On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 10:07:53 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:


It's [the canard] one major ingredient. It seems to have kept them
alive in crashes from altitudes that had killed other pilots.
Other ingredients:

Design of airfoils with the high point closer to
the leading edge. Lilienthal and others had
used circular arcs.


Wow. I wondered where that first originated. The pictures I have of
the Wright's airplanes do not show that aspect of their wing design.
It looks like they kept the wing trim and slim, to reduce drag. But
if they had broadened it a bit it would've reduced the stall problem
even more.

Mike

--------------------

I have an opinion, a 'belief', on the Wright's First Flights. Since
I'm serious about it then some will think it silly. I know that I
have not studied the matter as much as others, but I still think it is
valid. With regard to the aforementioned silliness, my opinion has to
do with mysticism.
The Wright's unusual road to success causes me to wonder _why_ it
happened the way it did. I said it is unusual, but there is only one
part that is, and it is the canard. Everything else they did is,
well, 'logical.' Excepting pure horsepower, I believe it was the
canard that really got flight going.
It would've been logical to put the control surfaces behind the
aircraft, not in front. And to stick with that design. I've read in
this thread where they had engineering reasons, of the mechanical
type. And I've read that there is no known explanation of why they
began with their design. But there are too many aeronautical
examples, having simple reasons, for _not_ putting them where they
did. Just why did they it do that way! I think the question deserves
an exclamation mark.
They seem blinded to the need of stability from the rear. But it
was this blindness that put the canard in place, and actually
_safetened_ the attempt at flight enough so that success could be had.
What I believe is that it was God who blinded the Wright's so they
would do it the way they did. If it was their own intelligence that
solved the launch into the air then I think they would have no problem
seeing a need for the stabilizer in the back, and it would have been
there. The lack of it points strongly at an unusual occurrence. It
points at something they should have seen but incredibly did not. I
believe the lack of that tail feather, as they continued their
flights, was God's mark on that event. Flight, though dangerous (it
can surely kill!), was actually a Gift from God.

Be careful,
Mike