http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/

Lots of good info here with documentation, photos of aircraft and
engines, affadavits, etc...
For those who really are interested in who flew first...

Rob

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/
>
> Lots of good info here with documentation, photos of aircraft and
> engines, affadavits, etc...
> For those who really are interested in who flew first...

The funny thing about Weisskopf is that, even though he was chronically
short of money, he never claimed any of the aviation prizes that he
surely would have qualified for if his planes could really fly.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/
>
> Lots of good info here with documentation, photos of aircraft and
> engines, affadavits, etc...
> For those who really are interested in who flew first...

Should read: "For those who really are subject to baseless delusions..."

Brooks

>
> Rob

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/
>
> Lots of good info here with documentation, photos of aircraft and
> engines, affadavits, etc...
>

But without any credible evidence that Weisskopf ever flew.


>
> For those who really are interested in who flew first...
>

No rational person believes Weisskopf ever flew.

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/
>
> Lots of good info here with documentation, photos of aircraft and
> engines, affadavits, etc...
> For those who really are interested in who flew first...
>
> Rob

Hey, wait a minute. What about Ader's bats, the Eole and Avion III?

Also, didn't a New Zealander also fly some distance?

Ashton Archer III

"Ashton Archer III" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Hey, wait a minute. What about Ader's bats, the Eole and Avion III?
>

In 1890 Clement Ader's "Eole" rose from level ground under it's own power
and traveled some 50 yards or so at an altitude of about one foot before
settling back down. Since Ader had not equipped the craft with any kind of
flight control system, this was obviously not controlled flight, but it was
the first time a manned heavier-than-air machine took off from level ground
under its own power.

The later Avion III never left the ground.


>
> Also, didn't a New Zealander also fly some distance?
>

You're thinking of Richard Pearse. Pearse was an experimenter that made
several hops, apparently aided by gusty winds and a site that sloped
downward. His propeller was so inefficient that it's very unlikely it could
ever have provided sufficient thrust for sustained flight. While many have
advanced a first flight claim on Pearse's behalf he never did so. In a
series of letters written years later he stated he did not achieve true
flight and recognized the Wrights as the first to achieve powered,
sustained, controlled heavier than air flight.

In article >,
(Ashton Archer III) wrote:
>
> Hey, wait a minute. What about Ader's bats, the Eole and Avion III?

IIRC, he never got controllability nor engine problems sorted out.

> Also, didn't a New Zealander also fly some distance?

Pearse. He later claimed that his machine never had been worked up to a
useful level; controllability issues foremost.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/
> >
> > Lots of good info here with documentation, photos of aircraft and
> > engines, affadavits, etc...
> >
>
> But without any credible evidence that Weisskopf ever flew.


What constitutes 'credible evidence'. You have to define that. There
are several affidavits that he did fly. Replicas, that are in
substance the same and very similar as far as can known, have flown.


> >
> > For those who really are interested in who flew first...
> >
>
> No rational person believes Weisskopf ever flew.

This statement is in essence ad hominem. Any rational person would
entertain at least the possibility that Weiskopf/Whitehead did fly.
A man who engineered several successful engines.

On the one hand you say there is no credible evidence and on the other
you say anyone who does not flatly deny the possibility that he flew
is irrational.

He had an horizontal tailplane and elevator, he had twin aircrews that
could bee varied to change direction and he had roll control via
weight shifting (not a good method but it works for hang gliders and
it worked for Lilienthaal.)

While his propellers are criticized for being inefficient it has to be
remembered that he accelerated his vehicle via engaging road wheels: a
method that must be near 100% efficient.

I don't discredit the Wright Brothers, the thoroughness of their work
is excellent and they clearly had got it right by 1905.

By 1910 successful flight was going to be inevitable: the advances in
engine power to weight ratio meant that the power was finally
available to realize it.

In article >,
"The Enlightenment" > wrote:

> What constitutes 'credible evidence'. You have to define that. There
> are several affidavits that he did fly.

....affadavits from 20 to 30 years later, and not all of them agreed that
he *did* manage actual controlled flight (two of the cites are from guys
who helped build the planes).

> Replicas, that are in substance the same and very similar as far as
> can known, have flown.

....with much more powerful engines, giving about 50% more horsepower
than the ones he had available in 1903 and before...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 02:40:55 GMT, "The Enlightenment"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>He had an horizontal tailplane and elevator, he had twin air[s]crews that
>could bee varied to change direction and he had roll control via
>weight shifting (not a good method but it works for hang gliders and
>it worked for Lilienthaal.)

But what of the (arguably excessive) weight of Weisskopf's machine
which included a separate engine to power the wheels?

>While his propellers are criticized for being inefficient it has to be
>remembered that he accelerated his vehicle via engaging road wheels: a
>method that must be near 100% efficient.

If the motor which powered the wheels were able to propel Weisskopf's
craft to flying speed (doubtful), it would have been forced to rely
upon those alleged inefficient propellers to sustain its flight.

>I don't discredit the Wright Brothers, the thoroughness of their work
>is excellent and they clearly had got it right by 1905.
>
>By 1910 successful flight was going to be inevitable: the advances in
>engine power to weight ratio meant that the power was finally
>available to realize it.

It was Glen Curtiss, the motorcycle racer and engine builder, who won
aviation's first speed race at Reims, France, on August 29, 1909:
http://www.esparacing.com/Air%20Racing%20History/air%20racing%20main%20menu.htm