Langley's Feat--and Folly
The Smithsonian Secretary assembled a devoted team, a remarkable engine and a plane that wouldn't fly
- By Edwards Park
- Smithsonian magazine, November 1997, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 4)
For one thing, its spin cooled the cylinders. Air cooling meant that the tank, pipes and pump for water cooling weren't needed--an admirable loss of weight. Also, the spin of the engine served the function of a flywheel, a feature of some early engines that helped them to run more smoothly.
But as more time passed and more problems arose with Balzer's engine, Manly decided to follow the Europeans' advice. By the fall of 1900, he had given up on the rotary concept. In September, he wrote his boss, still in Europe, that his recent effort with the aero engine had "been with the cylinders held stationary and cooled by temporary water jackets." He had turned Balzer's rotary engine into a fixed radial — and one cooled by water instead of air.
At last problems began to fade and performance improve, with an immediate leap from 6-8 hp in Balzer's rotary to 12-16 hp in Manly's radial version. More tests and improvements followed. By March 1901 the radial engine was putting out some 18 hp, but Manly foresaw the need for more. So, with funds from new grants, he replaced Balzer's heavy pistons with light ones and increased the size of the cylinders. By March 1903, the rebuilt engine was spinning the aerodrome's two propellers at the rate of 575 revolutions per minute. "The engine proper," wrote Manly, "weighs 120 lbs., and develops on test 52 brake horsepower...." In this same letter to Langley, the young assistant writes that his confidence in the engine is so complete that "I am prepared to risk myself with it in actual flight."
He didn't have long to wait. In the summer of 1903, after test flights with a quarter-scale model, Langley was ready. By September, the Great Aerodrome roosted on its catapult atop a bulky houseboat in the Potomac. Last adjustments went on as though Langley, after 17 years of working toward this climax, and now 69 years old, could hardly bring himself to reach it.
On October 7, Manly climbed aboard, started the engine and ran it up to full speed. It had taken him and Balzer a total of five years for this impressive piece of machinery, with its five cylinders radiating star-like from its driveshaft, to be wrenched up to this zenith of its performance. Now, as its bellow reached full voice, he signaled for the plane's release.
"This was done," reads Manly's report, "and the car started down the track under the combined impetus of the launching springs and the propellers. . . ." And then: "I experienced a slight jerk and discovered immediately that the machine was plunging forward and downward. . . ."
Manly had no time to shut down the engine before hitting the water. He got dunked, but swam away unhurt. Much of the airplane's structure was crushed when it hit the water. So was Langley. The press howled with laughter. The much-touted flying machine had slipped into the water "like a handful of mortar."
The tragedy dragged on as Langley got his dream machine repaired and ready for another try. On December 8, 1903, Manly crawled back into the cockpit, revved up the engine, signaled . . . and again plunged into the Potomac. The wings had simply snapped in the rush of air. This time Manly nearly drowned in the icy river, and when he got back aboard the houseboat he cut loose with a blast of blue language in front of all the dignitaries who had been invited to witness the triumph. They were surprised. They shouldn't have been.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (1)
Between 1987 and 1995, I read the Smithsonian Magazine, a magazine that my father had subscibed to for many years. I read an article in one of the magazines, and it was about car planes, or automobile airplanes that were flying around the United States in the 1950s. I did not save the magazine and I wish that I had. The article went into great detail about how the carplanes were assembled for take-off and disassembled after landing. The assembly/disassembly would occur at airports. The interesting thing was that the cars were drivable from the airport.
The downfall of this transportation method, according to the article was that this form of transportation became unmanageable and I never, ever heard or read anything else about this. Was I tripping?????
Please respond if anyone knows anything about this. What was the real reason for the demise of the carplane and why wouldn't it be more of a practical method of transportation than an untralite?
Mark
Posted by Mark Prince on September 21,2010 | 01:09 AM