Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1910-03-20

the machinery. a broken propeller
having been the primary cause OF the
fall. 1t is also possible that Lefe-
lbre's mishap was caused by the con-
ttrol wire breaking, and the machine
becoming unmanageable in conse-
ouence. Ii is. however. inevitable
that in case of fall the machine
should be SO damaged that IL is I'M
possible to tell what happened from
the broken parts; and II the pilot Is
killed. it is difficult to ascertain how
she accident took place. In the cas-
es of Captain rerber and fernan-
dez there is no evidence that any part
of the machine failed. and in the
cases Of Lieutenant Selfbridge and
| Lefemre the main Training did not
lfail. In the case of Delagrange's ac-
cident. however. there seems good
reason to suppose that the main fram-
ling forming one of the wings gave
way altogether. the machine falling in
consequence.
Curious enough. Santos-DumOnt had
an accident the very next day from
an almost exactly similar cause. In
| this instance the good fortune which
has followed this experimenter
throughout his aerial career continued
and he did not lose his life. but there
is no diubt that the machine fell com
lpletely. In his case Il is definitely
STATED that the accident was caused
lby the fracture OF one of the wires
which takes the upward thrust of the
wing.
in the case of the blp!ane the top
and bottom members are both wood
with wood struts. the whole being
! hrsced with very numerous ties OF
wire. In the case OF the monoplane,
however. the main spars Of the wings
are trussed tc strut below by com
paratively small number Of wires.
The structure OF each wing is, in fact
very much like that OF the mast and
rigging Of a sailing boat. the main
spars taking the place of tine mast.
while the wire stays take that II the
shrcuds. A very important difference.
however. is that the mast Of sailing
beat is almost invariably provided
with a forestry to take the Longitude
nal pressure when going head TO
wind. while the wing Of an aerOplane
often has no such provision. the longi-
tudinal pressure due to the air re-
sistance being taken entirely by the
spar.
h is possible that this had some
lthing 70 do with the recent accident
with which We are especially deal
INK. for the mOuoplane or which Del
Arrange met his death had been fitted
with an engine Of double the power
originally provided by the maker who
IS reported 10 have given this as the
probable reason for the failure OF the
machine As the new motor was OF a
livery light type. the extra weight. II
lany. vas quite a negligible proper
Tim Ct the total weight Of the ma.
chine The vertical stresses or the
wings and their supporting wires
would therefore not be- materially in.
Creased. but a. the more powerful
eneinc drove the wings a great deal
faster through the air. the stresses
brcggh; upon them by the air re-
sistsnce would be very considerably
Increased. and unless provision vas
made 10 meet this. the factor Of safe
lfs u.r,id ~ very materially reduced
Whether the failure Of the wing wa
actually from longitudinal stress OF
from the supporting wire breaking. a.
iu the case % Santos-Dumonf. vii
probably never be accurately known
but Il i quite clear tba; the question