posted
Did Spirit have aileron and rudder trim? Any description of the stability problem from Lindbergh? (Not it kept me awake) Was the prop pitch changed in NY?
Posts: 7 | From: San Diego | Registered: Oct 2006
| Logged: 66.75.254.119
posted
There was no provision for aileron trim or rudder trim on the Spirit.
The Spirit was stable enough. In fact, the Spirit was not terribly unstable at all.
As with all myths, they start somewhere in the past and become ingrained through the repetition of the story re-tellers.
The earlier Ryans used the same tail surfaces as the Spirit and they were far from unstable.
Because Lindbergh wrote about Hall's desire to put larger tail surfaces on the Spirit to improve the level of stability, the story has evolved over time to mean that the aircraft was unstable.
The supposed lack of stability even morphed into a planned asset to which Lindbergh would use to keep him awake. Pretty funny stuff all in all.
The Spirit, as all early Ryan , which used the small tail surfaces had adequate stability. Later Ryan aircraft had enlarged tail surfaces which improved the level of stability and improved the spin recovery level to a goverment acceptable level. The level of stability using the early, small tail surfaces was adequate enough for the Ryan Airlines/Mahoney Aircraft to continue to use those small surfaces until long after the Spirit was built and the inventory on hand was used up. Larger tail surfaces did help the instrument flying capability of the later aircraft. Bottom line is the aircraft were quite managable using the original small tail surfaces.
There was a rigging problem which was part of the Spirit's flight characteristics. Lindbergh mentions this several time in the course of his writings. The aircraft would start turning to the left if left to its own designs(no pun intended).
This problem was created by the desire of the builders to simplify the design of the Spirit and reduce construction time and overall weight of the ship. The aircraft was built void of any adjustments to the wing struts or vertical fin. Both of which were reported to be adjustable by a noted Ryan/Spirit historian.
There was also a rigging defect which was created during the manufacturing of the aircraft (a crooked wing trailing edge) which was never corrected and is still visible in the aircraft to this day. This defect would have been enough to cause the aircraft to turn to the left but there simply wasn't enough time to fix the problem prior to departure for Paris.
I don't believe the propeller pitch was changed in New York. The simple reason; the aircraft performed in excess of design expectations on the flight from San Diego to St. Louis and then to New York. This would have been reason enough to keep the same propeller pitch, which the propeller manufacturer recommended in the first place. TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
posted
Not a bendable tab on the rudder? The J5 would exert considerable prop wash force on the fuselage. I believe the Sprit was reasonably stable by 1927 standards but not the seriously unstable a/c exhibited by current replicas. Reasonably stable because L engaged a Navy Hawk fighter on flight one and later took Don Hall, Chief Engineer, as a passenger perched on the wicker arm. Hours of partial panel instrument flight to Paris by a fatigued pilot at night or in weather is highly unlikely in a seriously unstable aircraft. Followed by a trip to the UK and a promotional lengthy US trip. None of the flight records add up to the current view of L a pilot with supernatural powers overcoming the deficiencies of an seriously unstable Spirit. Excellent pilot and planner, right engine, adequate airframe and fuel and lucky lucky lucky.
Posts: 7 | From: San Diego | Registered: Oct 2006
| Logged: 66.75.254.119
posted
No rudder tab was installed on the Spirit. The vertical fin was offset to the left to counteract engine torque at cruise power. This was one of the hurried design compromises of the Spirit. The vertical fin was NOT adjustable and in fact was welded in place. Whatever offset which was guessed at by the original builders was exactly what they had when the aircraft was finished. Various accounts tell of Lindbergh test flying the Spirit and having the vertical fin adjusted or the wing struts adjusted but this simply did NOT happen.
BTW-Stability is not a desired design characteristic when attempting to dogfight or "engage" as you put it.
Historic accounts, including Lindbergh's, tell of the mock dogfight with a Navy fighter from North Island in San Diego on the initial test flight of the Spirit. If it had been a true attempt at "engagement", mock or otherwise, Lindbergh would have been whipped at every turn.
The reality is; the Spirit had a slower roll rate, by probably less than half that of the Hawk fighter, it would have been slower in cruise flight than the fighter by about 20 mph, and because of this, even without a load and near empty the Spirit would have had a lower initial rate of climb than the Hawk fighter. The only possible advantage the Spirit would have possessed would have been on an extended climb where it’s excess wing area would have allowed the Spirit to maintain it’s climb rate where the fighter’s would have fallen off to some extent but even that is questionable.
These factors don't address the fact the Spirit had such limited visibility as to render it’s pilot blind unless the opposing aircraft was low to the side and front of the cockpit. The Spirit could not reverse directions with the Hawk fighter so combat mock or true would have been idiotic. It is very likely the Navy pilot knowing the poor visibility the Spirit allowed its pilot probably just tried to stay in the field of view of Lindbergh to be safe.
posted
Prop aircraft of that period and WWII have offset fin leading edge to the left of center (From behind). US aircraft. Because the helix swirl of the clockwise prop wash hits the left side of the tail and causes it to move right. Stability differs for aircraft purpose. Even then, fighters have desireable stabilty characteristics built in commensurate with mission. L stated he was able to flat turn inside the Hawk. Likely true due to only 50 gal of fuel and a very large high lift wing and a relatively powerful engine. Spirit was totally outclassed by the Hawk in any engagement. If Spirit was as unstable as believed, likely L wouldn't have bothered. The Hawk pilot may have hung around out of curiosity given that NI was only a few miles away. Spirit's fuselage was lengthened by 2 ft. Do you have any references as to fuselage length? Measurements given include engine and likely rudder. Would think Smithstonian would have detailed specs.
Posts: 7 | From: San Diego | Registered: Oct 2006
| Logged: 66.75.254.119
posted
We have extensive data the NASM simply does not have nor are they likey to acknowledge in the immediate future. It seems fairly likely the Spirit's fuselage existed before CAL arrived at the Ryan factory. There was a "standard" frame that is identical with the external dimensions of the Spirit's. NOTHING, it would appear was ever lengthened! More legend to be squashed. Charlie Neely
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jun 2006
| Logged: 69.110.93.129
posted
As for the fuselage length of the Spirit; it was NOT lengthened by 2 ft. It was the exact same length as a previous Ryan Airlines model and was built and planned that way from the beginning.
As I recall, the fuselage frame was 19ft,1/4in from back of tail post to front of engine mount lugs but I would need to check that to be sure. The overall length of the Spirit was approximately 27ft, 8inches with the original spinner assembly. This measurement was the number supplied by Donald A. Hall but he had a little habit of rounding off his figures. He listed the wing span as 46 ft but it was in fact 3/4 inch shorter than 46ft in the as built condition. The overall length would have been about two inches shorter with the replacement spinner assembly installed in New York.
As for the Smithsonian’s NASM, they have a rather hands off approach to history. Or maybe, it is really hands on as they do NO research related to the Spirit historically but they have found it important to cut large holes in the fabric of the aircraft to test the structural integrity of the various components of the Spirit.
The staff at the Smithsonian are some of the most delightful gents on the planet, but they simply have no clue as to the actual details of the Spirit or the story called the Spirit of St. Louis. Primary research is not the playground of the boys that keep the historical flame lit. They have a Lindbergh is/was God and as such was never wrong.
One of the biggest disappointments of the modern history movement is the acceptance of the socially approved or socially ratified versions of history. In other words, it is perfectly O.K. with NASM personnel to re-count an erroneous version of history just as long as it coincides with the socially accepted version. This saves on research time when producing a new book or video production.
Take for example the latest product to come out of the NASM curatorial writers pool called; "the Best of the National Air and Space Museum"(2006).
In the text covering the Spirit, the author says Lindbergh had the wing span increased by 10 feet.
Funny thing is, Lindbergh wrote that the ONLY design contribution he made to the Spirit was to suggest the cockpit be enclosed. He wrote nothing about asking to increase the wing span.
While we are discussing the design contributions of Charles Lindbergh, according to this new work, he was credited with requiring the cockpit be "moved farther to rear for safety". The cockpit of the Spirit of St. Louis was in EXACTLY the same place as the previous 28 or 29 aircraft built by the Ryan Airlines Company.
The NASM just doesn't care what they tell the public as they are the authority, our nation's attic as they say. They need to dust off a few of the items up there.
Forget the facts because, how we feel about a historical event is just as, or more important than, what really happened. This is detailed in the book, "the Airplane in American Culture" as edited by Dominick Pisano, NASM curator.
The Smithsonian is not about truth. It is about maintaining the perception of truth and the perception of the American ideal.
Otherwise, one of those PhD’s would know something other than what they read in Charles Lindbergh's book, the Spirit of St. Louis completed 25 years after the actual event or something they just made up to fill type space. The best part about this arrangement is we pay their wages!! TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
posted
Very interesting and certainly not the conventional story. Looking at the pic of Spirit taxiing in from flight one, it is very difficult to see how the original fuselage could have been two feet less. The real truth of Spirit and it's dimensions is the aircraft. Smithsonian does marvelous restoration work and hasn't done an in-depth engineering study on Spirit? Surprising. Lack of accurate design characteristics may be the reason for current replica flight stabilty. As for L's contribution to the design, nothing in We. More about planning, survival gear, and emphasis on testing. I find it very unusual that Spirit did not have rudder trim. Means unbalanced flight or a very long flight using leg muscle. Must have been annoying to fly unbalanced and cost speed and fuel. Aggravates partial panel night and instruments. Missing rate of climb/descent also puzzling. Was Spirit the no 2 B-1?
Posts: 7 | From: San Diego | Registered: Oct 2006
| Logged: 66.75.254.119
posted
In the days directly after Lindbergh's Atlantic flight, the French authorities in charge of the Spirit went to large efforts at documenting the construction details of the Spirit of St. Louis while they were making repairs to damage caused by the souvenir seeking crowd that swarmed the plane after landing.
In fact, the collection of documents and photos held by the Musee de Air and Space at Le Bourget was far better and far more extensive that the collection maintained at the NASM. The French detailed the fuel and oil systems as well as taking measurements of the actual components. The French even sought out information from the Ryan Airlines Company before the Spirit was returned to the US. They still maintain those original Ryan documents!
Two books about Lindbergh and the Spirit stand out as classics (ha, ha). Written by the Smithsonian’s NASM curatorial staff, Charles Lindbergh and the Spirit of St. Louis and Lindbergh, Flight's Enigmatic Hero are shining examples of the NASM shaking down the public for money. Both of these works were completed to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the Atlantic flight. Unfortunately, neither included much in the way of primary research into the documents from the historic event. What's worse, they didn't even avail themselves of the actual aircraft hanging in their museum.
"The Smithsonian does marvelous restoration work"!
Now that's a whopper! The NASM hasn't restored any single aircraft to a condition in which it was originally operated. The aircraft of the NASM are much akin to a china doll in a glass house. This is goes hand in hand with the efforts they expend at actually knowing history. The NASM staff expend horrendous amounts of time and expense to produce antiseptically clean and perfect aircraft. If the original manufacturers of those aircraft had labored over them in a like kind manner, mass production would have never been achieved. Aircraft are seldom perfect or clean even when they were new. The best aircraft in the Smithsonian's NASM collection are those which they haven't restored. For example, the P-38 at the new Hazy Center at Dulles or Lincoln Ellsworth's Lockheed Gamma which still shows the effects of landing hard on the Artic ice.
In a shining example of aviation history, Smithsonian style can be found in Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Vega.
In the new book just released by the Smithsonian, entitled "the Best of the National Air and Space Museum (2006), edited By Dr. Robert F. van der Linden, curator, NASM, the following is written; "In the bright red Lockheed 5B now on display in the National Air and Space Museum, Amelia Earhart became the first woman, and only the second person, to fly solo nonstop across the Atlantic Ocean and the first woman to fly solo nonstop across the United States."
While it is true that Amelia did make the flights detailed, she did NOT make them "in the bright red Lockheed 5B Vega now on display in the National Air and Space Museum" !!! That aircraft was destroyed by fire following a crash by AE. The aircraft on display was a replacement bought by the famous aviatrix, but after all you definitely are given an impressionistic truth (hmmn, where have I heard that before?) by the NASM so why should we complain? TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
posted
As for your missing rudder trim on the Spirit; thousands of aircraft have been built without rudder trim and they fly perfectly fine. The rudder pressures are quite low on the early Ryan aircraft because of the aerodynamic balance on top of the rudder.
As for your "missing" rate of climb gauge, the Spirit is equipped with the earliest of rate of climb indicators.
The airspeed indicator, the tachometer and the pilot's ears become a very good "indicator" of the climbs and descents. Early instrument flying was taught using these "indicators" which work quite well in showing the pilot what is happening with an aircraft.
When the nose goes down, the noise and rpm go up and the altimeter goes down. When the nose goes up, the noise and rpm go down and the altimeter goes up. This WAS state of the art. This technique still works well today if one is not using noise-canceling headphones.
Lindbergh's aircraft was also equipped with an inclinometer which shows pitch (nose up and down) which takes the place of a "horizon" indicator found in modern aircraft. The vacuum operated turn and bank indicator as well as the roll indicator on top of the pitch inclinometer combined with those other "indicators" made a reasonably good instrument flying aircraft.
It is certainly true what you have been reading is unconventional in terms of the socially accepted Spirit of St. Louis story.
My question to you is; would you rather know the facts or simply take an ostrich-ian position and be happy with the make believe version which is widely accepted? The choice is yours. TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
posted
So much for beating up on the Smithsonian and NASM.
Maybe we can effect a positive change at the NASM if we require they raise their own bar. The Smithsonian and the NASM want to be perceived as the bench mark and most people consider them to be the bench mark. But the public doesn’t know they are getting a real hose job.
But since we know the truth, it is us who must push them to raise the level of acceptability and integrity. When we have the opportunity, we must make it known to the NASM staff or more importantly the leaders of the Smithsonian Institution that mediocrity can not and is not acceptable !
I encourage everyone to write to the Smithsonian and the NASM Director and demand a higher level of product from those charged with maintaining our history. As time goes by, obtaining and securing the details of the past obviously becomes harder. We owe it to future generations to require the highest level of achievement right now from those who are paid with tax dollars to preserve our history.
The only way change will happen is if your voice is heard. I will post the email and snail mail addresses for the Smithsonian and the NASM. Then it's up to you.
TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
posted
Untold Story of Spirit of St. Louis, Cassagneres, has a good description of the fin adjustment process and shows it in the drawing p164. Looks reasonable and likely to me. The drawings of Spirit are very good in terms of detail and measurements. Why are they not accurate? The inclinometer is certainly better than T/B only for instrument flight. Reasonably good instrument flying aircraft for 1927 would also include a stable aircraft. None of the replicas are stable. True that in the early days few instruments were available. Feel and sound were the input. Unfortunately, lots of fatal crashes were the output. USAirmail good example. It would be more interesting to explain that the Vega was a replacement for the original Earhart crashed due to pilot error. As for original in service look, I think the public wants to see bright and shiny and that's what they pay for. SD Air & Space has a UK built SPAD VII, one of 19 brought to North Island in 1918. Flew in the Armistice Day celebration. Now done in period colors, blue cowl, RAF roundel - pretty. Wouldn't attract the same attention done in original drab. What I really object to by Smithsonian is their attempted distortion of Enola Gay and its mission.
Posts: 7 | From: San Diego | Registered: Oct 2006
| Logged: 66.75.254.119
posted
In the still "the Untold Story of the Spirit of St. Louis" by Mr. Ev Cassagneres, the description of adjusting the vertical fin is simply made up. It never happened. Most of Mr. Cassagneres' "information" was gleaned from interviews of some of the original builders conducted in the late 1960's. He relied almost exclusively on 40 year old memories which were suspect at best.
Mr. Dale Caldwell's drawings in the back of Mr. Cassagneres' book do, in fact, correctly show the vertical fin front mount and fin offset but you will notice there is no mention of the front mount or vertical fin being adjustable and that is because they are not. The vertical fin is a non-adjustable welded assembly. You will note on page 44 Cassagneres gives us an account of Lindbergh complaining of wing heaviness and the mechanics adjusting the rear wing struts. This is simply not true. The wing struts were not adjustable and were fixed welded assemblies. Mr. Dale Caldwell is a fine draftsman and I consider him a friend in the SoSL world. His drawings are great to the extent of the information he was able to work with when he produced those drawings.
Unfortunately, if you do not want accurate restoration work done at the NASM, you won't get it. If bright shinny colors are all history is to you, what's the point of going? So the bottom line is you don't want history, you want fantasy. Bright shinny colors, not the truth. Flush that one please.
TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
posted
In Spirit and Creator, pg 8 is a pic of the fuselage prominent tail assy. On the frame are welded two ears with bolt holes. They are likely the attach points for the wishbone fixed rudder attach device. On page 9, a pic of the fixed portion of the elevator shows that it has a space large enough to accomodate the attach device. Changing the length of the sides of the device would move the fixed rudder. Pg 44 Cassagneres, "After the aileron and fin were adjusted, Lindbergh made another test flight lasting only five minutes. The adjustments did the trick." With respect to me and NASM, as a senior you should have learned that speaking for others is at best impolite.
Posts: 7 | From: San Diego | Registered: Oct 2006
| Logged: 66.75.254.119
posted
Cassegnares book is upsetting because he promises (is it not implied in his title??) to answer questions with facts. However, his "facts" are wrong again and again, ad nauseum! He shows pictures of wrong incidents perported to be factual. He also purports to know what subjects of a photo are thinking. His work simpley is not scholarly, despite his best intentions. It cannot be trusted as an authoritive historical source, period. It should also be noted ,Mr. Cassegnares has close ties to NASM on the Lindbergh story. If everyone tells a lie long enough and loud enough do you think we all should believe it???? As the actual fact and feature of the story become known it is more and more apparent that the "official version" has been driven more by the fame more than anything else.
As for the adjustable fin question, I've studied enough photos (computer enhanced originals)of the fuselage frame to be extremely sure that the fin is part of the welded frame assembly and is integral (read solidly fixed to) with the 2" diam. tail post tube. It is not now nor was it ever adjustable! The supports on either side bolt on to steady the fin only and are not adjustable.
You also might like to know that Ty has closely examined the actual aircraft from the basket of a manlift, photographing and taking measurements. This was documented by a History Channel film crew. Not that he's an expert or anything (unlike Mr. Cassegnares who has, as I understand it from several sources, actually made the claim), but he has been an ardent student of the aircraft for a number of years. You just might want to listen when he speaks about the tech details of the Spirit. I'm sure hed be the first to tell you that there is so more yet to be learned.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jun 2006
| Logged: 69.110.93.129
posted
I will assume for the moment you meant page 84, not 8 in Nova Hall's book, Spirit and Creator.
The welded tabs which clearly show on the top longerons are the front mounting points for the horizontal stabilizer. The front mount for the vertical fin uses the same attach points.
The vertical fin shown in that same photo on page 84 is a solid welded assembly. It does not move and was not designed to move. It is of cantilever construction and as such requires no additional bracing to make it rigid.
Having owned the only surviving original (non-reproduction) Ryan M-1 which uses the same tail surfaces as the Spirit now on display in the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington, I can say without a doubt the vertical fin is not adjustable.
Changing the lengths of the sides of the forward vertical fin attach fitting will only cause the fitting to no longer fit.
I am not speaking for anybody else when I say the references you fondly refer to are both a load of horse manure. In fact, several loads of horse manure(very pc).
The National Air and Space Museum is ripping you off whether you want to acknowledge it or not. It could be the greatest museum in the world but it will take personnel who understand they have a moral responsibility and one of the greatest opportunities in this field of endeavor if only they choose to take advantage of it.
Every time you purchase a book where the author does a grade school job at research, you have been taken. You are also giving a green light to this type of behavior. Your tax dollars are being used to make this happen. Can you honestly say you're happy with the NASM? If you believe in the tooth fairy and Easter bunny you COULD be happy the NASM is taking your money for books that are never researched or for aircraft which never looked like they do on display there.
Fact; The cockpit of the Spirit was never moved aft nor was it moved at all (see NASM’s “the Best of the National Air and Space Museum” pg 166)
There are no 18 inch fuel lines in the Spirit of St. Louis (see NASM’s “Charles Lindbergh and the Spirit of the St. Louis” pg 41 and Cassagneres’ “the Untold Story of the Spirit of St. Louis” pg 39)
No shock cords lugs were ever added to the shock struts of the Spirit (see Cassagners’ “the Untold Story of the Spirit of St. Louis pg 48)
Lindbergh did not invent the econometer nor did he use it in the Spirit. (NASM’s “Charles Lindbergh and the Spirit of St. Louis’ pg 41, 46 and Cassagners’ “the Untold Story of the Spirit of St. Louis” pg 35) This is a great place to add some fact. The “econometer” Lindbergh tried to “invent” was actually his attempt at building a fuel flow meter because he did not want to have to purchase one which was commercially available. His version never worked. He didn’t invent it because one, it already was in existence and two, his never worked. Giving him credit for inventing something which never worked is a perfect example of the quality of historical accuracy we all have been treated to by the NASM and every other Lindbergh expert. It appears Mr. Cassagneres has become so caught up in his hero’s slipstream, he has thrown out the truth for feel good creative writing.
Lindbergh did not want an unstable airplane. (Cassagneres’ Untold Story pg 32)
Lindbergh did not choose the prop setting (NASM “CAL and the Spirit” pg 49 and Cassagneres’ Untold Story pg 31)
The builders of the Spirit did not work day and night seven days a week to complete it on time.
They did not adjust the wing struts
They did not adjust the vertical fin
The periscope was of very limited usefulness.
The landing gear and tailskid were not heat treated assemblies.
There were no “quick drains” in the fuel tanks.
The landing gear was NOT derived from the Bluebird or the Brougham.
The NASM even credits the Spirit with having a flame proof firewall(see pg 42, NASM's CAL and the Spirit of St. Louis). Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact the item they point out as a flame proof firewall is actually a highly flamable nitrate dope inpregnated piece of cotton fabric used as a vapor barrier to prevent engine fumes from reaching the cockpit.
This list is almost endless. These are but a few of the common myths and errors connected to the Spirit of St. Louis. We need to demand better from the NASM if not for us, then for future generations. TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
The story has become so shrouded in myth that the truth is buried like an Egyptian pharaoh’s embalmed body in the belly of a pyramid.
The most unbelievable part of this myth IS the truth! That’s right, the truth.
Unlike the tombs of the pharaohs, the only digging needed is that of digging through a few boxes of papers. The truth is available to anyone who wants to know it and at least 97 percent of the truth of this story can be found by simply walking into the public buildings which house the papers from this historical event. But 98 percent of the truth which is the real Spirit of St. Louis story has not been part of the public consciousness.
The answer to this paradox can be found in three basic facts. First, the story of the Spirit of St. Louis was not a story until after it was over. Second, events in May of 1927 happened so fast, that the details were not germane to the overall fact that one man had just flown the Atlantic and had become the most famous person on the planet and third, our story’s hero found no need in correcting the errors and miss-conceptions which immediately surrounded his epic flight.
Even though most of the details were documented as they happened, when Charles Lindbergh became the over-night wonder boy of the ages, not many were concerned with those details. The STORY was that Lindbergh conquered the Atlantic, not HOW he conquered the Atlantic.
The press machine was desperate for newsprint and the myth was maturing at an alarming rate. So fast in fact, that in the year that followed his flight just one newspaper of the period, the New York Times printed over 1500 articles which mentioned Charles Lindbergh. These hard hitting exposes included titles like; "Lindbergh’s Daring Praised in Pulpits", "Baby Named For Air Hero", "Lindbergh Took No Kitten", "Lindbergh Continues to Drink Only Water" and my personal favorite "Lindbergh Dodges Choice Non-Committal on Blonde Or Brunette Preference".
So the die was cast and a hero was born of kittens and water. Why would anybody ever look beyond information like that you ask? Lindbergh felt no need to correct the wanderings of the press because the focus was now on aviation and that was his goal, to promote aviation.
The down side to ignoring the ramblings of the press in the beginning has paid great dividends in creation of a hero of mythical proportions. As is often the case, even Charles Lindbergh fell victim to his own press, for when he decided to re-tell his epic saga in his book, the Spirit of St. Louis which he completed 25 years after the flight, he referenced those very articles which so boldly went where even he had not been.
There is no wonder why so many question the existence of a different but totally true and factual drama they have never heard of. The public today has been told over and over again about an apple pie consuming hero who did it not for the money, not for the fame all the while designing his own plane and making sure the builders of which did it the right way so we all could benefit. Who could want anything more than that? After 80 years Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone and Christopher Columbus all want to know the truth. But in the words of another great American hero I think, “ you can’t handle the truth ” TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
posted
Ah the joys of doing historical research when everyone involved are long gone, and the "accepted" written history was written well after the fact. I feel, as it has been pointed out in this forum, that Lindbergh’s book only provided some of the facts and details. This version has also been edited, for various reasons, which could distort the facts more. The current historical versions are flawed, intentional or not, partly because they are using previously accepted information which is old and now discovered to be out dated. Only with more information coming to public access, can these inaccuracies be corrected. After all, look how long mankind believed the world was flat! Unfortunately there will always be people who write and will propagate these errors; whether for political, personal, or monetary reasons.
I feel many of the inaccuracies regarding the Spirit are the result of people incorrectly thinking the Spirit was a modification of either the M-1/M-2 series or (especially) the B-1 series. I also think the B-1's modified for the movie helped perpetuate this misunderstanding. Ty posted above regarding the Spirit:
They did not adjust the wing struts
They did not adjust the vertical fin
The landing gear and tailskid were not heat treated assemblies.
The B-1 had adjustable wing struts, adjustable vertical fin, and components of the landing gear were heat treated. Maybe someone writing in the past who believed the Spirit was a modified Brougham, had access to this Brougham information, not have access to the Spirit, and assumed that if the Broughams had it then the Spirit was the same way.
Oopsie.
One more thing I would like to comment on. Ty has repeatedly stated that “There are no 18 inch fuel lines in the Spirit of St. Louis”. Yet the photos (I think) clearly show the fuel lines are multiple piece assemblies. Could the truth be closer to something along the lines of Lindbergh asking for more joints/shorter hard line lengths to avoid the breakage he’s quoted on, and the 18 inch length dimension was added during the editing process?
Call it wishful thinking but one of these years, NASM is going to have to do something to the Spirit because she’s not aging well. When they do that, hopefully some of these inaccuracies will finally be put to rest.
Scott
Posts: 8 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 2004
| Logged: 216.19.21.205
posted
Overhauling the Spirit will not straighten out the mess which is now called the Spirit of St. Louis.
I wouldn’t count on the story changing in the least with the same staff at the NASM we have now.
If they could write book after book and NEVER access the aircraft they literally walk by every day on the way to their offices, do you actually think they will bother to research anything when they have the opportunity?
Think about it, they would have to admit they have been ripping off the general public for years and that just aint gonna happen.
Of course making excuses for them now with ideas such as “they simply got mixed up with some other aircraft like the Brougham” will make the money all those poor people have spent on the countless books the NASM has sold them justified.
When you make excuses for them, they will have no reason to get better and guess what; they’re supposed to be the best! How about we fire the lot and find a few historians who value fact over fiction?
Actually, doing research after everyone is gone can be a blessing. There is no one offering up their clouded memories or telling the world how it was when it wasn't.
Lindbergh's books have not provided a clear picture. In fact, they are responsible for many of the misconceptions which now abound. Many of these misconceptions were created by simply providing an "impressionistic truth" as Lindbergh put it and others were created by Lindbergh's accessing flawed data long after the fact and incorporating that stuff into his writings.
For the obvious purpose of saving 10 pounds of fuel line clamps and rubber hose segments the fuel lines were made longer than 18 inches.
The fact that this flawed information comes from interviews of the original builders long after the fact or that the length of the lines in incorrect is not the problem.
The NASM curators as well as Ev Cassagneres have had direct access to the Spirit. They have had access to every photo taken of the Spirit during construction in 1927. Yet somehow they missed a simple but obvious detail such there are no 18 inch fuel lines in the Spirit.
Yet they all manage to keep writing that baloney for everyone to read. Now this may seem just a bit trifle but even you noticed the difference yet they’ve got the marvelous PhDs and are getting paid to do such a lousy job.
18 inch fuel lines are not even the ice above the water when it comes to this story. A story of Titanic proportions is as yet untold by these wizards of history.
There is a dichotomy as sharply divided as the walls of the Grand Canyon when it comes to the facts of the greatest aviation event of the 20th Century and the crap these guys have dished out over and over again. TS
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
posted
Pg 138 Hall shows a pic of NYP-2 without fairings. Clearly, the forward left strut attachment at the wing shows that a similar arrangement rear strut would permit adjustment. Therefore, both the fixed rudder and the wing of Spirit was adjustable as stated in both Cassagneres and Halls books. For sure, the only area of agreement will be when Smithsonian documents engineering details on conservation.
Posts: 7 | From: San Diego | Registered: Oct 2006
| Logged: 66.75.254.119
I will indulge your polemic efforts with the following facts;
You are 100% correct. The NYP-2 did have adjustable wing struts.
BUT, all of the wing struts of the NYP, also known as the Spirit of St. Louis were fixed in length and were NOT adjustable as seen in this photo; http://www.charleslindbergh.com/history/sec/10frameandwing-1909act.jpg (photo taken by Ryan Airlines designated photographer, Mr. H.A. "Jimmy" Erickson and duplicated in the Doug Kelley Collection, Donald A. Hall collection, San Diego Aerospace collection, the Peter Bowers collection and several others)
The reasons the adjustable strut ends were omitted from the Spirit were;
First, the strut adjustment components weigh in at about 5 lbs each. This was verified by the actual weight of the Ryan Airlines adjustable strut end components contained in the Historic Flight Project collection.
Second, the strut end and internally threaded receiving collar which is swaged and edge welded to the upper end of the wing struts require many hours of machine work on a lathe to complete.
Both the weight allowance and the time needed to manufacture them were not available to the original builders.
The NYP-2 was an aircraft built for a Japanese newspaper syndicate after the Spirit of St. Louis. It was completed in August of 1927. It had several small but noticeable differences from the original NYP, the Spirit of St. Louis. It had a larger main fuel tank as seen in this photo; http://www.charleslindbergh.com/history/sec/14maingastank_floor01-post1970.jpg (note the flat sides of the tank) This was done to increase the projected range of the NYP-2 to well over 4000 miles.
The ailerons on the NYP-2 had the control horns in the middle of the aileron instead of the inboard end. This was due to the builders actually making control cables that fit instead of using "off-the-shelf" control cables which were too short for the proper installation on the Spirit. The NYP-2 ailerons can be seen upon completion and prior to fabric installation in this photo; http://www.charleslindbergh.com/hall/6/aileron01-post1970.jpg
Oh, I almost forgot, the NYP-2 was delivered with 30x5 wheels and tires and the Spirit was delivered with 32x4 wheels and tires. These are just some of the differences between the two Ryan Airlines built NYP aircraft.
So, clearly the wing struts on the Spirit of St. Louis were not adjustable and neither was the vertical fin.
BTW- the photo on page 78 of Nova Hall's "Spirit and Creator" and the photo on page 29 of Mr. Cassagneres' "the Untold Story of the Spirit of St. Louis" cleary show the wing strut installation on the Spirit of St. Louis WITHOUT adjustable struts. But the photos are obviously out-weighed by the considerable writing talent of both gentleman. Here is their photo again just for reference; http://www.charleslindbergh.com/history/sec/10frameandwing-1909act.jpg
posted
Also seen in that last photo referenced by Ty is the wing's trailing edge passing straight thru, one piece, over the cockpit area(identical to ALL previous production Ryan aircraft rear pits). The dicision to enclose the cocpit has apparently not been initiated at the time of the photo as the TE has not been cut out, tublar fairings non-existant and top fairing stringers have not been added.
One of the main reasons we know that the factory was not going full tilt is the sucession of photos chronicaling the progress of the Spirit,which also shows other aircraft being assembled and completed.These also indicate that there is no evolutionary connection to the Broughm is the fact that the first B-1 appears in some of those same photos and at a much lesser degree of completion!
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jun 2006
| Logged: 69.110.93.129
This photo is one negative number different than the one you reference.
Lindbergh wrote that the enclosing of the cockpit was his sole contribution to the design of the Spirit.
Funny how every author since 1927 has had Lindbergh working daily at over-seeing the design and developement of the aircraft. At least HE (Lindbergh) knew the truth.
You would think Lindbergh had hired the lamest bunch of losers and drunks in the aviation business if he had to watch over them every day.
They had the aircraft factory, he was the customer. He wasn't the designing customer or engineering customer. He was the customer and he hired the Ryan Airlines Company to build him and his partners an airplane.
He didn't build it. He didn't help build it. He didn't design it. He didn't help design it.
He suggested they enclose the cockpit and that's it. At least that is what he said.
Now, what makes that even more interesting is Mr. Ev Cassagneres wrote in his book called "the Untold Story of the Spirit of St. Louis" said he disregarded what other experts in thier field had to say about the facts and relied only on Charles Lindbergh's words. But when the truth is smaller than what Mr. Cassagneres sees in his own mind, he doen't write about it. But he isn't the only guilty party.
In no publication written about Lindbergh will you find that the only design contribution to the Spirit by Charles Lindbergh was suggesting the cockpit be enclosed.
Folks, the story you think you know and the way it really happened are SO different. TS msb
Posts: 837 | Registered: Feb 2003
| Logged: 67.181.180.194
Printer-friendly view of this topic
