Natural Stability And The Parachute Principle In Aeroplanes Part 1

Natural Stability and the Parachute Principle in Aeroplanes.

by W. LeMaitre.

PREFACE

Since there is nothing new under the sun, it is useless to pretend that there is anything new in the design here advocated or the theories advanced. Both are rather the result of a commonsense consideration of the different points of all flying machines, natural and artificial, and an endeavour to select from the great number of good points those which seem most likely to blend together into a practical machine. The conclusions reached are the result of a quite independent investigation, carried on over three years by means of numberless experiments, and the writer has endeavoured to make no single statement which he cannot by some experiment amply prove.

NATURAL STABILITY IN AEROPLANES

CHAPTER I.

THE IMPORTANCE OF STABILITY.

In considering the whole question of aviation, it becomes evident that the one point to strive for at the present juncture is stability. If we are ever to have a practical flying machine, that is, a machine which we can use as we do a yacht, a motor car, or a bicycle, it must be one that we can trust to keep its balance by reason of the natural forces embodied in it, and without any effort of control on the part of the pilot. It may be objected that a bicycle does not do this, and this is true, but, on the other hand, the upsetting of a bicycle is a very small matter, whereas the tilting of an aeroplane mostly means sudden death to its occupant, and it is probable that if the same consequences followed the tilting of a bicycle, bicycles would soon have been made with four wheels.

At present aeroplanes are the most unstable of all things. The least gust, the least s.h.i.+fting of weight, the slightest difference in the density of the strata of the supporting air, and the machine sways, and if not instantly corrected by the pilot the sway becomes a tilt, the tilt a dive, and the rest is silence. The first aeroplanes, the Wrights' for instance, were so unstable that twenty minutes in one of them was as much as the most iron-nerved man could stand, the continual strain being too exhausting to keep up for any length of time. By throwing out extensions and outriggers in all directions we have altered that to a certain extent, but only to an extent--we have not yet got rid of it. The monoplane is probably the most unstable, as might be expected from its smaller surface, but the bi-plane runs it pretty closely.

And the difficulty seems to arise chiefly from the fact that the machines are built round the propeller. In the case of a yacht or a car, the machine is built first and the propelling means is fitted on as an auxiliary. The consequence is that an aeroplane which is safe enough while the propeller is exerting a tractive force of some 250 lbs., becomes, the moment this power is for any reason stopped, merely a shapeless construction at the mercy of the wind and the force of gravitation. It is true that most machines may be made to glide if the pilot is clever enough and quick enough to steer them into the proper gliding angle, but the machine that will naturally and by reason of its design a.s.sume its proper gliding angle when the propelling force is withdrawn, has not yet been built.

Such a machine would have "Natural Stability."

It will be recognized that this natural stability, which depends on the design of the machine, is something entirely different from "automatic stability" of which there are many systems, all having this one defect; that, depending upon working devices, movable planes, gyroscopes, compensating balancers, pendulums, etc., they are all liable to go wrong and refuse to act the moment a sudden strain makes their perfect action most important.

Considering that the propeller is the only means the aeroplane has of keeping in the air at all, the question arises: Is it possible to design a machine that will be stable to the extent of descending safely when the propeller stops, and that will yet be a good and speedy flyer?

That is the problem we have to solve.

CHAPTER II.

SPEED AS A MEANS OF STABILITY.

It is recognized on all hands that speed is a great factor in the problem of stability. To begin with, a machine going at high speed would be practically untouched by gusts of wind, different densities of air strata, holes in the air, etc. Also its greater momentum would tend to keep it in a straight line, not only relative to its course but also relative to itself. That is to say, its wings being started in a horizontal plane, would tend to keep in the same plane and would not easily tilt or sway out of it. Both these effects of natural law show that a high speed machine must be more stable than a low speed machine. How then are we to design a high speed machine?

Leaving aside the question of higher power, the first point that suggests itself is to lessen the head resistance. All fast things, boats, birds, arrows, even motor-cars, are made long and narrow. It will be objected that a bird with its wings outspread is not long and narrow, but in the sense in which this ill.u.s.tration is meant, the bird's wings, being merely its propelling apparatus, do not count, and when the bird is at its fastest, as in the swoop of a hawk or an eagle, the wings are shut tightly to the body so as to offer no resistance to its lightning pa.s.sage through the air. If we are to follow previous experience in Nature's laws, our aeroplanes must be considerably reduced in span. To drive through the air at a high speed with a machine of 40 foot span is a practical impossibility, both because of the tremendous power it would require and also by reason of the great strength the plane must have to withstand the resistance of the air.

In reducing the span, however, we reduce the lifting surface of the machine. But on the other hand it must be remembered that the lifting efficiency is increased by increasing the speed. Lift is the product of supporting surface and speed. A small plane driven at a high speed will give as great a lift as a large plane driven at a low speed.

Speed, again, is the difference between the propelling power and the head resistance, and we can increase the speed by decreasing the resistance. It follows, then, that we need not necessarily give up lifting power by reducing the span of the wings, since the shorter span gives greater speed, and the increase of efficiency by reason of the greater speed would go to make up for the loss of span.

It is, then, quite possible to design a short span machine which shall be as efficient for lift as a long span machine, and which will have the advantage of possessing, by reason of its speed, much greater stability.

But the span is not the only factor in the speed problem. In the low speed machines at present in use we have found it necessary to curve the planes to get greater efficiency. This efficiency is also gained at the expense of head resistance, and it is already recognized that the higher the speed the less is the need of camber. This is the same problem over again. A high speed flat plane will give as much lift as a low speed cambered plane, and we gain in stability with every additional mile per hour.

The third point to be considered in the problem of speed is the resistance caused by the mult.i.tude of struts and wires, the body of the pilot, the tanks, engine, and all the other impedimenta projecting in all directions from the body of the aeroplane. It has occurred to our builders that if the whole of these things could be collected together and enclosed in a light covered-in car of a proper shape, the skin friction of such a car would be much less than the total head resistance offered by the different obstructions so covered. And there is another advantage to be gained here, for if, at 40 miles per hour, the force of the wind is very seriously uncomfortable for the pilot, the position at such speeds as 70 or 100 miles per hour would be quite impossible.

CHAPTER III.

THE LOW CENTRE OF GRAVITY.

The first thing that occurs to the investigator on the subject of stability is that nature offers us a sure means of keeping our machines upright by adopting the simple method of placing all the heavier parts at the bottom. In all other constructions we have adopted this plan with perfect success. In boats, yachts, cars, balloons, everything man uses in fact, the simplest, best and most obvious method of keeping a thing upright is to utilize the force of gravity, place the lighter or supporting parts above and the weight below, and the thing is done.

This simple method of obtaining stability did not escape the aeroplane designers, and we have had several machines which embodied this principle, more or less. Unfortunately, however, they all proved failures. A machine would be designed, and, with the weight high, would fly well, though it was unstable. Put the weight low and you got rid of the instability, and at the same time the machine became unmanageable. It looked as if flying and instability were interchangeable terms. So, as it was a machine that would fly the designers were after, the weight was kept up and the stability was left to the pilot. The machines were made "sensitive" as it is called, that is to say, sensitive to a touch of the rudder or the balancers.

They are also, it is true, equally sensitive to a gust of wind or a slight s.h.i.+fting of weight or pressure, and this has caused the smas.h.i.+ng of a good many machines and some pilots; but after all this is the fortune of war, and no one is compelled to go up in an aeroplane.

The curious thing about it is that it does not seem to have occurred to our designers that if their pet design would not fly with the weight low, perhaps it might be possible to alter the design instead of altering the position of the centre of gravity, and so obtain what we are all looking for, a naturally stable machine that is yet sensitive to control.

There are two chief difficulties in the way of the low centre of gravity machine. One is that the heaviest portion of the machine being some distance below its support, it is apt to give rise to a pendulum or swaying motion. The other is that of tilting, or banking up, in turning a corner. These are really two developments of the same difficulty, i.e. pendulum motion.

If we take a strip of stiff paper to represent a plane and put a small weight in the centre of the plane, the model on being glided to earth does not tend to sway (Fig. 1). If we put our weight on a tiny piece of wire an inch or so below the plane (Fig. 2) and set the model free, it will probably acquire a swinging motion as it descends. That is the whole trouble. The trouble is real enough, but the fallacy is in supposing it to be all the fault of the low centre of gravity. All s.h.i.+ps that were ever designed have a low centre of gravity, yet some roll dreadfully and others do not, which, in itself, should be proof sufficient that it is the design of the machine and not the position of the ballast that is at fault.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 1., FIG. 2. AND FIG. 3.]

Let us now try some experiments. It will be noticed that in the machines which have employed the low centre of gravity the span of the wings has usually been 30 feet or more, and the centre of gravity about 6 feet below the centre. Here is a paper model of the present aeroplane (Fig. 1). Here is the same machine with a low centre of gravity (Fig. 2). Now bend the paper upwards as in Fig. 3 and you get rid of the swaying. Also, of course, you get rid of the supporting surface. But there is probably some point of greatest efficiency where you may compromise. If you take model 2 and bend it slightly (Fig. 4) it will sway, but not much, not so much as Fig. 2. Now with a pair of scissors clip the wings a bit at a time, and you will find that as the span gets shorter the swaying decreases, and that when you have the three points formed by the ends of the two wings and the weight equidistant from the centre where they meet, the plane is stable (Fig.

5). The reason is that it is not the pendulum with the weight at the bottom that swings so much, but the long wings that see-saw. By shortening the wings you have reduced the length of the see-saw, which is the same as reducing the length of the pendulum, and consequently, by pendulum law, the oscillations must be much quicker and shorter and will at once damp out. It is curious that this point seems to have escaped the designers. It is well known that all pendulum motion tends to damp out, and the shorter the pendulum the quicker it comes to rest. Hitherto the idea has been to shorten it vertically, but the same effect exactly is obtained by shortening it horizontally, and the low centre of gravity remains to give stability. It was stated by some sapient objector to the low centre of gravity, that the pendulum motion once set up, increased till it turned the machine over. A pendulum which increased its swing at every stroke would be something new in the scientific world.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 4.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 5.]

Another development of the pendulum difficulty is the probable fore and aft sway, but this may be overcome by increasing the supporting surface of the tail. Many machines do not lift with the tail at all, and those that do employ lifting tails, have them with very small surface. Consequently, the centre of gravity comes nearly under the centre of the main plane, and the whole machine, turning on its centre of gravity in all directions as on a pivot, is liable to swing fore and aft. If the supporting surface of the tail be increased and the centre of gravity carried further aft, this pendulum motion is also rendered impossible, and the machine is stable both ways.

A few ill.u.s.trations may serve to make the advantages of the low centre of gravity more clear, and to avoid complications we will suppose the planes to be still and in still air. Let Fig. 6 represent an ordinary flat plane having its centre of gravity coincident with its centre of pressure, the centre of pressure of each half or wing being at A A.

The plane is in equilibrium. Now allow it to tilt (Fig. 7), and it will be seen that it is still in equilibrium, since the weight is in the centre and the wing tips equidistant from it. Let it tilt still more till it is vertical (Fig. 8), and the balance is still the same.

It is evident, therefore, that such a plane would travel equally well in any of the positions shown, and that it can only be kept in position (Fig. 6) by the skilful manipulation of the pilot.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 6., FIG. 7., AND FIG. 8.]

In the same way, the machine having no lifting tail is longitudinally unstable, for, being balanced on its centre of pressure which would be coincident with its centre of gravity and probably about 2 feet from the trailing edge of the plane--it may a.s.sume any position (Figs. 9, 10, 11 and 12), and still be in equilibrium, when it is evident that the proper position (Fig. 9) is only maintained by the constant control of the tail elevator.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 9., FIG. 10., FIG. 11., FIG. 12., AND FIG. 13.]

Now take the case of a machine having a low centre of gravity. Its natural position is shown at Fig. 13, and it is at once evident that any other position such as Figs. 14 and 15 could not be maintained for a moment, since the weight being at an angle, must inevitably drag the machine back to its natural position (Fig. 13). In the same way with regard to longitudinal balance, a machine with two lifting surfaces such as Fig. 13, is in its natural position with the centre of gravity perpendicularly under the centre of pressure, any other position, such as Fig. 17, A, is impossible, as the gravity pull must drag the machine along the dotted line till it resumes its proper and natural position (B).