Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/527

Rh large-winged insects and birds, as the butterfly and heron; and others with heavy bodies and small wings, as the beetle and partridge. Similar remarks are to be made of bats. Those apparent inconsistencies in the dimensions of the body and wings are readily explained by the greater muscular development of the heavy-bodied, small-winged insects, birds and bats, and the increased power and rapidity with which the wings in them are made to oscillate. This is of the utmost importance in the science of aviation, as showing that flight may be attained by a heavy powerful animal with comparatively small wings, as well as by a lighter one with greatly enlarged wings. While, therefore, there is apparently no correspondence between the area of the wing and the animal to be raised, there is, except in the case of sailing insects, birds and bats, an unvarying relation as to the weight and number of oscillations; so that the problem of flight would seem to resolve itself into one of weight, power, velocity and small surfaces, versus buoyancy, debility, diminished speed and extensive surfaces—weight in either case being a sine qua non.

That no fixed relation exists between the area of the wings and the size and weight of the body to be elevated is evident on comparing the dimensions of the wings and bodies of the several orders of insects, bats and birds. If such comparison be made, it will be found that the pinions in some instances diminish while the bodies increase, and the converse. No practical good can therefore accrue to aviation from elaborate measurements of the wings and body of any flying thing; neither can any rule be laid down as to the extent of surface required for sustaining a given weight in the air. The statements here advanced are borne out by the fact that the wings of insects, bats and birds may be materially reduced without impairing their powers of flight. In such cases the speed with which the wings are driven is increased in the direct ratio of the mutilation. The inference to be deduced from the foregoing is plainly this, that even in large-bodied, small-winged insects and birds the wing-surface is greatly in excess, the surplus wing area supplying that degree of elevating and sustaining power which is necessary to prevent undue exertion on the part of the volant animal. In this we have a partial explanation of the buoyancy of insects, and the great lifting power possessed by birds and bats,—the bats carrying their young without inconvenience, the birds elevating surprising quantities of fish, game, carrion, &c. (fig. 28).

While as explained, no definite relation exists between the weight of a flying animal and the size of its flying surfaces, there being, as stated, heavy-bodied and small-winged insects, birds and bats, and the converse, and while, as has been shown, flight is possible within a wide range, the wings being, as a rule, in excess of what are required for the purposes of flight,—still it appears from the researches of L. de Lucy that there is a general law, to the effect that the larger the volant animal, the smaller, by comparison, are its flying surfaces. The existence of such a law is very encouraging so far as artificial flight is concerned, for it shows that the flying surfaces of a large, heavy, powerful flying machine will be comparatively small, and consequently comparatively compact and strong. This is a point of very considerable importance, as the object desiderated in a flying machine is elevating capacity.

De Lucy tabulated his results as under:—

“It is easy, by the aid of this table, to follow the order, always decreasing, of the surfaces, in proportion as the winged animal increases in size and weight. Thus, in comparing the insects with one another, we find that the gnat, which weighs 460 times less than the stag-beetle, has 14 times more of surface. The lady-bird weighs 150 times less than the stag-beetle, and possesses 5 times more of surface, &c. It is the same with the birds. The sparrow weighs about 10 times less than the pigeon, and has twice as much surface. The pigeon weighs about 8 times less than the stork, and has twice as much surface. The sparrow weighs 339 times less than the Australian crane, and possesses 7 times more surface, &c. If now we compare the insects and the birds, the gradation will become even much more striking. The gnat, for example, weighs 97,000 times less than the pigeon, and has 40 times more surface; it weighs three millions of times less than the crane of Australia, and possesses 140 times more of surface than this latter, the weight of which is about 9 kilogrammes 500 grammes (25 ℔ 5 oz. 9 dwt. troy, 20 ℔ 15 oz. 2 dr. avoirdupois).

“The Australian crane, the heaviest bird weighed, is that which has the smallest amount of surface, for, referred to the kilogramme, it does not give us a surface of more than 899 square centimetres (139 sq. in.), that is to say, about an eleventh part of a square metre. But every one knows that these grallatorial animals are excellent birds of flight. Of all travelling birds they undertake the longest and most remote journeys. They are, in addition, the eagle excepted, the birds which elevate themselves the highest, and the flight of which is the longest maintained.”

The way in which the natural wing rises and falls on the air, and reciprocates with the body of the flying creature, has a very obvious bearing upon artificial flight. In natural flight the body of the flying creature falls slightly forward in a curve when the