Why were the first airplanes “backwards”?Why is the Tu-144 the only commercial airplane with canard configuration?Why did moving the CG aft on the Wright Brother's plane improve handling?Is the location of an aircraft spoiler really that vital?why are there no production canard GA aircraft?Why are the cockpit controls of airplanes so complicated?Why are airplanes riveted and not screwed?Why do airplanes not have manual transmission?Why were the specifications of the Pipistrel Panthera downgraded?Why don't airplanes have smoking cabins?Why do airplanes have rounded windows?When airplanes first got windows, what material was used?Why is stabilator used in some small airplanes?Why does the DC 4 airplane not tip backwards?
Why do we worry about overfitting even if "all models are wrong"
What is the difference between money and currency?
Have supporters of "right-wing populist" parties in Europe explained why they trust Trump?
Why is the air inside airliners so dry (low humidity)?
What is the equivalent of "if you say so" in German?
How could Thanos survive this attack?
Why was the Vulcan bomber used for the Falklands raid?
What factors do we need to consider in order to enable auto-growth settings for my PROD database
Hikers in Halloween
Query on paper on entanglement in graph states
Is the value of probability invariant of function of a random variable
Is it possible to save a (science) PhD in 10 months?
How should I push back against ridiculous work time expectations?
Do any Star Trek characters play rock band instruments?
How to persuade players not to cheat?
Struggling to understand degenerate perturbation theory
Is it possible to be admitted to CS PhD programs (in US) with scholarship at age 18?
I was mistakenly identified as a criminal, and this has caused rumors. How can I convince my friends that it is all a mistake?
MOS 8502, just a 6510B?
Wood versus marble rolling pin 'performance'
Totally Blind Chess
Does the original Game Boy game "Tetris" have a battery memory inside the cartridge?
How can I prevent side-channel attacks against authentication?
What are valid bugs
Why were the first airplanes “backwards”?
Why is the Tu-144 the only commercial airplane with canard configuration?Why did moving the CG aft on the Wright Brother's plane improve handling?Is the location of an aircraft spoiler really that vital?why are there no production canard GA aircraft?Why are the cockpit controls of airplanes so complicated?Why are airplanes riveted and not screwed?Why do airplanes not have manual transmission?Why were the specifications of the Pipistrel Panthera downgraded?Why don't airplanes have smoking cabins?Why do airplanes have rounded windows?When airplanes first got windows, what material was used?Why is stabilator used in some small airplanes?Why does the DC 4 airplane not tip backwards?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
In the question Is the location of an aircraft spoiler really that vital? the accepted answer states "Surfaces behind the CoG act as stabilisers, keeping the nose pointing forward. An aeroplane has vertical and horizontal tail surfaces at the back just for this purpose."
I agree that this seems straightforward, to a layman (me). So why then were so many of the first aircraft built 'backwards'. Taking a look at the Wright Flyer
Image (C) Bay Images
as an example. There are many other examples from the earliest days of aviation. Why did many put the elevators up front, thereby destabilizing the whole thing?
aircraft-design
asked Jun 25 at 16:31
CGCampbellCGCampbell
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In the question Is the location of an aircraft spoiler really that vital? the accepted answer states "Surfaces behind the CoG act as stabilisers, keeping the nose pointing forward. An aeroplane has vertical and horizontal tail surfaces at the back just for this purpose."
I agree that this seems straightforward, to a layman (me). So why then were so many of the first aircraft built 'backwards'. Taking a look at the Wright Flyer
Image (C) Bay Images
as an example. There are many other examples from the earliest days of aviation. Why did many put the elevators up front, thereby destabilizing the whole thing?
aircraft-design
asked Jun 25 at 16:31
CGCampbellCGCampbell
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Could you provide some of themany other examples?
$endgroup$
– zymhan
Jun 25 at 18:48
14
$begingroup$
@zymhan: 14bis by Santos-Dumont, Voisin - between 1903 and 1907 all successful motorised aircraft had the horizontal "tail" up front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:21
$begingroup$
That's a huge horizontal stabiliser!
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
Jun 26 at 1:47
2
$begingroup$
Speaking of why, it's because the maker of this plane doesn't quite understand aerodynamics (not many people do at the time)
$endgroup$
– user3528438
Jun 27 at 15:23
1
$begingroup$
I feel like there's something to be said for having the moving parts in front of the pilot where he can see that they're working reliably, at least when you're still in the experimental stages of design like that. Also, there's an analog to the most popular mode of transport of the time, that being the horse-drawn carriage. The things pulling and steering the vehicle (horses/elevators) were located at the front, under direct control of the driver/pilot). This would be the natural evolution of that idea. It took much experimentation to learn that other arrangements were superior.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Jun 28 at 20:40
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In the question Is the location of an aircraft spoiler really that vital? the accepted answer states "Surfaces behind the CoG act as stabilisers, keeping the nose pointing forward. An aeroplane has vertical and horizontal tail surfaces at the back just for this purpose."
I agree that this seems straightforward, to a layman (me). So why then were so many of the first aircraft built 'backwards'. Taking a look at the Wright Flyer
Image (C) Bay Images
as an example. There are many other examples from the earliest days of aviation. Why did many put the elevators up front, thereby destabilizing the whole thing?
aircraft-design
asked Jun 25 at 16:31
CGCampbellCGCampbell
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
$endgroup$
In the question Is the location of an aircraft spoiler really that vital? the accepted answer states "Surfaces behind the CoG act as stabilisers, keeping the nose pointing forward. An aeroplane has vertical and horizontal tail surfaces at the back just for this purpose."
I agree that this seems straightforward, to a layman (me). So why then were so many of the first aircraft built 'backwards'. Taking a look at the Wright Flyer
Image (C) Bay Images
as an example. There are many other examples from the earliest days of aviation. Why did many put the elevators up front, thereby destabilizing the whole thing?
aircraft-design
aircraft-design
asked Jun 25 at 16:31
CGCampbellCGCampbell
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
asked Jun 25 at 16:31
CGCampbellCGCampbell
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
asked Jun 25 at 16:31
CGCampbellCGCampbell
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
asked Jun 25 at 16:31
CGCampbellCGCampbell
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
asked Jun 25 at 16:31
CGCampbellCGCampbell
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
6,03011 gold badges54 silver badges106 bronze badges
4
$begingroup$
Could you provide some of themany other examples?
$endgroup$
– zymhan
Jun 25 at 18:48
14
$begingroup$
@zymhan: 14bis by Santos-Dumont, Voisin - between 1903 and 1907 all successful motorised aircraft had the horizontal "tail" up front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:21
$begingroup$
That's a huge horizontal stabiliser!
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
Jun 26 at 1:47
2
$begingroup$
Speaking of why, it's because the maker of this plane doesn't quite understand aerodynamics (not many people do at the time)
$endgroup$
– user3528438
Jun 27 at 15:23
1
$begingroup$
I feel like there's something to be said for having the moving parts in front of the pilot where he can see that they're working reliably, at least when you're still in the experimental stages of design like that. Also, there's an analog to the most popular mode of transport of the time, that being the horse-drawn carriage. The things pulling and steering the vehicle (horses/elevators) were located at the front, under direct control of the driver/pilot). This would be the natural evolution of that idea. It took much experimentation to learn that other arrangements were superior.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Jun 28 at 20:40
|
show 1 more comment
4
$begingroup$
Could you provide some of themany other examples?
$endgroup$
– zymhan
Jun 25 at 18:48
14
$begingroup$
@zymhan: 14bis by Santos-Dumont, Voisin - between 1903 and 1907 all successful motorised aircraft had the horizontal "tail" up front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:21
$begingroup$
That's a huge horizontal stabiliser!
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
Jun 26 at 1:47
2
$begingroup$
Speaking of why, it's because the maker of this plane doesn't quite understand aerodynamics (not many people do at the time)
$endgroup$
– user3528438
Jun 27 at 15:23
1
$begingroup$
I feel like there's something to be said for having the moving parts in front of the pilot where he can see that they're working reliably, at least when you're still in the experimental stages of design like that. Also, there's an analog to the most popular mode of transport of the time, that being the horse-drawn carriage. The things pulling and steering the vehicle (horses/elevators) were located at the front, under direct control of the driver/pilot). This would be the natural evolution of that idea. It took much experimentation to learn that other arrangements were superior.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Jun 28 at 20:40
4
4
$begingroup$
Could you provide some of the
many other examples?$endgroup$
– zymhan
Jun 25 at 18:48
$begingroup$
Could you provide some of the
many other examples?$endgroup$
– zymhan
Jun 25 at 18:48
14
14
$begingroup$
@zymhan: 14bis by Santos-Dumont, Voisin - between 1903 and 1907 all successful motorised aircraft had the horizontal "tail" up front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:21
$begingroup$
@zymhan: 14bis by Santos-Dumont, Voisin - between 1903 and 1907 all successful motorised aircraft had the horizontal "tail" up front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:21
$begingroup$
That's a huge horizontal stabiliser!
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
Jun 26 at 1:47
$begingroup$
That's a huge horizontal stabiliser!
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
Jun 26 at 1:47
2
2
$begingroup$
Speaking of why, it's because the maker of this plane doesn't quite understand aerodynamics (not many people do at the time)
$endgroup$
– user3528438
Jun 27 at 15:23
$begingroup$
Speaking of why, it's because the maker of this plane doesn't quite understand aerodynamics (not many people do at the time)
$endgroup$
– user3528438
Jun 27 at 15:23
1
1
$begingroup$
I feel like there's something to be said for having the moving parts in front of the pilot where he can see that they're working reliably, at least when you're still in the experimental stages of design like that. Also, there's an analog to the most popular mode of transport of the time, that being the horse-drawn carriage. The things pulling and steering the vehicle (horses/elevators) were located at the front, under direct control of the driver/pilot). This would be the natural evolution of that idea. It took much experimentation to learn that other arrangements were superior.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Jun 28 at 20:40
$begingroup$
I feel like there's something to be said for having the moving parts in front of the pilot where he can see that they're working reliably, at least when you're still in the experimental stages of design like that. Also, there's an analog to the most popular mode of transport of the time, that being the horse-drawn carriage. The things pulling and steering the vehicle (horses/elevators) were located at the front, under direct control of the driver/pilot). This would be the natural evolution of that idea. It took much experimentation to learn that other arrangements were superior.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Jun 28 at 20:40
|
show 1 more comment
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
"Backwards" is relative, there are modern aircraft that have forward placed elevator i.e. canard designs that fly quite successfully
(source)
As for why its not more popular you can read up more on that in why are there no production canard GA aircraft? and Why is the Tu-144 the only commercial airplane with canard configuration? as well as in the answers to lots of 'canard' questions on this site.
As for why the Wrights did it this way, NASA offers an explanation
The placement of the elevators at the front of aircraft is rather
unique for the Wright flyer. Modern aircraft typically have the
elevator at the rear, attached to the horizontal stabilizer. The
Wright's placed their elevator at the front to provide protection to
the pilot in the event of a crash. (The pilot of this aircraft lies
next to the engine on the lower wing.) But there is also a static
performance advantage when the elevator is placed forward. Lifting
wings have a natural tendency to flip tail over nose because of the
way the pressure is distributed.
So they were not necessarily backwards so much as different considerations were taken under advisement during the design.
edited Jun 27 at 12:10
choster
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:30
DaveDave
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Unique? And what about the 14bis by Alberto Santos-Dumont? In 1906, 100% of flying machines were canards - hardly unique if you ask me!
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
Lilienthal had a special "Prellbügel" (bumper bar) fixed to his gliders to absorb potential crash loads. That saved him several times. Unfortunately, on that fateful day in August 1896 he left it off …
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:29
9
$begingroup$
Shockingly bad grammar from NASA there.
$endgroup$
– Stop Harming Monica
Jun 26 at 14:12
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I am not sure you are correct that most early planes placed the elevator at the front. For example, Otto Lilienthal's gliders had the tail at the rear.
The Wright brothers were strongly influenced by Lilienthal's work, but were also very anxious to avoid his fate, and believed they would obtain control he lacked by placing the elevator at the front (amongst other things).
It turned out that their Flyer was in fact very unstable, and difficult to control well - but controllable enough.
They also apparently felt that a tail at the rear would be more susceptible to landing damage.
answered Jun 25 at 17:31
Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Alphonse Penaud and Lilienthal had the tail in the back, correct. But Santos-Dumont in 1906 and Gabriel Voisin also put the horizontal tail in the front (the Voisin designs had two, one forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized). So in the short period from 1903 to 1907 all aircraft had the tail in front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:15
$begingroup$
"One forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized" Yes, it was the early days. Unfortunately for aircraft pitch stability, the forward will cancel the rear and we're back to square 1. We must remember "tail" functionality regarding directional and pitch stability MUST be aft of the CG. The elevator (essentially a pitch destabilizer) can be placed fore or aft.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
Jun 27 at 6:30
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
It's not destabilizing to put the elevator or horizontal "tail" in front, as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward that a large portion of the wing itself is well behind the CG and effectively acting as a tail. The fact that the forward elevator or canard is trimmed to generate positive lift, is what allows you to place the CG well forward in this manner.
answered Jun 25 at 17:10
quiet flyerquiet flyer
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Now, another related question-- why did the Wrights place vertical "curtains" in front of the CG (forward of the pilot) on some of their aircraft? It never made much sense to me.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:11
2
$begingroup$
Also, the answer could note that the Wrights configuration tended to avoid a bad nose-drop in a stall.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:31
$begingroup$
Also this answer could reference the Wrights' concerns over Lilienthal's experience as has been nicely pointed out in another answer.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:40
$begingroup$
"as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward" – yes, but the Wrights forgot about this part.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:10
2
$begingroup$
@quietflyer: Having an stalled aircraft assume an attitude where it can't gain airspeed is a guarantee that almost any stall will force an involuntary landing, but limit the speed at which the landing will occur.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jun 26 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Remember that the aviation pioneers were inventing the skills required to fly while refining their designs. It would be a great help to actually see the position of the elevator while trying to relate its movements to the results. We relate control pressures (which we sense in our hands and feet) to the aircraft movements to sense how we are doing and we learn that from instructors and through practice on well designed aircraft. The Wrights were trying to figure it all out as they went.
answered Jun 27 at 5:55
Gil DelaneyGil Delaney
811 bronze badge
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Its probably worth remembering that the majority of design work in those days was trial-and-error rather than mathematical analysis
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 27 at 14:30
$begingroup$
I was recently at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum and watched a video about this. They used a ribbon tied to the front of the aircraft as an early instrument. A sense of balance, like that required to ride a bicycle, was a large part of early flight!
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Jun 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
They were not backwards, they had a huge horizontal stabiliser at the aft section!.
Angular accelerations are relative to the CoG. If there is only one aerodynamic surface, it must be behind the CoG in order to self stabilise. If there are two of them, like in the plane through the Y-axis, basically the same stipulation holds: that the total centre of lift is behind the CoG.
answered Jun 27 at 0:17
KoyovisKoyovis
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f65935%2fwhy-were-the-first-airplanes-backwards%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
"Backwards" is relative, there are modern aircraft that have forward placed elevator i.e. canard designs that fly quite successfully
(source)
As for why its not more popular you can read up more on that in why are there no production canard GA aircraft? and Why is the Tu-144 the only commercial airplane with canard configuration? as well as in the answers to lots of 'canard' questions on this site.
As for why the Wrights did it this way, NASA offers an explanation
The placement of the elevators at the front of aircraft is rather
unique for the Wright flyer. Modern aircraft typically have the
elevator at the rear, attached to the horizontal stabilizer. The
Wright's placed their elevator at the front to provide protection to
the pilot in the event of a crash. (The pilot of this aircraft lies
next to the engine on the lower wing.) But there is also a static
performance advantage when the elevator is placed forward. Lifting
wings have a natural tendency to flip tail over nose because of the
way the pressure is distributed.
So they were not necessarily backwards so much as different considerations were taken under advisement during the design.
edited Jun 27 at 12:10
choster
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:30
DaveDave
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Unique? And what about the 14bis by Alberto Santos-Dumont? In 1906, 100% of flying machines were canards - hardly unique if you ask me!
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
Lilienthal had a special "Prellbügel" (bumper bar) fixed to his gliders to absorb potential crash loads. That saved him several times. Unfortunately, on that fateful day in August 1896 he left it off …
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:29
9
$begingroup$
Shockingly bad grammar from NASA there.
$endgroup$
– Stop Harming Monica
Jun 26 at 14:12
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
"Backwards" is relative, there are modern aircraft that have forward placed elevator i.e. canard designs that fly quite successfully
(source)
As for why its not more popular you can read up more on that in why are there no production canard GA aircraft? and Why is the Tu-144 the only commercial airplane with canard configuration? as well as in the answers to lots of 'canard' questions on this site.
As for why the Wrights did it this way, NASA offers an explanation
The placement of the elevators at the front of aircraft is rather
unique for the Wright flyer. Modern aircraft typically have the
elevator at the rear, attached to the horizontal stabilizer. The
Wright's placed their elevator at the front to provide protection to
the pilot in the event of a crash. (The pilot of this aircraft lies
next to the engine on the lower wing.) But there is also a static
performance advantage when the elevator is placed forward. Lifting
wings have a natural tendency to flip tail over nose because of the
way the pressure is distributed.
So they were not necessarily backwards so much as different considerations were taken under advisement during the design.
edited Jun 27 at 12:10
choster
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:30
DaveDave
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Unique? And what about the 14bis by Alberto Santos-Dumont? In 1906, 100% of flying machines were canards - hardly unique if you ask me!
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
Lilienthal had a special "Prellbügel" (bumper bar) fixed to his gliders to absorb potential crash loads. That saved him several times. Unfortunately, on that fateful day in August 1896 he left it off …
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:29
9
$begingroup$
Shockingly bad grammar from NASA there.
$endgroup$
– Stop Harming Monica
Jun 26 at 14:12
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
"Backwards" is relative, there are modern aircraft that have forward placed elevator i.e. canard designs that fly quite successfully
(source)
As for why its not more popular you can read up more on that in why are there no production canard GA aircraft? and Why is the Tu-144 the only commercial airplane with canard configuration? as well as in the answers to lots of 'canard' questions on this site.
As for why the Wrights did it this way, NASA offers an explanation
The placement of the elevators at the front of aircraft is rather
unique for the Wright flyer. Modern aircraft typically have the
elevator at the rear, attached to the horizontal stabilizer. The
Wright's placed their elevator at the front to provide protection to
the pilot in the event of a crash. (The pilot of this aircraft lies
next to the engine on the lower wing.) But there is also a static
performance advantage when the elevator is placed forward. Lifting
wings have a natural tendency to flip tail over nose because of the
way the pressure is distributed.
So they were not necessarily backwards so much as different considerations were taken under advisement during the design.
edited Jun 27 at 12:10
choster
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:30
DaveDave
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
$endgroup$
"Backwards" is relative, there are modern aircraft that have forward placed elevator i.e. canard designs that fly quite successfully
(source)
As for why its not more popular you can read up more on that in why are there no production canard GA aircraft? and Why is the Tu-144 the only commercial airplane with canard configuration? as well as in the answers to lots of 'canard' questions on this site.
As for why the Wrights did it this way, NASA offers an explanation
The placement of the elevators at the front of aircraft is rather
unique for the Wright flyer. Modern aircraft typically have the
elevator at the rear, attached to the horizontal stabilizer. The
Wright's placed their elevator at the front to provide protection to
the pilot in the event of a crash. (The pilot of this aircraft lies
next to the engine on the lower wing.) But there is also a static
performance advantage when the elevator is placed forward. Lifting
wings have a natural tendency to flip tail over nose because of the
way the pressure is distributed.
So they were not necessarily backwards so much as different considerations were taken under advisement during the design.
edited Jun 27 at 12:10
choster
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:30
DaveDave
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
edited Jun 27 at 12:10
choster
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
edited Jun 27 at 12:10
choster
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
edited Jun 27 at 12:10
choster
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
1761 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:30
DaveDave
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:30
DaveDave
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:30
DaveDave
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
78.8k4 gold badges166 silver badges287 bronze badges
3
$begingroup$
Unique? And what about the 14bis by Alberto Santos-Dumont? In 1906, 100% of flying machines were canards - hardly unique if you ask me!
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
Lilienthal had a special "Prellbügel" (bumper bar) fixed to his gliders to absorb potential crash loads. That saved him several times. Unfortunately, on that fateful day in August 1896 he left it off …
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:29
9
$begingroup$
Shockingly bad grammar from NASA there.
$endgroup$
– Stop Harming Monica
Jun 26 at 14:12
add a comment
|
3
$begingroup$
Unique? And what about the 14bis by Alberto Santos-Dumont? In 1906, 100% of flying machines were canards - hardly unique if you ask me!
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
Lilienthal had a special "Prellbügel" (bumper bar) fixed to his gliders to absorb potential crash loads. That saved him several times. Unfortunately, on that fateful day in August 1896 he left it off …
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:29
9
$begingroup$
Shockingly bad grammar from NASA there.
$endgroup$
– Stop Harming Monica
Jun 26 at 14:12
3
3
$begingroup$
Unique? And what about the 14bis by Alberto Santos-Dumont? In 1906, 100% of flying machines were canards - hardly unique if you ask me!
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
Unique? And what about the 14bis by Alberto Santos-Dumont? In 1906, 100% of flying machines were canards - hardly unique if you ask me!
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
Lilienthal had a special "Prellbügel" (bumper bar) fixed to his gliders to absorb potential crash loads. That saved him several times. Unfortunately, on that fateful day in August 1896 he left it off …
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:29
$begingroup$
Lilienthal had a special "Prellbügel" (bumper bar) fixed to his gliders to absorb potential crash loads. That saved him several times. Unfortunately, on that fateful day in August 1896 he left it off …
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:29
9
9
$begingroup$
Shockingly bad grammar from NASA there.
$endgroup$
– Stop Harming Monica
Jun 26 at 14:12
$begingroup$
Shockingly bad grammar from NASA there.
$endgroup$
– Stop Harming Monica
Jun 26 at 14:12
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I am not sure you are correct that most early planes placed the elevator at the front. For example, Otto Lilienthal's gliders had the tail at the rear.
The Wright brothers were strongly influenced by Lilienthal's work, but were also very anxious to avoid his fate, and believed they would obtain control he lacked by placing the elevator at the front (amongst other things).
It turned out that their Flyer was in fact very unstable, and difficult to control well - but controllable enough.
They also apparently felt that a tail at the rear would be more susceptible to landing damage.
answered Jun 25 at 17:31
Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Alphonse Penaud and Lilienthal had the tail in the back, correct. But Santos-Dumont in 1906 and Gabriel Voisin also put the horizontal tail in the front (the Voisin designs had two, one forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized). So in the short period from 1903 to 1907 all aircraft had the tail in front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:15
$begingroup$
"One forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized" Yes, it was the early days. Unfortunately for aircraft pitch stability, the forward will cancel the rear and we're back to square 1. We must remember "tail" functionality regarding directional and pitch stability MUST be aft of the CG. The elevator (essentially a pitch destabilizer) can be placed fore or aft.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
Jun 27 at 6:30
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I am not sure you are correct that most early planes placed the elevator at the front. For example, Otto Lilienthal's gliders had the tail at the rear.
The Wright brothers were strongly influenced by Lilienthal's work, but were also very anxious to avoid his fate, and believed they would obtain control he lacked by placing the elevator at the front (amongst other things).
It turned out that their Flyer was in fact very unstable, and difficult to control well - but controllable enough.
They also apparently felt that a tail at the rear would be more susceptible to landing damage.
answered Jun 25 at 17:31
Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Alphonse Penaud and Lilienthal had the tail in the back, correct. But Santos-Dumont in 1906 and Gabriel Voisin also put the horizontal tail in the front (the Voisin designs had two, one forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized). So in the short period from 1903 to 1907 all aircraft had the tail in front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:15
$begingroup$
"One forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized" Yes, it was the early days. Unfortunately for aircraft pitch stability, the forward will cancel the rear and we're back to square 1. We must remember "tail" functionality regarding directional and pitch stability MUST be aft of the CG. The elevator (essentially a pitch destabilizer) can be placed fore or aft.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
Jun 27 at 6:30
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I am not sure you are correct that most early planes placed the elevator at the front. For example, Otto Lilienthal's gliders had the tail at the rear.
The Wright brothers were strongly influenced by Lilienthal's work, but were also very anxious to avoid his fate, and believed they would obtain control he lacked by placing the elevator at the front (amongst other things).
It turned out that their Flyer was in fact very unstable, and difficult to control well - but controllable enough.
They also apparently felt that a tail at the rear would be more susceptible to landing damage.
answered Jun 25 at 17:31
Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
$endgroup$
I am not sure you are correct that most early planes placed the elevator at the front. For example, Otto Lilienthal's gliders had the tail at the rear.
The Wright brothers were strongly influenced by Lilienthal's work, but were also very anxious to avoid his fate, and believed they would obtain control he lacked by placing the elevator at the front (amongst other things).
It turned out that their Flyer was in fact very unstable, and difficult to control well - but controllable enough.
They also apparently felt that a tail at the rear would be more susceptible to landing damage.
answered Jun 25 at 17:31
Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:31
Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:31
Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:31
Daniele ProcidaDaniele Procida
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
8,7551 gold badge40 silver badges79 bronze badges
3
$begingroup$
Alphonse Penaud and Lilienthal had the tail in the back, correct. But Santos-Dumont in 1906 and Gabriel Voisin also put the horizontal tail in the front (the Voisin designs had two, one forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized). So in the short period from 1903 to 1907 all aircraft had the tail in front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:15
$begingroup$
"One forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized" Yes, it was the early days. Unfortunately for aircraft pitch stability, the forward will cancel the rear and we're back to square 1. We must remember "tail" functionality regarding directional and pitch stability MUST be aft of the CG. The elevator (essentially a pitch destabilizer) can be placed fore or aft.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
Jun 27 at 6:30
add a comment
|
3
$begingroup$
Alphonse Penaud and Lilienthal had the tail in the back, correct. But Santos-Dumont in 1906 and Gabriel Voisin also put the horizontal tail in the front (the Voisin designs had two, one forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized). So in the short period from 1903 to 1907 all aircraft had the tail in front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:15
$begingroup$
"One forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized" Yes, it was the early days. Unfortunately for aircraft pitch stability, the forward will cancel the rear and we're back to square 1. We must remember "tail" functionality regarding directional and pitch stability MUST be aft of the CG. The elevator (essentially a pitch destabilizer) can be placed fore or aft.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
Jun 27 at 6:30
3
3
$begingroup$
Alphonse Penaud and Lilienthal had the tail in the back, correct. But Santos-Dumont in 1906 and Gabriel Voisin also put the horizontal tail in the front (the Voisin designs had two, one forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized). So in the short period from 1903 to 1907 all aircraft had the tail in front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:15
$begingroup$
Alphonse Penaud and Lilienthal had the tail in the back, correct. But Santos-Dumont in 1906 and Gabriel Voisin also put the horizontal tail in the front (the Voisin designs had two, one forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized). So in the short period from 1903 to 1907 all aircraft had the tail in front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:15
$begingroup$
"One forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized" Yes, it was the early days. Unfortunately for aircraft pitch stability, the forward will cancel the rear and we're back to square 1. We must remember "tail" functionality regarding directional and pitch stability MUST be aft of the CG. The elevator (essentially a pitch destabilizer) can be placed fore or aft.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
Jun 27 at 6:30
$begingroup$
"One forward and one rear, to be doubly sure they can be stabilized" Yes, it was the early days. Unfortunately for aircraft pitch stability, the forward will cancel the rear and we're back to square 1. We must remember "tail" functionality regarding directional and pitch stability MUST be aft of the CG. The elevator (essentially a pitch destabilizer) can be placed fore or aft.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
Jun 27 at 6:30
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
It's not destabilizing to put the elevator or horizontal "tail" in front, as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward that a large portion of the wing itself is well behind the CG and effectively acting as a tail. The fact that the forward elevator or canard is trimmed to generate positive lift, is what allows you to place the CG well forward in this manner.
answered Jun 25 at 17:10
quiet flyerquiet flyer
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Now, another related question-- why did the Wrights place vertical "curtains" in front of the CG (forward of the pilot) on some of their aircraft? It never made much sense to me.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:11
2
$begingroup$
Also, the answer could note that the Wrights configuration tended to avoid a bad nose-drop in a stall.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:31
$begingroup$
Also this answer could reference the Wrights' concerns over Lilienthal's experience as has been nicely pointed out in another answer.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:40
$begingroup$
"as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward" – yes, but the Wrights forgot about this part.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:10
2
$begingroup$
@quietflyer: Having an stalled aircraft assume an attitude where it can't gain airspeed is a guarantee that almost any stall will force an involuntary landing, but limit the speed at which the landing will occur.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jun 26 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
It's not destabilizing to put the elevator or horizontal "tail" in front, as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward that a large portion of the wing itself is well behind the CG and effectively acting as a tail. The fact that the forward elevator or canard is trimmed to generate positive lift, is what allows you to place the CG well forward in this manner.
answered Jun 25 at 17:10
quiet flyerquiet flyer
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Now, another related question-- why did the Wrights place vertical "curtains" in front of the CG (forward of the pilot) on some of their aircraft? It never made much sense to me.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:11
2
$begingroup$
Also, the answer could note that the Wrights configuration tended to avoid a bad nose-drop in a stall.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:31
$begingroup$
Also this answer could reference the Wrights' concerns over Lilienthal's experience as has been nicely pointed out in another answer.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:40
$begingroup$
"as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward" – yes, but the Wrights forgot about this part.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:10
2
$begingroup$
@quietflyer: Having an stalled aircraft assume an attitude where it can't gain airspeed is a guarantee that almost any stall will force an involuntary landing, but limit the speed at which the landing will occur.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jun 26 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
It's not destabilizing to put the elevator or horizontal "tail" in front, as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward that a large portion of the wing itself is well behind the CG and effectively acting as a tail. The fact that the forward elevator or canard is trimmed to generate positive lift, is what allows you to place the CG well forward in this manner.
answered Jun 25 at 17:10
quiet flyerquiet flyer
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
$endgroup$
It's not destabilizing to put the elevator or horizontal "tail" in front, as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward that a large portion of the wing itself is well behind the CG and effectively acting as a tail. The fact that the forward elevator or canard is trimmed to generate positive lift, is what allows you to place the CG well forward in this manner.
answered Jun 25 at 17:10
quiet flyerquiet flyer
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:10
quiet flyerquiet flyer
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:10
quiet flyerquiet flyer
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
answered Jun 25 at 17:10
quiet flyerquiet flyer
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
5,79810 silver badges45 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Now, another related question-- why did the Wrights place vertical "curtains" in front of the CG (forward of the pilot) on some of their aircraft? It never made much sense to me.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:11
2
$begingroup$
Also, the answer could note that the Wrights configuration tended to avoid a bad nose-drop in a stall.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:31
$begingroup$
Also this answer could reference the Wrights' concerns over Lilienthal's experience as has been nicely pointed out in another answer.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:40
$begingroup$
"as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward" – yes, but the Wrights forgot about this part.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:10
2
$begingroup$
@quietflyer: Having an stalled aircraft assume an attitude where it can't gain airspeed is a guarantee that almost any stall will force an involuntary landing, but limit the speed at which the landing will occur.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jun 26 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Now, another related question-- why did the Wrights place vertical "curtains" in front of the CG (forward of the pilot) on some of their aircraft? It never made much sense to me.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:11
2
$begingroup$
Also, the answer could note that the Wrights configuration tended to avoid a bad nose-drop in a stall.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:31
$begingroup$
Also this answer could reference the Wrights' concerns over Lilienthal's experience as has been nicely pointed out in another answer.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:40
$begingroup$
"as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward" – yes, but the Wrights forgot about this part.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:10
2
$begingroup$
@quietflyer: Having an stalled aircraft assume an attitude where it can't gain airspeed is a guarantee that almost any stall will force an involuntary landing, but limit the speed at which the landing will occur.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jun 26 at 20:47
$begingroup$
Now, another related question-- why did the Wrights place vertical "curtains" in front of the CG (forward of the pilot) on some of their aircraft? It never made much sense to me.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:11
$begingroup$
Now, another related question-- why did the Wrights place vertical "curtains" in front of the CG (forward of the pilot) on some of their aircraft? It never made much sense to me.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:11
2
2
$begingroup$
Also, the answer could note that the Wrights configuration tended to avoid a bad nose-drop in a stall.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:31
$begingroup$
Also, the answer could note that the Wrights configuration tended to avoid a bad nose-drop in a stall.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:31
$begingroup$
Also this answer could reference the Wrights' concerns over Lilienthal's experience as has been nicely pointed out in another answer.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:40
$begingroup$
Also this answer could reference the Wrights' concerns over Lilienthal's experience as has been nicely pointed out in another answer.
$endgroup$
– quiet flyer
Jun 25 at 17:40
$begingroup$
"as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward" – yes, but the Wrights forgot about this part.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:10
$begingroup$
"as long as you place the CG sufficiently forward" – yes, but the Wrights forgot about this part.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:10
2
2
$begingroup$
@quietflyer: Having an stalled aircraft assume an attitude where it can't gain airspeed is a guarantee that almost any stall will force an involuntary landing, but limit the speed at which the landing will occur.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jun 26 at 20:47
$begingroup$
@quietflyer: Having an stalled aircraft assume an attitude where it can't gain airspeed is a guarantee that almost any stall will force an involuntary landing, but limit the speed at which the landing will occur.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jun 26 at 20:47
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Remember that the aviation pioneers were inventing the skills required to fly while refining their designs. It would be a great help to actually see the position of the elevator while trying to relate its movements to the results. We relate control pressures (which we sense in our hands and feet) to the aircraft movements to sense how we are doing and we learn that from instructors and through practice on well designed aircraft. The Wrights were trying to figure it all out as they went.
answered Jun 27 at 5:55
Gil DelaneyGil Delaney
811 bronze badge
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Its probably worth remembering that the majority of design work in those days was trial-and-error rather than mathematical analysis
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 27 at 14:30
$begingroup$
I was recently at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum and watched a video about this. They used a ribbon tied to the front of the aircraft as an early instrument. A sense of balance, like that required to ride a bicycle, was a large part of early flight!
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Jun 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Remember that the aviation pioneers were inventing the skills required to fly while refining their designs. It would be a great help to actually see the position of the elevator while trying to relate its movements to the results. We relate control pressures (which we sense in our hands and feet) to the aircraft movements to sense how we are doing and we learn that from instructors and through practice on well designed aircraft. The Wrights were trying to figure it all out as they went.
answered Jun 27 at 5:55
Gil DelaneyGil Delaney
811 bronze badge
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Its probably worth remembering that the majority of design work in those days was trial-and-error rather than mathematical analysis
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 27 at 14:30
$begingroup$
I was recently at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum and watched a video about this. They used a ribbon tied to the front of the aircraft as an early instrument. A sense of balance, like that required to ride a bicycle, was a large part of early flight!
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Jun 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Remember that the aviation pioneers were inventing the skills required to fly while refining their designs. It would be a great help to actually see the position of the elevator while trying to relate its movements to the results. We relate control pressures (which we sense in our hands and feet) to the aircraft movements to sense how we are doing and we learn that from instructors and through practice on well designed aircraft. The Wrights were trying to figure it all out as they went.
answered Jun 27 at 5:55
Gil DelaneyGil Delaney
811 bronze badge
$endgroup$
Remember that the aviation pioneers were inventing the skills required to fly while refining their designs. It would be a great help to actually see the position of the elevator while trying to relate its movements to the results. We relate control pressures (which we sense in our hands and feet) to the aircraft movements to sense how we are doing and we learn that from instructors and through practice on well designed aircraft. The Wrights were trying to figure it all out as they went.
answered Jun 27 at 5:55
Gil DelaneyGil Delaney
811 bronze badge
answered Jun 27 at 5:55
Gil DelaneyGil Delaney
811 bronze badge
answered Jun 27 at 5:55
Gil DelaneyGil Delaney
811 bronze badge
answered Jun 27 at 5:55
Gil DelaneyGil Delaney
811 bronze badge
811 bronze badge
2
$begingroup$
Its probably worth remembering that the majority of design work in those days was trial-and-error rather than mathematical analysis
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 27 at 14:30
$begingroup$
I was recently at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum and watched a video about this. They used a ribbon tied to the front of the aircraft as an early instrument. A sense of balance, like that required to ride a bicycle, was a large part of early flight!
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Jun 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
2
$begingroup$
Its probably worth remembering that the majority of design work in those days was trial-and-error rather than mathematical analysis
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 27 at 14:30
$begingroup$
I was recently at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum and watched a video about this. They used a ribbon tied to the front of the aircraft as an early instrument. A sense of balance, like that required to ride a bicycle, was a large part of early flight!
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Jun 28 at 16:41
2
2
$begingroup$
Its probably worth remembering that the majority of design work in those days was trial-and-error rather than mathematical analysis
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 27 at 14:30
$begingroup$
Its probably worth remembering that the majority of design work in those days was trial-and-error rather than mathematical analysis
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 27 at 14:30
$begingroup$
I was recently at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum and watched a video about this. They used a ribbon tied to the front of the aircraft as an early instrument. A sense of balance, like that required to ride a bicycle, was a large part of early flight!
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Jun 28 at 16:41
$begingroup$
I was recently at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum and watched a video about this. They used a ribbon tied to the front of the aircraft as an early instrument. A sense of balance, like that required to ride a bicycle, was a large part of early flight!
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Jun 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
They were not backwards, they had a huge horizontal stabiliser at the aft section!.
Angular accelerations are relative to the CoG. If there is only one aerodynamic surface, it must be behind the CoG in order to self stabilise. If there are two of them, like in the plane through the Y-axis, basically the same stipulation holds: that the total centre of lift is behind the CoG.
answered Jun 27 at 0:17
KoyovisKoyovis
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
They were not backwards, they had a huge horizontal stabiliser at the aft section!.
Angular accelerations are relative to the CoG. If there is only one aerodynamic surface, it must be behind the CoG in order to self stabilise. If there are two of them, like in the plane through the Y-axis, basically the same stipulation holds: that the total centre of lift is behind the CoG.
answered Jun 27 at 0:17
KoyovisKoyovis
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
They were not backwards, they had a huge horizontal stabiliser at the aft section!.
Angular accelerations are relative to the CoG. If there is only one aerodynamic surface, it must be behind the CoG in order to self stabilise. If there are two of them, like in the plane through the Y-axis, basically the same stipulation holds: that the total centre of lift is behind the CoG.
answered Jun 27 at 0:17
KoyovisKoyovis
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
$endgroup$
They were not backwards, they had a huge horizontal stabiliser at the aft section!.
Angular accelerations are relative to the CoG. If there is only one aerodynamic surface, it must be behind the CoG in order to self stabilise. If there are two of them, like in the plane through the Y-axis, basically the same stipulation holds: that the total centre of lift is behind the CoG.
answered Jun 27 at 0:17
KoyovisKoyovis
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
answered Jun 27 at 0:17
KoyovisKoyovis
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
answered Jun 27 at 0:17
KoyovisKoyovis
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
answered Jun 27 at 0:17
KoyovisKoyovis
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
38.6k9 gold badges106 silver badges198 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f65935%2fwhy-were-the-first-airplanes-backwards%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
Could you provide some of the
many other examples?$endgroup$
– zymhan
Jun 25 at 18:48
14
$begingroup$
@zymhan: 14bis by Santos-Dumont, Voisin - between 1903 and 1907 all successful motorised aircraft had the horizontal "tail" up front.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Jun 25 at 20:21
$begingroup$
That's a huge horizontal stabiliser!
$endgroup$
– Koyovis
Jun 26 at 1:47
2
$begingroup$
Speaking of why, it's because the maker of this plane doesn't quite understand aerodynamics (not many people do at the time)
$endgroup$
– user3528438
Jun 27 at 15:23
1
$begingroup$
I feel like there's something to be said for having the moving parts in front of the pilot where he can see that they're working reliably, at least when you're still in the experimental stages of design like that. Also, there's an analog to the most popular mode of transport of the time, that being the horse-drawn carriage. The things pulling and steering the vehicle (horses/elevators) were located at the front, under direct control of the driver/pilot). This would be the natural evolution of that idea. It took much experimentation to learn that other arrangements were superior.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Jun 28 at 20:40