machine, and the merits of the ideas as to shape, engine
power, etc., of the various producers.
Results of Bleriot's Daring.
It was not until Bleriot flew across the straits of
Dover on July 25th, 1909, that the general public awoke
to a full realization of the fact that it was possible for
others than professional aviators to indulge in aviation.
Bleriot's feat was accepted as proof that at last an
absolutely new means of sport, pleasure and research,
had been practically developed, and was within the
reach of all who had the inclination, nerve and financial
means to adopt it.
From this event may be dated the birth of the modern
flying machine into the world of business. The automobile
was taken up by the general public from the
very start because it was a proposition comparatively
easy of demonstration. There was nothing mysterious
or uncanny in the fact that a wheeled vehicle could be
propelled on solid, substantial roads by means of engine
power. And yet it took (comparatively speaking) a long
time to really popularize the motor car.
Wonderful Results in a Year.
Men of large financial means engaged in the manufacture
of automobiles, and expended fortunes in attracting
public attention to them through the medium of
advertisements, speed and road contests, etc. By these
means a mammoth business has been built up, but bringing
this business to its present proportions required
years of patient industry and indomitable pluck.
At this writing, less than a year from the day when
Bleriot crossed the channel, the actual sales of flying
machines outnumber the actual sales of automobiles in
the first year of their commercial development. This
may appear incredible, but it is a fact as statistics will
show.
In this connection we should take into consideration
the fact that up to a year ago there was no serious intention
of putting flying machines on the market; no
preparations had been made to produce them on a commercial
scale; no money had been expended in advertisements
with a view to selling them.
Some of the Actual Results.
Today flying machines are being produced on a commercial
basis, and there is a big demand for them. The
people making them are overcrowded with orders. Some
of the producers are already making arrangements to
enlarge their plants and advertise their product for sale
the same as is being done with automobiles, while a
number of flying machine motor makers are already
promoting the sale of their wares in this way.
Here are a few actual figures of flying machine sales
made by the more prominent producers since July 25th,
1909.
Santos Dumont, 90 machines; Bleriot, 200; Farman,
130; Clemenceau-Wright, 80; Voisin, 100; Antoinette,
100. Many of these orders have been filled by delivery
of the machines, and in others the construction work
is under way.
The foregoing are all of foreign make. In this country
Curtiss and the Wrights are engaged in similar
work, but no actual figures of their output are obtainable.
Larger Plants Are Necessary.
And this situation exists despite the fact that none of
the producers are really equipped with adequate plants
for turning out their machines on a modern, business-
like basis. The demand was so sudden and unexpected
that it found them poorly prepared to meet it. This,
however, is now being remedied by the erection of special
plants, the enlargement of others, and the introduction
of new machinery and other labor-saving conveniences.
Companies, with large capitalization, to engage in the
exclusive production of airships are being organized in
many parts of the world. One notable instance of this
nature is worth quoting as illustrative of the manner
in which the production of flying machines is being
commercialized. This is the formation at Frankfort,
Germany, of the Flugmaschine Wright, G. m. b. H., with
a capital of $119,000, the Krupps, of Essen, being interested.
Prices at Which Machines Sell.
This wonderful demand from the public has come
notwithstanding the fact that the machines, owing to lack
of facilities for wholesale production, are far from being
cheap. Such definite quotations as are made are
on the following basis:
Santos Dumont--List price $1,000, but owing to the
rush of orders agents are readily getting from $1,300 to
$1,500. This is the smallest machine made.
Bleriot--List price $2,500. This is for the cross-
channel type, with Anzani motor.
Antoinette--List price from $4,000 to $5,000, according
to size.
Wright--List price $5,600.
Curtiss--List price $5,000.
There is, however, no stability in prices as purchasers
are almost invariably ready to pay a considerable premium
to facilitate delivery.
The motor is the most expensive part of the flying
machine. Motor prices range from $500 to $2,000, this
latter amount being asked for the Curtiss engine.
Systematic Instruction of Amateurs.
In addition to the production of flying machines many
of the experienced aviators are making a business of
the instruction of amateurs. Curtiss and the Wrights
in this country have a number of pupils, as have also
the prominent foreigners. Schools of instruction are
being opened in various parts of the world, not alone as
private money-making ventures, but in connection with
public educational institutions. One of these latter is
to be found at the University of Barcelona, Spain.
The flying machine agent, the man who handles the
machines on a commission, has also become a known
quantity, and will soon be as numerous as his brother
of the automobile. The sign "John Bird, agent for
Skimmer's Flying Machine," is no longer a curiosity.
Yes, the Airship Is Here.
From all of which we may well infer that the flying
machine in practical form has arrived, and that it is
here to stay. It is no exaggeration to say that the time
is close at hand when people will keep flying machines
just as they now keep automobiles, and that pleasure
jaunts will be fully as numerous and popular. With
the important item of practicability fully demonstrated,
"Come, take a trip in my airship," will have more real
significance than now attaches to the vapid warblings
of the vaudeville vocalist.
As a further evidence that the airship is really here,
and that its presence is recognized in a business way,
the action of life and accident insurance companies is
interesting. Some of them are reconstructing their policies
so as to include a special waiver of insurance by
aviators. Anything which compels these great corporations
to modify their policies cannot be looked upon as
a mere curiosity or toy.
It is some consolation to know that the movement in
this direction is not thus far widespread. Moreover it
is more than probable that the competition for business
will eventually induce the companies to act more
liberally toward aviators, especially as the art of aviation
advances.
CHAPTER XIX.
LAW OF THE AIRSHIP.
Successful aviation has evoked some peculiar things
in the way of legal action and interpretation of the law.
It is well understood that a man's property cannot
be used without his consent. This is an old established
principle in common law which holds good today.
The limits of a man's property lines, however, have
not been so well understood by laymen. According to
eminent legal authorities such as Blackstone, Littleton
and Coke, the "fathers of the law," the owner of realty
also holds title above and below the surface, and this
theory is generally accepted without question by the
courts.
Rights of Property Owners.
In other words the owner of realty also owns the sky
above it without limit as to distance. He can dig as
deep into his land, or go as high into the air as he desires,
provided he does not trespass upon or injure similar
rights of others.
The owner of realty may resist by force, all other
means having failed, any trespass upon, or invasion of
his property. Other people, for instance, may not enter
upon it, or over or under it, without his express permission
and consent. There is only one exception, and
this is in the case of public utility corporations such as
railways which, under the law of eminent domain, may
condemn a right of way across the property of an obstinate owner
who declines to accept a fair price for the
privilege.
Privilege Sharply Confined.
The law of eminent domain may be taken advantage
of only by corporations which are engaged in serving
the public. It is based upon the principle that the
advancement and improvement of a community is of more
importance and carries with it more rights than the
interests of the individual owner. But even in cases where
the right of eminent domain is exercised there can be no
confiscation of the individual's property.
Exercising the right of eminent domain is merely
obtaining by public purchase what is held to be essential
to the public good, and which cannot be secured by private
purchase. When eminent domain proceedings are
resorted to the court appoints appraisers who determine
upon the value of the property wanted, and this value
(in money) is paid to the owner.
How It Affects Aviation.
It should be kept in mind that this privilege of the
"right of eminent domain" is accorded only to corporations
which are engaged in serving the public. Individuals
cannot take advantage of it. Thus far all aviation
has been conducted by individuals; there are no flying
machine or airship corporations regularly engaged in the
transportation of passengers, mails or freight.
This leads up to the question "What would happen if
realty owners generally, or in any considerable numbers.
should prohibit the navigation of the air above their
holdings?" It is idle to say such a possibility is ridiculous--
it is already an actuality in a few individual instances.
One property owner in New Jersey, a justice of the
peace, maintains a large sign on the roof of his house
warning aviators that they must not trespass upon his
domain. That he is acting well within his rights in doing
this is conceded by legal authorities.
Hard to Catch Offenders.
But, suppose the alleged trespass is committed, what
is the property owner going to do about it? He must
first catch the trespasser and this would be a pretty hard
job. He certainly could not overtake him, unless he
kept a racing aeroplane for this special purpose. It
would be equally difficult to indentify the offender after
the offense had been committed, even if he were located,
as aeroplanes carry no license numbers.
Allowing that the offender should be caught the only
recourse of the realty owner is an action for damages.
He may prevent the commission of the offense by force
if necessary, but after it is committed he can only sue
for damages. And in doing this he would have a lot of
trouble.
Points to Be Proven.
One of the first things the plaintiff would be called
upon to prove would be the elevation of the machine.
If it were reasonably close to the ground there would,
of course, be grave risk of damage to fences, shrubbery,
and other property, and the court would be justified in
holding it to be a nuisance that should be suppressed.
If, on the other hand; the machine was well up in the
air, but going slowly, or hovering over the plaintiff's
property, the court might be inclined to rule that it
could not possibly be a nuisance, but right here the court
would be in serious embarrassment. By deciding that
it was not a nuisance he would virtually override the
law against invasion of a man's property without his
consent regardless of the nature of the invasion. By
the same decision he would also say in effect that, if one
flying machine could do this a dozen or more would
have equal right to do the same thing. While one machine
hovering over a certain piece of property may be
no actual nuisance a dozen or more in the same position
could hardly be excused.
Difficult to Fix Damages.
Such a condition would tend to greatly increase the
risk of accident, either through collision, or by the
carelessness
of the aviators in dropping articles which might
cause damages to the people or property below. In
such a case it would undoubtedly be a nuisance, and
in addition to a fine, the offender would also be liable
for the damages.
Taking it for granted that no actual damage is done,
and the owner merely sues on account of the invasion
of his property, how is the amount of compensation to
be fixed upon? The owner has lost nothing; no part of
his possessions has been taken away; nothing has been
injured or destroyed; everything is left in exactly the
same condition as before the invasion. And yet, if the
law is strictly interpreted, the offender is liable.
Right of Way for Airships.
Somebody has suggested the organization of flying-
machine corporations as common carriers, which would
give them the right of eminent domain with power to
condemn a right of way. But what would they condemn?
There is nothing tangible in the air. Railways
in condemning a right of way specify tangible property
(realty) within certain limits. How would an aviator
designate any particular right of way through the air
a certain number of feet in width, and a certain distance
from the ground?
And yet, should the higher courts hold to the letter
of the law and decide that aviators have no right to
navigate their craft over private property, something
will have to be done to get them out of the dilemma, as
aviation is too far advanced to be discarded. Fortunately
there is little prospect of any widespread antagonism
among property owners so long as aviators refrain
from making nuisances of themselves.
Possible Solution Offered.
One possible solution is offered and that is to confine
the path of airships to the public highways so that nobody's
property rights would be invaded. In addition,
as a matter of promoting safety for both operators and
those who may happen to be beneath the airships as
they pass over a course, adoption of the French rules
are suggested. These are as follows:
Aeroplanes, when passing, must keep to the right, and
pass at a distance of at least 150 feet. They are free
from this rule when flying at altitudes of more than 100
feet. Every machine when flying at night or during
foggy weather must carry a green light on the right,
and a red light on the left, and a white headlight on the
front.
These are sensible rules, but may be improved upon
by the addition of a signal system of some kind, either
horn, whistle or bell.
Responsibility of Aviators.
Mr. Jay Carver Bossard, in recent numbers of _Fly_,
brings out some curious and interesting legal points in
connection with aviation, among which are the following:
"Private parties who possess aerial craft, and desire
to operate the same in aerial territory other than their
own, must obtain from land owners special permission
to do so, such permission to be granted only by agreement,
founded upon a valid consideration. Otherwise,
passing over another's land will in each instance amount
to a trespass.
"Leaving this highly technical side of the question,
let us turn to another view: the criminal and tort liability
of owners and operators to airship passengers. If
A invites B to make an ascension with him in his machine,
and B, knowing that A is merely an enthusiastic
amateur and far from being an expert, accepts and is
through A's innocent negligence injured, he has no
grounds for recovery. But if A contracts with B, to
transport him from one place to another, for a consideration,
and B is injured by the poor piloting of A,
A would be liable to B for damages which would result.
Now in order to safeguard such people as B, curious to
the point of recklessness, the law will have to require
all airship operators to have a license, and to secure
this license airship pilots will have to meet certain
requirements. Here again is a question. Who is going
to say whether an applicant is competent to pilot a balloon
or airship?
Fine for an Aeronaut.
"An aeroplane while maneuvering is suddenly caught
by a treacherous gale and swept to the ground. A crowd
of people hasten over to see if the aeronaut is injured,
and in doing so trample over Tax-payer Smith's garden,
much to the detriment of his growing vegetables and
flowers. Who is liable for the damages? Queer as it
may seem, a case very similar to this was decided in
1823, in the New York supreme court, and it was held
that the aeronaut was liable upon the following grounds:
'To render one man liable in trespass for the acts of
others, it must appear either that they acted in concert,
or that the act of the one, ordinarily and naturally produced
the acts of the others, Ascending in a balloon is
not an unlawful act, but it is certain that the aeronaut
has no control over its motion horizontally, but is at
the sport of the wind, and is to descend when and how
he can. His reaching the earth is a matter of hazard.
If his descent would according to the circumstances
draw a crowd of people around him, either out of curiosity,
or for the purpose of rescuing him from a perilous
situation, all this he ought to have foreseen, and must be
responsible for.'
Air Not Really Free.
"The general belief among people is, that the air is
free. Not only free to breathe and enjoy, but free to
travel in, and that no one has any definite jurisdiction
over, or in any part of it. Now suppose this were made a
legal doctrine. Would a murder perpetrated above the
clouds have to go unpunished? Undoubtedly. For felonies
committed upon the high seas ample provision is
made for their punishment, but new provisions will have
to be made for crimes committed in the air.
Relations of Owner and Employee.
"It is a general rule of law that a master is bound to
provide reasonably safe tools, appliances and machines
for his servant. How this rule is going to be applied
in cases of aeroplanes, remains to be seen. The aeroplane
owner who hires a professional aeronaut, that is,
one who has qualified as an expert, owes him very little
legal duty to supply him with a perfect aeroplane. The
expert is supposed to know as much regarding the machine
as the owner, if not more, and his acceptance of
his position relieves the owner from liability. When
the owner hires an amateur aeronaut to run the aeroplane, and
teaches him how to manipulate it, even though
the prescribed manner of manipulation will make flight
safe, nevertheless if the machine is visibly defective, or
known to be so, any injury which results to the aeronaut
the owner is liable for.
As to Aeroplane Contracts.
"At the present time there are many orders being
placed with aeroplane manufacturing companies. There
are some unique questions to be raised here under the
law of contract. It is an elementary principle of law
that no one can be compelled to complete a contract
which in itself is impossible to perform. For instance,
a contract to row a boat across the Atlantic in two
weeks, for a consideration, could never be enforced because
it is within judicial knowledge that such an undertaking
is beyond human power. Again, contracts formed
for the doing of acts contrary to nature are never
enforcible, and here is where our difficulty comes in. Is
it possible to build a machine or species of craft which
will transport a person or goods through the air? The
courts know that balloons are practical; that is, they
know that a bag filled with gas has a lifting power and
can move through the air at an appreciable height.
Therefore, a contract to transport a person in such manner
is a good contract, and the conditions being favorable
could undoubtedly be enforced. But the passengers'
right of action for injury would be very limited.
No Redress for Purchasers.
"In the case of giving warranties on aeroplanes, we
have yet to see just what a court is going to say. It is
easy enough for a manufacturer to guarantee to build a
machine of certain dimensions and according to certain
specifications, but when he inserts a clause in the contract to
the effect that the machine will raise itself from
the surface of the earth, defy the laws of gravity, and
soar in the heavens at the will of the aviator, he is to
say the least contracting to perform a miracle.
"Until aeroplanes have been made and accepted as
practical, no court will force a manufacturer to turn out
a machine guaranteed to fly. So purchasers can well
remember that if their machines refuse to fly they have
no redress against the maker, for he can always say,
'The industry is still in its experimental stage.' In
contracting for an engine no builder will guarantee that
the particular engine will successfully operate the aeroplane.
In fact he could never be forced to live up to
such an agreement, should he agree to a stipulation of
that sort. The best any engine maker will guarantee
is to build an engine according to specifications."
CHAPTER XX.
SOARING FLIGHT.
By Octave Chanute.
[5]There is a wonderful performance daily exhibited in
southern climes and occasionally seen in northerly
latitudes in summer, which has never been thoroughly
explained. It is the soaring or sailing flight of certain
varieties of large birds who transport themselves on rigid,
unflapping wings in any desired direction; who in winds
of 6 to 20 miles per hour, circle, rise, advance, return and
remain aloft for hours without a beat of wing, save for
getting under way or convenience in various maneuvers.
They appear to obtain from the wind alone all the necessary
energy, even to advancing dead against that wind.
This feat is so much opposed to our general ideas of
physics that those who have not seen it sometimes deny
its actuality, and those who have only occasionally
witnessed it subsequently doubt the evidence of their own
eyes. Others, who have seen the exceptional performances,
speculate on various explanations, but the majority
give it up as a sort of "negative gravity."
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 | 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13