On this day, one hundred years ago, the French watched the first airplane to take-off by its own means.

A toast to Santos-Dumont!

__________________
If you're careful enough, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you.

Interesting that they consider a rail system to be a launch aide...

Well, a rail can stabilize the aircraft on take off (and that´s why the Wrght bros. used it) , so I think it can be deemed an aide. The 14-bis used to be more like a modern plane in that sense.

__________________
If you're careful enough, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you.

I'm not certain, but I think wheels do the same thing.

However, a rail is more appropriately thought of as a "skinny runway." In the days of trains and lack of paved roads, a rail just made more sense than a runway.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol. A human.

Whoever says "perception is reality" is daft. It's merely an abstraction, and often not a very good one.

They were most concerned with bumps. exagerated vertical acceleration on such delicate structures could have nasty consequences.
I talked with some of the guys at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome out in the Catskills
in New York. They actually fly an Bleriot, but are loathe to make a circuit of the
area, and as such get the lovely thing off the ground about 20 feet and settle gently back down. They did, once, make a circuit, and it was so underpowered and in danger of stalling and overheating, the pilot genuinly feared for his life,
especially when he tried to negotiate a mild turn. They do, in fact, have a sort of copy of the "Demoiselle" which Santos Dumont flew, although it has the advantage of a 65 horsepower Continental, and flys quite well indeed. The pilot is, however, situated in murderous proximity to the propeller. That will get your attention. Santos Dumont freely gave his aeronautical design for the "Demoiselle" to the world.Of course, it would only carry Him,alone.
Also, remember that
Alberto Santo Dumont, a briliant young Brazilian, wheighed only about 85 pounds. An advantage when utilizing the earliest powerplants of the time,
converted motorcycle engines like the 3 cyclinder anzani. Still, it beats eating castor oil from a rotary, if you like that sort of thing!!
" You see, no one rides Shadowfax. He is willing to carry you,.......or not. "

Well, yeah, people talk about the take-off but rarely mention that the [14-bis] landing was pretty bumpy, getting to break the [first ever] "landing gear".

You have a point here.

__________________
If you're careful enough, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you.

Hi Argos, I like your quote about the Heinekens and last night!!!
By the way; if you saw that movie..." Those magnificent men and their
Flying Machines ", you perhaps remember one of the aircraft with a little guy sitting quite near and above the landing gear axle and jus behind the propeller.
That is, in fact, a "demoiselle". Cute little thing, and today would qualify as
an "Ultralight" aircraft. It had an unusual tail empenage in that the whole assembly pivoted on the tail end of the fuselage. Quite inovative for it's time.
A true "Flying Tail ", and, no doubt, qute effective for a slow, low powered
craft such as this, and well suited to in-flight triming.
By the way: here's my suggestion for a "Flying Motorcycle" capable of doing 175 kts. airborne, 1000 mile range, with a separate ground engine.
Worth a look. Your opinion is appreciated. It follows here:


Hi, New to this forum. Interesting site.
May I say that I have been following this particular subject for some time.
After many years of design work, I shall say that the only things required for
the advance of roadable aircraft are a "reasonable" aproach by government,both state and federal, in regard to experimental aircraft.
One of the first approaches to an affordable roadable aircraft will be a
flying motorcycle. The reason for this is that once you call something a "Car",
you open a can of worms with regard to regulation. My design offers a reasonable and practical work around. The three wheeled motorcycle.
Itwill be a two passenger, tandem seating (one front, one back) section of
fuselage similar to a sail plane, with a bubble top canopy, and having
"TWO WHEELS IN FRONT" and a single rear drive wheel. This is a stable road configuration, as opposed to the single front wheel which can easily roll over in a turn, especially a braking turn. This fact considered, shall we look at the flying configuration. This part is a well known and applauded design plan
by Burt Rutan called a "Long - EZ" . This has been flying for well over 20 years and is a superb flying platform, stable, efficient, stall resistant and having an
excellent glide ratio , being one of the more slipery designs out there. Just go to Oshkosh for the fly-in , and you will see these aircraft in surprising numbers, and they are all hand built. One of the interesting things about the design is that the main wing spar which carries 90 % of the load is located
behind the rear seat. This most interesting feature allows for the convenient
sectioning of the forward fuselage from the mail wing-landing gear-engine-
propeller-fuel tanks section which I shall call the "flying package".
This also includes the forward wing, known as the "Cannard" wing, which is removed and stays with the flying package. Don't be afraid. Sailplanes take the wing off each day with a couple of secured bolts. Part of a good design.
The landing gear remains fixed, for economy and simplicity,although there are many examples of canard aircraft with the luxury of retractable gear.
You can gain another 20 knots or so. But....you're going to PAY!!!
The forward landing gear is a single retractable nose wheel, light and simple
which retracts with a hand lever. The "Road Wheels" do "Road Work". This is important in design considerations. Aircraft wheels are light, thin, and have no tread, and work marvelously as aircraft wheels. They are not welcomed on the street or highway and do not last in that purpose. They are thin. Simple.
Do not use aircraft tires on the road. Instead, we have a situation where
when on the parking tarmac, we secure the wing in it's tie-down configuration
and then deploy a rear support strut, just under the engine support. This will bear much of the weight ( nearly as much as the road vehicle ) and keep the flying package from tilting over backwards , and pranging an expensive propeller. I should perhaps mention that we don't ever want to go down the street with expensive and delicate aircraft parts and compete with trucks,
suv's and $50 cars with bad drivers. My design leaves all of this at the airport, and it is through this rational approach that we will agin have need of and praise our local airport. You will never have a situation where you land on highways and streets. This is non-sense and shall never be accepted by the majority. I am not opposed to emergency utilization of highways for landing and....there are ways to do this safely. Ask me later.
Now, as to the road vehicle. As the aircraft sits at tie-down, with the support strut in place, we can deploy the front suspension. This is a Sikorsky design (circa 1930 ) and well proven as anyone who has seen a catalina flying boat or an F8 Crusader . The fuselage covers for the wheels are removed and the wheels come out, and with the aid of a small speed wrench (a crank )
the weight of the road assembly is recieved.... a "Pre-loading" of the suspension. The covers that come off are then secured back onto the body and serve as fenders (it pleases the DOT to have fenders and sort of protects the canopy.) Clever design.
Next, the rear drive wheel is deployed by the speed wrench, allowing it to touch ground and pre-load the weight of the road vehicle.Now, we can release the electical (multi-pin amphenol connector) and flex tubing for the Pitot tube ( air speed indicator..you see.) The mechanical connections for flaps, elevons rudders,brakes,throttle,mixture control etc are touch-based mechanical designs, thought out long ago by such visionaries as Molt Taylor.
It's not rocket science,folks. A high school kid can do it. This would be all possible in about ten minutes or less. And perhaps taking more time for re-assembly for pre-flight. Still with me? Now, we can remove the four bolts and securing pins , and separate road vehicle . The road vehicle is powered by a "separate engine". After all, aircraft engines are somewhat expensive, although there are some extraordinary designs for automotive engines with forged crank shafts , different cams, and of course a cog-belt reduction gear to reduce propeller RPM from that of the V-8...usually from
4100 rpm down to 2150 where the propeller is most efficient. This has been done, and is done every day. They even have a 3 litre Subaru flying.
The point is that it is fool hardy to waste the flying hours that you get out of a 25,000 dollar aircraft engine on road travel, when we can get an inexpensive 2 cycle motor cycle enge to do the job much better, with popular parts anywhere, and other advantages.
The canard wing (as mentioned before) is removed with two bolts and securing pins, and is secured to the wing. All of the expensive stuff stays at the flying field. Simple. Don't expose your aircraft to the street.
The road vehicle is simple, light enough and ,if necessary, replacable.
The fuselage,in fact has been proven to enjoy a better than 30 MPH crash rating. Substantially better than a bare motocycle in which YOU are
"The Roll Cage". In performance, I should be satisfied with a road speed of 60 MPH, and reasonable braking performance.
The aircraft is flown with a side-arm stick, and doesn't interfere at all with the steering wheel. Brake pedal is above the rudder pedal on the right, and the clutch is above the left. And if you can't drive stick, you have no business flying. Now...... is this for "Everyone" ???? Well, certainly not for those with a reckless driving record. The "Privilige" flying any aircraft remains with those who prove themselves competent to earn an aviation licence, and justly so. What has kept the general public from embracing general aviation untill now has been the extraordinary costs (defrayed by home building),
The difficulties of navigation ( now demystified by the advantages and miniaturization of GPS navigation, and glass cockpit displays enabling you to land in the fog anywhere...it's already here.)
The required talent in sculpting an laminar air-flow wing from polyfoam ,s-glass and epoxy rein and graphite fibre...(this can be satisfied by a manufacturer in an autoclave ( a heated mold which produces a perfect wing
in hours ,not months...Perfect! )
And the will and confidence to fly. This has been satidfied under your nose by a generation of kids who can fly an helicoptor on their computer screen at the age of twelve. Yes...things have changed....a little bit.
What do we need??????
Federal and state co-operation.
And perhaps, a sort of race. Really.. a competition.
All forms of racing have reched the envelope. Formula One, Nascar, NHRA
Drags, USSC, unlimited air racing....you name them. They are all "Aberation of transportation" and presently do little for the advancement of our own transportation . But let's consider:
A race between point A and B on the road with two people on board and a modest payload....say a bag of golf clubs and an overnight case for each person. Extra grand prix points for payload. Upon reaching point B, the vehicle
prepares for flight. No speed required here. Half hour should be reasonable.
No pit crew allowed or required. Then , a tech inspection....half hour.
Then, pre-flight and to point C, for instance, Barnestable,Cape Cod to
Nantucket; land, re-set as a road vehicle, go to town and get a tee shirt and a hamburger, and return, reconfigure for flight, fly to Provincetown,fuel up,stretch your legs and return to Barnestable. Now, THERE is a competition I should like to see on ESPN!!! After 5 years of competition, we shall have isolated a design worthy of production "As A Kit ", so as to make the idea affordable and possible. A kit could be made for under 15,000 dollars, and then powered how so ever you can afford. As of today, our GA fleet is getting so long in the tooth that we are on the point of replacing half of them anyway, and we haven't even mentioned the corrosion problems associated with alluminum skinned aircraft. By the way; fibre glass and epoxy aircraft don't rust.
Typical performance charactaristic for such aircraft are :
Take-off velocity----60 knts
landing vel -- 55
cruise vel --- 160kts and better
top vel --- 190 and better
range --- 800 NM and better ( just how long do you want to sit in one place anyway).
Glide ratio ---10 to 1 and better, which means that, unlike some of the hair brained ideas lately, this aircraft, in an engine-out situation can linger in the air a damned sight longer than most anything else out there, and for me, a keen consideration in anything I should fly. I dislike copters...too many disposable parts.

Well, thank you for your patience and persistence in reading my essay.
If I find time, I shall certainly read your replies, and if possible answer your
questions as best as I can.
May you find this at least....interesting, and perhaps, one day inspiring.
Yours, in the interest of aviation , Dan Bessett

Well, the specifications for the aircraft look interesting [though there seems to be a whole other can of worms when you say "aircraft".]. Any blue print available?

With regards.

__________________
If you're careful enough, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you.

HI, Send me an e-mail with postal address and I'll send you a few drawings for your perusal. Aircraft definitely possible. Many inovations have pushed the envelope. Leaning trikes. Glass cockpits(instrumentation, nav dispays etc)
powerplants, materials , etc. Quite interesting.

Your input is welcomed. Best regards, Dan

Thanks very much for your kind offer. See your inbox.

I´m preparing some comments on the "Demoiselle" and I´ll put it here as soon as I´m finished.

Regards.

__________________
If you're careful enough, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you.

I once saw something very similar to what you describe. It was a ram-air inflated wing that folded into a narrow profile for cruising the streets, but unfolded into a wing when you wanted to take off. Worm gear driven off an electric motor.

For propulsion it had a rear propellor activated via a PTO-like connection to the drive shaft (powered either the rear axel or the propellor, not both)

However, I think I'll just stick to ultralights. I flew a Quicksilver MX back in 1988 - loads of fun.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol. A human.

Whoever says "perception is reality" is daft. It's merely an abstraction, and often not a very good one.

Hi Mugs, I think ultralights are great fun, and substantially less money than
genuine "General Aviation" aircraft. But you have a severely limited envelope of operation, owing to the low power, and difficulties in making progress up wind
. 40 MPH through the air...but 4 mph across land...that sort of thing.
But it's gloroius when things are calm. It opens doors to those who would otherwise not have the opportunity to fly.
I maintain that you can fly , as well as bring your ground transport with you for less than the cost of a BMW. The answer is in the home built movement, and a focus on the advantages of modern materials and technology.
Best regards, Dan

It's entirely conceivable that one could custom-build a 100 mph airplane, including instruments, for less than $20,000.

However, 40-year-old old Cessna 150s can be had for about the same, and with a little TLC, can last you another 40 years.

I was in Garmisch a few weekends ago where I took a lot of video of some other really neet form of flying - foot-launch paragliding! I was amazed at how efficient these airfoils really are, and the people who were launching themselves from the top of the mountain looked like they were having a blast!

If I were going to build my own, I'd probably pick either the Pulsar 150 or the Velocity

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol. A human.

Whoever says "perception is reality" is daft. It's merely an abstraction, and often not a very good one.

HI, Imagine a Velocity which reconfigures as a three wheeled motorcycle .
Not impossible, and highly desirable.
Best regards, Dan
By the way: Take a look at my thread on three wheeled flying motorcycles.
Your opinion is welcomed. Thank You.

For American readers, I found out this morning that PBS Nova will be about
Albert Santos-Dumont tomorrow night. Sounds interesting.

I would appreciate some comments from those watching the show. The program profile reads:notes how the innovative experimenter began to suffer depression when he saw planes being used for military purposes leading him to eventually take his own life.

This has been debunked long ago. Santos-Dumont´s suicide had a more down-to-earth motive. In fact he was displeased seeing people making money out of his inventions [the bottom line is that he was a depressive guy, and for such people anything is a good reason for doing anything]. As to astronomy, Santos-Dumont ahs a very modest record. He was a supersticious guy, and that kind of people never go far when it comes to astronomy.

I´m also curious about the show´s title "Wings of Madness".

__________________
If you're careful enough, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you.

I watched the show last night. It was very favorable to Santos-Dumont, as it should've been. He was an amazing man and a true pioneer of aviation, both lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air. I especially enjoyed seeing the replica of his historic 14 bis fly.

As to his death in 1931 (I think that was the year), he was seriously injured in a flying accident in 1910 and never flew again. He underwent many years of medical treatment. Depression is very common in cases like his. Whether he hanged himself because he was upset people were using airplanes for war (based on comments he reportedly muttered while in an elevator just before he committed suicide) or for some other reason is immaterial, IMO.

Regardless of the reason for his suicide, Santos-Dumont was an aeronautical genius. It's a shame his name and accomplishments aren't more widely known. Brazile (and France) can be very proud of him.

Thanks for the report Larry.

The cause of the suicide is important because it is used down here to perpetuate the notion that SD was the sole inventor of the airplane. When people say that "he died because of the misuse of his invention", the truth is being smothered.

He died in 1932, and his displeasure seeing the "bad" use of the airplane refers to the Brazilian 1932 constitutional revolution, when airplanes piloted by Brazilians were used to kill Brazilians.

__________________
If you're careful enough, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you.