"Wright replica fails to get off the ground"

[Mike]

Wright replica fails to get off the ground
One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
and supercomputers. They flopped badly.
at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031217-100138-3678r.htm

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Mike
> wrote:

> One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
> into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
> to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
> and supercomputers. They flopped badly.

You can hardly hold them accountable for bad weather. The flyer
needs 16 horsepower and 20 knots of wind, neither of which were
present due to the lack of wind, the addition of trees to the flying
field, and the wet weather (which reduced engine performance).
There is a very, very narrow flight envelope for the 1903 flyer,
and those conditions did not exist yesterday. That doesn't mean
that the flyer cannot fly, or that the program is a flop, it just
means that they need to try again some other day when the right
conditions are present.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Ron Natalie]

"Mike" > wrote in message
om...
> Wright replica fails to get off the ground
> One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
> into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
> to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
> and supercomputers. They flopped badly.

I'm not sure what "21st century technology" or super computers they
thought was used. Most of the technology was in figuring out exactly
what the original materials/design/construction was. From there it
was pretty much the same methodology the writes used (except for
things like battery operated drills).

Actually, it was only Wednesday's reenactment that failed, first due to
an engine problem and then to the weather that prevented a second try.
They had flown the craft in Novemenber.

[Steve]

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article >, Mike
> > wrote:
>
>
>>One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
>>into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
>>to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
>>and supercomputers. They flopped badly.
>
>
> You can hardly hold them accountable for bad weather. The flyer
> needs 16 horsepower and 20 knots of wind, neither of which were
> present due to the lack of wind, the addition of trees to the flying
> field, and the wet weather (which reduced engine performance).
> There is a very, very narrow flight envelope for the 1903 flyer,
> and those conditions did not exist yesterday. That doesn't mean
> that the flyer cannot fly, or that the program is a flop, it just
> means that they need to try again some other day when the right
> conditions are present.

Actually, the Flyer had 12hp *peak* performance from the engine. But
you're right. The replica didn't have the wind conditions the Wrights
had (which was critical to their getting airborne) and it was soaked by
rain, making it heavier. What the replica attempt showed very nicely, I
think, is just how marginal the Flyer was and how the Wrights were
actually very *lucky* to have got airborne in 1903 - something they
discovered to their horror the following year.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steve" > wrote in message
...

> Actually, the Flyer had 12hp *peak* performance from the engine. But
> you're right.

Actually, from talking to the Hay brothers it is likely that the 03 engine
was producing more than 12 hp on December 17 1903. The power
output is quite variable based on density altitude and how long the engine
has been run, the water temperature, etc...

[Steve]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Actually, the Flyer had 12hp *peak* performance from the engine. But
>>you're right.
>
>
> Actually, from talking to the Hay brothers it is likely that the 03 engine
> was producing more than 12 hp on December 17 1903. The power
> output is quite variable based on density altitude and how long the engine
> has been run, the water temperature, etc...

Quite possibly - it was nice and cold that day, after all. I guess the
truth is, we'll never know for sure because it was such a crude engine
being used under such variable conditions.

[gatt]

"Steve" > wrote in message
...

> Quite possibly - it was nice and cold that day, after all. I guess the
> truth is, we'll never know for sure because it was such a crude engine
> being used under such variable conditions.

If it flew the first time, every time, regardless of weather, it would not
be an accurate replica of the Wright Flyer and, as such, one might as well
go to the local airport and watch 737s take off all day.

-c

[Dave]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mike
> > wrote:
>
> > One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
> > into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
> > to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
> > and supercomputers. They flopped badly.
>
> You can hardly hold them accountable for bad weather. The flyer
> needs 16 horsepower and 20 knots of wind, neither of which were
> present due to the lack of wind, the addition of trees to the flying
> field, and the wet weather (which reduced engine performance).
> There is a very, very narrow flight envelope for the 1903 flyer,
> and those conditions did not exist yesterday. That doesn't mean
> that the flyer cannot fly, or that the program is a flop, it just
> means that they need to try again some other day when the right
> conditions are present.
>

Poor airmanship trying to take off when the conditions were not right. Is
that not the first lesson we are taught? Poor judgement, trying to be
clever and looking like complete as*holes.
Well done it was a good laugh.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Dave
> wrote:

> Poor airmanship trying to take off when the conditions were not right. Is
> that not the first lesson we are taught? Poor judgement, trying to be
> clever and looking like complete as*holes.
> Well done it was a good laugh.

The hope was to replicate the Wright flight on the day/time/place
of the historic flights from 1903. 40,000 people had traveled great
distances and waited hours in the rain. The flight team wanted to
at least give one flight a shot, despite the problems that they knew
of. I would think that you would congradulate them on taking a
gool old college try at the flight rather making fun of them. It
is easy to sit on the sidelines and take shots at others when you
haven't done anything of any significance yourself.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Ron Natalie]

"Dave" > wrote in message ...
>
> Poor airmanship trying to take off when the conditions were not right. Is
> that not the first lesson we are taught? Poor judgement, trying to be
> clever and looking like complete as*holes.
> Well done it was a good laugh.
>
Relatively harmless....the thing even in the best of circumstances wasn't going to
get more than a few feet off the ground and moving at less than 30 MPH.
"Good Airmanship" would tell you not to get in the danged contraption.
Kevin at least, unlike Orville, was wearing a helmet.

[RobertR237]

In article >, "John A. Weeks III"
> writes:

>
>> Poor airmanship trying to take off when the conditions were not right. Is
>> that not the first lesson we are taught? Poor judgement, trying to be
>> clever and looking like complete as*holes.
>> Well done it was a good laugh.
>
>The hope was to replicate the Wright flight on the day/time/place
>of the historic flights from 1903. 40,000 people had traveled great
>distances and waited hours in the rain. The flight team wanted to
>at least give one flight a shot, despite the problems that they knew
>of. I would think that you would congradulate them on taking a
>gool old college try at the flight rather making fun of them. It
>is easy to sit on the sidelines and take shots at others when you
>haven't done anything of any significance yourself.
>
>-john-
>
>

I agree. They always knew that the odds of recreating the flight were hugely
against them but I am glad they gave it a try in any case. Anyone who can't
see and understand that really doesn't appreciate anything about flying to
begin with.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)