Flying Machines: construction and operation Part 14

Right of Way for Airs.h.i.+ps.

Somebody has suggested the organization of flying-machine corporations as common carriers, which would give them the right of eminent domain with power to condemn a right of way. But what would they condemn? There is nothing tangible in the air. Railways in condemning a right of way specify tangible property (realty) within certain limits. How would an aviator designate any particular right of way through the air a certain number of feet in width, and a certain distance from the ground?

And yet, should the higher courts hold to the letter of the law and decide that aviators have no right to navigate their craft over private property, something will have to be done to get them out of the dilemma, as aviation is too far advanced to be discarded. Fortunately there is little prospect of any widespread antagonism among property owners so long as aviators refrain from making nuisances of themselves.

Possible Solution Offered.

One possible solution is offered and that is to confine the path of airs.h.i.+ps to the public highways so that n.o.body's property rights would be invaded. In addition, as a matter of promoting safety for both operators and those who may happen to be beneath the airs.h.i.+ps as they pa.s.s over a course, adoption of the French rules are suggested. These are as follows:

Aeroplanes, when pa.s.sing, must keep to the right, and pa.s.s at a distance of at least 150 feet. They are free from this rule when flying at alt.i.tudes of more than 100 feet. Every machine when flying at night or during foggy weather must carry a green light on the right, and a red light on the left, and a white headlight on the front.

These are sensible rules, but may be improved upon by the addition of a signal system of some kind, either horn, whistle or bell.

Responsibility of Aviators.

Mr. Jay Carver Bossard, in recent numbers of _Fly_, brings out some curious and interesting legal points in connection with aviation, among which are the following:

"Private parties who possess aerial craft, and desire to operate the same in aerial territory other than their own, must obtain from land owners special permission to do so, such permission to be granted only by agreement, founded upon a valid consideration. Otherwise, pa.s.sing over another's land will in each instance amount to a trespa.s.s.

"Leaving this highly technical side of the question, let us turn to another view: the criminal and tort liability of owners and operators to airs.h.i.+p pa.s.sengers. If A invites B to make an ascension with him in his machine, and B, knowing that A is merely an enthusiastic amateur and far from being an expert, accepts and is through A's innocent negligence injured, he has no grounds for recovery. But if A contracts with B, to transport him from one place to another, for a consideration, and B is injured by the poor piloting of A, A would be liable to B for damages which would result. Now in order to safeguard such people as B, curious to the point of recklessness, the law will have to require all airs.h.i.+p operators to have a license, and to secure this license airs.h.i.+p pilots will have to meet certain requirements. Here again is a question. Who is going to say whether an applicant is competent to pilot a balloon or airs.h.i.+p?

Fine for an Aeronaut.

"An aeroplane while maneuvering is suddenly caught by a treacherous gale and swept to the ground. A crowd of people hasten over to see if the aeronaut is injured, and in doing so trample over Tax-payer Smith's garden, much to the detriment of his growing vegetables and flowers. Who is liable for the damages? Queer as it may seem, a case very similar to this was decided in 1823, in the New York supreme court, and it was held that the aeronaut was liable upon the following grounds: 'To render one man liable in trespa.s.s for the acts of others, it must appear either that they acted in concert, or that the act of the one, ordinarily and naturally produced the acts of the others, Ascending in a balloon is not an unlawful act, but it is certain that the aeronaut has no control over its motion horizontally, but is at the sport of the wind, and is to descend when and how he can. His reaching the earth is a matter of hazard. If his descent would according to the circ.u.mstances draw a crowd of people around him, either out of curiosity, or for the purpose of rescuing him from a perilous situation, all this he ought to have foreseen, and must be responsible for.'

Air Not Really Free.

"The general belief among people is, that the air is free. Not only free to breathe and enjoy, but free to travel in, and that no one has any definite jurisdiction over, or in any part of it. Now suppose this were made a legal doctrine. Would a murder perpetrated above the clouds have to go unpunished? Undoubtedly. For felonies committed upon the high seas ample provision is made for their punishment, but new provisions will have to be made for crimes committed in the air.

Relations of Owner and Employee.

"It is a general rule of law that a master is bound to provide reasonably safe tools, appliances and machines for his servant. How this rule is going to be applied in cases of aeroplanes, remains to be seen.

The aeroplane owner who hires a professional aeronaut, that is, one who has qualified as an expert, owes him very little legal duty to supply him with a perfect aeroplane. The expert is supposed to know as much regarding the machine as the owner, if not more, and his acceptance of his position relieves the owner from liability. When the owner hires an amateur aeronaut to run the aeroplane, and teaches him how to manipulate it, even though the prescribed manner of manipulation will make flight safe, nevertheless if the machine is visibly defective, or known to be so, any injury which results to the aeronaut the owner is liable for.

As to Aeroplane Contracts.

"At the present time there are many orders being placed with aeroplane manufacturing companies. There are some unique questions to be raised here under the law of contract. It is an elementary principle of law that no one can be compelled to complete a contract which in itself is impossible to perform. For instance, a contract to row a boat across the Atlantic in two weeks, for a consideration, could never be enforced because it is within judicial knowledge that such an undertaking is beyond human power. Again, contracts formed for the doing of acts contrary to nature are never enforcible, and here is where our difficulty comes in. Is it possible to build a machine or species of craft which will transport a person or goods through the air? The courts know that balloons are practical; that is, they know that a bag filled with gas has a lifting power and can move through the air at an appreciable height. Therefore, a contract to transport a person in such manner is a good contract, and the conditions being favorable could undoubtedly be enforced. But the pa.s.sengers' right of action for injury would be very limited.

No Redress for Purchasers.

"In the case of giving warranties on aeroplanes, we have yet to see just what a court is going to say. It is easy enough for a manufacturer to guarantee to build a machine of certain dimensions and according to certain specifications, but when he inserts a clause in the contract to the effect that the machine will raise itself from the surface of the earth, defy the laws of gravity, and soar in the heavens at the will of the aviator, he is to say the least contracting to perform a miracle.

"Until aeroplanes have been made and accepted as practical, no court will force a manufacturer to turn out a machine guaranteed to fly. So purchasers can well remember that if their machines refuse to fly they have no redress against the maker, for he can always say, 'The industry is still in its experimental stage.' In contracting for an engine no builder will guarantee that the particular engine will successfully operate the aeroplane. In fact he could never be forced to live up to such an agreement, should he agree to a stipulation of that sort. The best any engine maker will guarantee is to build an engine according to specifications."

CHAPTER XX. SOARING FLIGHT.

By Octave Chanute.

[5] There is a wonderful performance daily exhibited in southern climes and occasionally seen in northerly lat.i.tudes in summer, which has never been thoroughly explained. It is the soaring or sailing flight of certain varieties of large birds who transport themselves on rigid, unflapping wings in any desired direction; who in winds of 6 to 20 miles per hour, circle, rise, advance, return and remain aloft for hours without a beat of wing, save for getting under way or convenience in various maneuvers. They appear to obtain from the wind alone all the necessary energy, even to advancing dead against that wind. This feat is so much opposed to our general ideas of physics that those who have not seen it sometimes deny its actuality, and those who have only occasionally witnessed it subsequently doubt the evidence of their own eyes. Others, who have seen the exceptional performances, speculate on various explanations, but the majority give it up as a sort of "negative gravity."

Soaring Power of Birds.

The writer of this paper published in the "Aeronautical Annual" for 1896 and 1897 an article upon the sailing flight of birds, in which he gave a list of the authors who had described such flight or had advanced theories for its explanation, and he pa.s.sed these in review. He also described his own observations and submitted some computations to account for the observed facts. These computations were correct as far as they went, but they were scanty. It was, for instance, shown convincingly by a.n.a.lysis that a gull weighing 2.188 pounds, with a total supporting surface of 2.015 square feet, a maximum body cross-section of 0.126 square feet and a maximum cross-section of wing edges of 0.098 square feet, patrolling on rigid wings (soaring) on the weather side of a steamer and maintaining an upward angle or att.i.tude of 5 degrees to 7 degrees above the horizon, in a wind blowing 12.78 miles an hour, which was deflected upward 10 degrees to 20 degrees by the side of the steamer (these all being carefully observed facts), was perfectly sustained at its own "relative speed" of 17.88 miles per hour and extracted from the upward trend of the wind sufficient energy to overcome all the resistances, this energy amounting to 6.44 foot-pounds per second.

Great Power of Gulls.

It was shown that the same bird in flapping flight in calm air, with an att.i.tude or incidence of 3 degrees to 5 degrees above the horizon and a speed of 20.4 miles an hour was well sustained and expended 5.88 foot-pounds per second, this being at the rate of 204 pounds sustained per horsepower. It was stated also that a gull in its observed maneuvers, rising up from a pile head on unflapping wings, then plunging forward against the wind and subsequently rising higher than his starting point, must either time his ascents and descents exactly with the variations in wind velocities, or must meet a wind billow rotating on a horizontal axis and come to a poise on its crest, thus availing of an ascending trend.

But the observations failed to demonstrate that the variations of the wind gusts and the movements of the bird were absolutely synchronous, and it was conjectured that the peculiar shape of the soaring wing of certain birds, as differentiated from the flapping wing, might, when experimented upon, hereafter account for the performance.

Mystery to be Explained.

These computations, however satisfactory they were for the speed of winds observed, failed to account for the observed spiral soaring of buzzards in very light winds and the writer was compelled to confess: "Now, this spiral soaring in steady breezes of 5 to 10 miles per hour which are apparently horizontal, and through which the bird maintains an average speed of about 20 miles an hour, is the mystery to be explained.

It is not accounted for, quant.i.tatively, by any of the theories which have been advanced, and it is the one performance which has led some observers to claim that it was done through 'aspiration.' i, e., that a bird acted upon by a current, actually drew forward into that current against its exact direction of motion."

Buzzards Soar in Dead Calm.

A still greater mystery was propounded by the few observers who a.s.serted that they had seen buzzards soaring in a dead calm, maintaining their elevation and their speed. Among these observers was Mr. E. C. Huffaker, at one time a.s.sistant experimenter for Professor Langley. The writer believed and said then that he must in some way have been mistaken, yet, to satisfy himself, he paid several visits to Mr. Huffaker, in Eastern Tennessee and took along his anemometer. He saw quite a number of buzzards sailing at a height of 75 to 100 feet in breezes measuring 5 or 6 miles an hour at the surface of the ground, and once he saw one buzzard soaring apparently in a dead calm.

The writer was fairly baffled. The bird was not simply gliding, utilizing gravity or acquired momentum, he was actually circling horizontally in defiance of physics and mathematics. It took two years and a whole series of further observations to bring those two sciences into accord with the facts.

Results of Close Observations.

Curiously enough the key to the performance of circling in a light wind or a dead calm was not found through the usual way of gathering human knowledge, i. e., through observations and experiment. These had failed because I did not know what to look for. The mystery was, in fact, solved by an eclectic process of conjecture and computation, but once these computations indicated what observations should be made, the results gave at once the reasons for the circling of the birds, for their then observed att.i.tude, and for the necessity of an independent initial sustaining speed before soaring began. Both Mr. Huffaker and myself verified the data many times and I made the computations.

These observations disclosed several facts:

1st.--That winds blowing five to seventeen miles per hour frequently had rising trends of 10 degrees to 15 degrees, and that upon occasions when there seemed to be absolutely no wind, there was often nevertheless a local rising of the air estimated at a rate of four to eight miles or more per hour. This was ascertained by watching thistledown, and rising fogs alongside of trees or hills of known height. Everyone will readily realize that when walking at the rate of four to eight miles an hour in a dead calm the "relative wind" is quite inappreciable to the senses and that such a rising air would not be noticed.

2nd.--That the buzzard, sailing in an apparently dead horizontal calm, progressed at speeds of fifteen to eighteen miles per hour, as measured by his shadow on the ground. It was thought that the air was then possibly rising 8.8 feet per second, or six miles per hour.

3rd.--That when soaring in very light winds the angle of incidence of the buzzards was negative to the horizon--i. e., that when seen coming toward the eye, the afternoon light shone on the back instead of on the breast, as would have been the case had the angle been inclined above the horizon.

4th.--That the sailing performance only occurred after the bird had acquired an initial velocity of at least fifteen or eighteen miles per hour, either by industrious flapping or by descending from a perch.

An Interesting Experiment.

5th.--That the whole resistance of a stuffed buzzard, at a negative angle of 3 degrees in a current of air of 15.52 miles per hour, was 0.27 pounds. This test was kindly made for the writer by Professor A. F. Zahm in the "wind tunnel" of the Catholic University at Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C., who, moreover, stated that the resistance of a live bird might be less, as the dried plumage could not be made to lie smooth.

This particular buzzard weighed in life 4.25 pounds, the area of his wings and body was 4.57 square feet, the maximum cross-section of his body was 0.110 square feet, and that of his wing edges when fully extended was 0.244 square feet.

With these data, it became surprisingly easy to compute the performance with the coefficients of Lilienthal for various angles of incidence and to demonstrate how this buzzard could soar horizontally in a dead horizontal calm, provided that it was not a vertical calm, and that the air was rising at the rate of four or six miles per hour, the lowest observed, and quite inappreciable without actual measuring.

Some Data on Bird Power.

The most difficult case is purposely selected. For if we a.s.sume that the bird has previously acquired an initial minimum speed of seventeen miles an hour (24.93 feet per second, nearly the lowest measured), and that the air was rising vertically six miles an hour (8.80 feet per second), then we have as the trend of the "relative wind" encountered: