AND SINGLE

SURFACE WINGS

By George G. Spratt (EAA 17426)

Spratt and Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 351
Media, PA 19063

Photo 1 — Chanute double deck glider flying in the Lake Michigan sand dunes. Summer of 1896.

coming world war, obliterated nearly all that had been

J.HE DECADE SURROUNDING 1900 was the most
active in flight development and experimentation of any
other similar time period . . . and much of this develop-
ment was done with what we would now call hang glid-
ers.
Visiting a present day ultralight meet one is quickly
impressed by the similarity: airframe weights are all
but identical, much of the control is by the pilot shifting
his weight, airfoils are usually single surface, air speed
is the same and foot launching is common.
This early hang glider period was terminated by the
development of the gasoline engine and cheap fuel. Then
the thirst for power and speed, accelerated by the on-
40 MAY 1980
done during this period: the open fuselage was replaced
by an enclosed fuselage, wing warping by the aileron,
the single surface by thickened airfoils, weight shifting
by dynamic controls and wheels replaced foot or track
launching. About the only vestige still remaining is the
vertical rudder used by the Wrights to overcome adverse
yaw, but not even this is used universally. Almost none,
if any, of the present hang glider enthusiasts were pre-
sent during that time so it is understandable that much
of the work is being redone and, unfortunately, many of
the mishaps repeated.
It would be truly worthwhile if someone would write
a full history of this pioneer stage in aircraft develop-
 Photo 2 — Weight double deck glider. Kitty Hawk 1901.
ment before too much of it is lost, or distorted by non-
aircraft historians.
It is my hope that the following brief review of but
one of the control and stability problems encountered
almost 80 years ago may be of help to someone now ex-
perimenting with single surface curved airfoils. Photo 1
is a Chanute glider flying in the dunes on the shore of
Lake Michigan. This was the first glider built in this
country to be flown consistently, without mishap, by
many people, some of them novices.
It was flown in winds from 10 to 31 miles per hour,
at air speeds of 20 to 40 miles per hour. This glider
weighed only 23 pounds but had a wing span of 16 feet,
chord of 4 feet 3 inches and area of 135 square feet. The
airfoils were single surface, circular arc with a camber
of 1 in 10.
Of it Chanute said: "It was found steady, easy to
handle before starting, and under good control when
under way — a motion of the operator's body of not
over 2 inches proving as effective as 5 or more in-
ches in the Lilienthal machine."
Not easily visible in the photo is a tail having hori-
zontal and vertical airfoils. These were connected to the
wings by an automatic device, designed by Mr. Herring
for the purpose of securing stability. Mr. A. M. Herring
was then in the employ of Mr. Chanute, having built
this and several other aircraft for him.
During this time he developed and applied for a pa-
tent on this method of spring loading the tail so as to
tend to keep the wings at a constant attack. There is
some question about the effectiveness of this device as
Chanute said later, "A few hidden defects were gradu-
ally evolved, such as lack of adjustment in the automa-
tic device." There have also been questions about just
how much of Herring's thinking, as well as mechanical
skill, went into other details of this aircraft. Later, when
the Wrights decided to build a glider it was logical to
start with this design. Even as homebuilders today, they
wanted to make some changes.
Foot launching was out as they were thinking even-
tually of adding a 200 pound motor plus the much
heavier structure required. This meant putting skids
below and the pilot above the lower wing. With this
greater weight, the pilot moving his body would have
little effect, so dynamic control would be required. For
bank and turn, twisting the wings had been used by
some previous experimenters so was adopted. For pitch
control a small horizontal movable vane ahead of the
wings should give greater moment than the 2 inch pilot
movement Chanute claimed as ample.
By the fall of 1900 the Wrights had their glider
ready to take to Kitty Hawk for testing. The wing area
was 165 square feet, the weight 52 pounds and the wing
curvature an arc of 1-22. Wilbur took it to Kitty Hawk
to assemble and test — a lot of work for one man, so
Orville joined him three weeks later. Some tests as a
kite showed the lift far less than expected so it was
taken 4 miles south to the sand dunes to attempt to
glide down the windward side as Chanute had done near
Lake Michigan.
They tried the elevator in the front and in the back,
but still could not prevent a dive or stop one once
started. Results were in no way comparable to those
claimed by Chanute and they told him so. Chanute had
never encountered this condition, even with no control
vane, so was at a loss to know what was happening.
Chanute asked my father, Dr. George A. Spratt, if he
knew why the action was so different and what could be
done about it. Although it was to be several years before
my father would discover the reversal of center of pres-
sure travel in the circular arc airfoil, he knew from his
own experience as well as that of others that there was
something erratic about this airfoil. Sometimes it would
fly stably and at other times become a diving demon. On
the other hand he knew that a fiat plate, while very
poor in load carrying ability and therefore unsuitable for
an airfoil, was stable under all conditions and docile
throughout the entire flight range. He suggested that
the curvature be made only at the forward portion of the
airfoil then fair into a flatter after portion . . . thus
compromising some of the lifting ability of the curve for
the stability of the fiat. The Wrights decided to continue
SPORT AVIATION 41

Photo 3 — Chanute triple deck glider flying at Kitty Hawk in 1902.
their tests in 1901 so used this curvature in a much
larger machine, so glides could be made in lower wind
velocities. The wing area was an unheard of 308 square
feet. (290 considering cut cuts.) The span was 22 feet
with a parabolic curve of 1-12.
After the Wrights took this machine to Kitty Hawk
my father went down to visit them and see how it was
working. He was met at the pier with the emphatic
statement: "It won't work." Back at camp they found,
after some experimenting, the flimsy ribs were flexing
under air load into an arc, destroying the desired effect.
When the ribs were braced, as can be seen in the photo-
graph of this machine (Photo 2), it could be controlled
easily by the small forward elevator. Only now that the
aircraft could be controlled and flown was it found that
the roll control did not work at all as expected — but
that is another story.
Chanute found this airfoil so interesting that he had
a t r i p l a n e b u i l t and taken to Kitty Hawk for the
Wrights to fly and compare. In Photo 3 it can be seen
flying from one of the dunes. The extreme forward posi-
tion of the camber is apparent. My father, thinking of
this as only a temporary fix and in no way a true solu-
tion to pitch stability, continued to work on the problem
. . . work that led later to his discovery of the reversal of
center of pressure travel on the circular arc.
42 MAY 1980
„••»;•
A flat surface at 90° angle of attack has the center of
pressure at 50% chord. Then as the angle is decreased it
moves steadily forward, over the entire flight range, to
0° angle of attack. This makes the airfoil stable in pitch
throughout the flight range because should the airfoil
tilt down, as in a dive, the center of pressure moves for-
ward tending to return the airfoil to the original angle.
Likewise an upturn moves the center of pressure aft
tending to bring it back down.
In the circular arc at 90" attack the center of pres-
sure is at 50% chord, exactly as with the flat surface.
With decreasing angle the center of pressure continues
to move forward in a manner identical to the flat sur-
face until an angle of about 15° is reached. So far the
circular arc is just as stable as the flat plate and as long
as the aircraft continues to fly in this region is com-
pletely stable. But with the circular arc this changes ab-
ruptly at this angle. Now the center of pressure turns
and starts to move aft with decreasing angle of attack at
an increasing rate. In some cases it moves to or beyond
the trailing edge. Thus if an aircraft flying in the stable
range accidentally decreases the angle, due to a gust or
increase in speed, to less than 15° the center of pressure
moves rapidly aft causing more decrease in angle and
increase in speed. In other words, an uncontrolled dive.
 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
i- nil; l i l > I H ' \ \ i - | . UK T i l l , in: \ \ | i \ y l \ T l u \ WIND TUNNEL TEST NO CO4.
NINC FOOT WINC TUNNEL
AIR SPC&D 3O M p H
STANDARD ATMOSPHERE

KxOlO DOS 008 001 006 005 00* 003 0 02 001 100

x
——— Hurfe*. I'Unt-
————— Kuiter. Curvrd. ('Mtitwr ^
————— Surfor .. - „',

Plate I — Comparison made by Eiffel of C.P. travel on sev- Plate III — Airfoil characteristics of single surface circular
eral single surface circular arc airfoils to a flat surface. arc having spars at leading and trailing edge.
Later, M. G. Eiffel made accurate measurements of
this characteristic with his wind tunnel in Paris. The
results of this work are shown in Plate 1 comparing sev-
eral different cambers to a flat plate. As my father con-
tinued to work with the circular arc he realized that the
center of pressure location on the surface is only part of
the picture. You must think of the resultant of all forces
acting on an airfoil as a vector. The center of pressure is
only the point at which this vector passes through the
surface. More important is the direction or slope of this
vector. Obviously any aerodynamic force acting on the
segment of a circle, neglecting friction, must be normal
to this surface and thus pass through the center of
radius.
Sketch 1 is a typical single surface circular arc air-
foil with the vectors corresponding to several angles of
attack between 0° and 20°. Clearly, if the center of grav-
ity of the aircraft was at the center of radius there could
be no pitching moments and the aircraft would have
neutral stability. No correction would be required when
flying through turbulence, even with the air striking the
airfoil at various angles.
It now should be clear why the Chanute glider
worked so well and was so stable while the Wright copy
was uncontrollable. Looking at Photo 1, the pilot is well
-7.8' below the wings, his center of gravity nearly coincides
with the center of curvature. The approximate position
marked "C. G. — Chanute" in Sketch 1. Compare this to
the Wright glider in Photo 2 where the pilot is actually
above the lower wing, in the area marked "C. G. —
Wright" in the sketch. Any moments encountered in the
flight range of Chanute's machine could easily be cor-
CUKVATUAK.
rected by the 2 inch body movement Chanute claimed
while those in the Wright machine are more than four
Plate II — Vector diagram of single surface circular arc air- times as high.
foil having spars at leading and trailing edge. No surface is entirely frictionless and some structure
in the form of spars is required. How badly would this
distort the theoretical vector diagrams we have been us-
ing?
SPORT AVIATION 43
 To find out I built an airfoil of 40 inch span and 10
inch chord with a spar at the leading and trailing edge.
Compression members were between these spars to re-
sist tension of the single surface. This airfoil was tested
in NYU wind tunnel with the results shown in Plates II
and III. Vector diagram Plate II was a pleasant surprise.
Structural drag did not seriously distort the focal point
but tended to bring it closer to the wing. This is desir-
able because it is usually this distance that limits the
possible aircraft size.
For the ultralight builder who is not concerned with
speed but enjoys flying with a minimum of sophistica-
tion and a maximum of ease and safety, the single sur-
face wing should be considered . . . provided he
thoroughly understands the unusual stability charac-
teristics of this wing.
Plate III shows that even including structure this
wing compares favorably in lift to any modern day air-
foil. (Data was taken at 35 miles per hour air speed.)
True, the drag is higher than with many thickened
airfoils but to offset this one deficiency there are many
advantages. Using a spar at the leading and trailing
edges, with a compression member between makes the
lightest and simplest construction possible. The ribs Kx 0 !0 0 OS 001 006 006 00* 003 002 001 "00
need only be rigid enough to maintain camber. With a
iirliwr, I'liim- ^
little mechanical ingenuity the wing could be made urface. Curved. CiUlllRT .,
foldable.
Plate IV, also prepared by Eiffel, shows in polar form
the lift and drag of several different cambers and a flat Plate IV — Comparison made by Eiffel of lift and drag of
surface. Coefficients given are metric. To convert them several single surface circular arc airfoils to a flat surface.
to our more familiar units multiply Ky by 15.95 to get
GI and K x by 15.95 to get Cj.
For instance, the surface having a camber of 1 in 7
develops maximum lift at about 20° angle of attack. At
this angle Ky is .094. Multiplying this by 15.95 gives
1.499 C j which is high indeed for an airfoil operating
at low Reynolds number.

Sketch 1 — Typical vector diagram of single surface circular

arc airfoil showing approximate C.G. locations of Chanute
and Wright gliders.

C.Ga. - CHANUTI

Latest version of the Spratt land plane.

CENTER CF RADIUS

44 MAY 1980