Re: Wright Flyer won't fly!

[Trent Moorehead]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:e%Vib.558417$Oz4.511309@rwcrnsc54...
> > Where'd you hear this? I'd like to learn more.
> >
> > mike regish
>
> I heard it on a local radio station, WPTF out of Raleigh NC. I just heard
it
> again. This time they said they are packing up and heading home after they
> couldn't get it to fly. I'll try to find something on the web....

Here it is:

>>>>>>quote

Wright flyer replica doesn't get off the ground


The Associated Press

DAYTON, Ohio (AP) - A group that built a replica of the Wright brothers'
first airplane is headed home after it was unable to get the plane off the
ground in North Carolina, a spokeswoman said.
The Wright Brothers Aeroplane Co. tried for five days to launch the replica
Wright Flyer, said spokeswoman Marion Schniegenberg. But they were
unsuccessful and were packing up their equipment on Monday.
"Bottom line is, after five days, we did not achieve a successful, sustained
flight," Schniegenberg said.

The group built the flyer in Dayton and trucked it last week to Currituck
County Airport, about 40 miles from Kitty Hawk, where Orville and Wilbur
Wright made the first powered flights in 1903. They invented the airplane in
their hometown of Dayton.

The aeroplane company's director Nick Engler said last week that the flyer
was making short hops of about 10 feet off the ground but that there wasn't
enough wind to keep it airborne.

The Wright brothers made four flights against winds of about 25 mph.

---

On the Net:

Wright Brothers Aeroplane Co.: www.wright-brothers.org

>>>>>unquote

It would appear that this isn't the only replica, but being the one from the
Wright Brothers Aeroplane Co., it would seem the most "official".

-Trent

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:24:01 GMT, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>A few things, primarily building on the fact that the flyer's abiltiy to fly
>was extremely marginal...
>
>1) What was the density altitude of the first flight, and what was it on
>the replica's attempt?
>2) How accurate is the replica? Could it be heavier or maybe the engine or
>props are not quite as efficient?
>3) The Flyer also failed to fly on its first attempt, resulting in some
>damage. On the 17th they had it repaired AND they had more wind. It flew
>that day. How much wind did they have for the replica's flight?
>
>In this recreation, a few percentage points of performance means everything.
>There are probably a hundred minor issues which could result in the replica
>not flying.
>
>KB

Not only was the original marginal in it's ability to fly, the
conditions on the day it made the attempt had winds at 27 mph. The
current replica is built so accurately that it likely needs that kind
of wind too. Or more power. But with more power, it isn't really
like the original...

Corky Scott

[Wayne]

The way I heard it, they will only attempt to fly it if the conditions
are just right. Enough wind, but not too much etc... The likelyhood of that
happening on the exact day is a gamble. I won't be suprised if they don't
even make the attempt.

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I just heard that the Ohio group that has built a Wright Flyer replica
and
> > took it down to Kitty Hawk couldn't get it to fly. I understand this to
be
> > practice flights for the December 17th celebration.
> >
> > I'm curious as to why they didn't try it out in Ohio first. Also, is
this
> > the official Flyer for the celebration? Coming from Ohio, I would think
> that
> > it is. It would be sad if there wasn't a flying (official) replica for
the
> > celebration, though there is still time for them to work it out.
> >
> > Harry (Burns) aren't you taking your Flyer down?
> >
> > -Trent
> > PP-ASEL
> >
> >
>
> A few things, primarily building on the fact that the flyer's abiltiy to
fly
> was extremely marginal...
>
> 1) What was the density altitude of the first flight, and what was it on
> the replica's attempt?
> 2) How accurate is the replica? Could it be heavier or maybe the engine
or
> props are not quite as efficient?
> 3) The Flyer also failed to fly on its first attempt, resulting in some
> damage. On the 17th they had it repaired AND they had more wind. It flew
> that day. How much wind did they have for the replica's flight?
>
> In this recreation, a few percentage points of performance means
everything.
> There are probably a hundred minor issues which could result in the
replica
> not flying.
>
> KB
>
>

[EDR]

In article >, Trent Moorehead
> wrote:

> I heard it on a local radio station, WPTF out of Raleigh NC. I just heard it
> again. This time they said they are packing up and heading home after they
> couldn't get it to fly. I'll try to find something on the web....

Oh, that's just more Ohio-bashing by disgruntled North Carolinian's.
They're still upset that Ohio is recognized as the "official"
birthplace of aviation.
Signed, "A Proud Buckeye!"
;-)))))

[Thomas Borchert]

Trent,

> Also, is this
> the official Flyer for the celebration? Coming from Ohio, I would think that
> it is.
>

No. The official Flyer is from "The Wright Experience" in Warrenton, VA. Also,
note that not every "replica" is a replica.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> They are out of Haymarket, VA.

Warrenton, VA, I think. At least, that's what the sign said when I was
there.

> They are practicing by dragging a
> modified 02 Glider around behind an SUV with Scott Crossfield yelling
> instructions to them out the back.
>

That'S not all they do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kyle,

> 2) How accurate is the replica?
>

Not very, some think.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
EDR > wrote:

> In article >, Trent Moorehead
> > wrote:
>
> > I heard it on a local radio station, WPTF out of Raleigh NC. I just heard it
> > again. This time they said they are packing up and heading home after they
> > couldn't get it to fly. I'll try to find something on the web....
>
> Oh, that's just more Ohio-bashing by disgruntled North Carolinian's.
> They're still upset that Ohio is recognized as the "official"
> birthplace of aviation.
> Signed, "A Proud Buckeye!"
> ;-)))))

I'm originally from North Carolina. I have never understood why my home
state tries to make a claim for being the birthplace of aviation. At
best, N.C. is ambivalent to general aviation.

[Margy Natalie]

The Wright Experience replica is VERY accurate. The only modification
made was the type of glue used in the prop. The fabric was manufactured
to match the original. It's amazing.

Margy

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Kyle,
>
> > 2) How accurate is the replica?
> >
>
> Not very, some think.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
> Ron,
>
> > They are out of Haymarket, VA.
>
> Warrenton, VA, I think. At least, that's what the sign said when I was
> there.
>
Well, they're out in the unincorporated nothingness between the two.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

that sums it up nicely ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Margy,

> The Wright Experience replica is VERY accurate. The only modification
> made was the type of glue used in the prop. The fabric was manufactured
> to match the original. It's amazing.
>

I know. I've seen it. But the question referred to the NC one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
> Margy,
>
> > The Wright Experience replica is VERY accurate. The only modification
> > made was the type of glue used in the prop. The fabric was manufactured
> > to match the original. It's amazing.
> >
>
> I know. I've seen it. But the question referred to the NC one.
>
The NC one is the the Wright Experience one. The one that will fly (or attempt to at lease)
on Dec. 17 at Kitty Hawk is that one. The one that crashed is the one from the WBAC
in Dayton (well W. Milton actoually).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm originally from North Carolina. I have never understood why my home
> state tries to make a claim for being the birthplace of aviation.
>

Perhaps it's because the first powered, controlled, heavier-than-air flight
occurred there.

[mike regish]

Only because they had nice soft sand dunes to crash on and high enough winds
to take off in.

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm originally from North Carolina. I have never understood why my home
> > state tries to make a claim for being the birthplace of aviation.
> >
>
> Perhaps it's because the first powered, controlled, heavier-than-air
flight
> occurred there.
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"mike regish" > wrote in message . net...
> Only because they had nice soft sand dunes to crash on and high enough winds
> to take off in.
>
Some Ohioans point out the Ohio had the brains, NC had the wind.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Only because they had nice soft sand dunes to crash on and high enough
winds
> to take off in.
>

Which is what the Wright's needed and why they went there.

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. net...
> Only because they had nice soft sand dunes to crash on and high enough
winds
> to take off in.

Are you saying that the Wright's presence in Dayton was any less
coincidental?

I don't see that Kitty Hawk's *or* Dayton's involvement were anything more
than an accident of history. But the fact of the matter is that the first
powered, controlled heavier-than-air flight occurred at Kitty Hawk, not
Dayton.

Where do you consider YOUR birthplace? Was it where your mother delivered
you? Or was it where you were conceived? Most people's birthplaces are
hospitals. Yes, that's because that's just due to the coincidental fact
that most babies are delivered by obstetricians, and OBs like to work in
hospitals. But that doesn't change the fact that the birthplace is the
hospital.

Aviation was conceived thousands of years ago, when the first human looked
at a bird and thought for the first time "hey, I wonder if there's a way for
me to do that". The Wright's oversaw the last bit of gestation of aviation
in Dayton (call it the last week of the last trimester if you like), but the
actual birth took place at Kitty Hawk with the culmination of thousands of
years of human progress, represented by that first flight.

Pete

[Joe Maj]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message >...
> I just heard that the Ohio group that has built a Wright Flyer replica and
> took it down to Kitty Hawk couldn't get it to fly. I understand this to be
> practice flights for the December 17th celebration.
>
> I'm curious as to why they didn't try it out in Ohio first. Also, is this
> the official Flyer for the celebration? Coming from Ohio, I would think that
> it is. It would be sad if there wasn't a flying (official) replica for the
> celebration, though there is still time for them to work it out.
>
> Harry (Burns) aren't you taking your Flyer down?
>
> -Trent
> PP-ASEL

A friend of mine whose a Wright buff (he's building a 1/4 scale 1902
glider at the moment)tells me that no 1903 Flyer replica with 12 hp
has ever gotten off the ground. Not that any of us will remember this,
but <unsuccessful> replica Flyer(s) were built for the 50th
anniversary, too.

The 1904 Flyer was similar to the 1903 model but with an 18 hp engine.
It couldn't fly in warm weather either.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you saying that the Wright's presence in Dayton was any less
> coincidental?
>
> I don't see that Kitty Hawk's *or* Dayton's involvement were anything more
> than an accident of history. But the fact of the matter is that the first
> powered, controlled heavier-than-air flight occurred at Kitty Hawk, not
> Dayton.
>
> Where do you consider YOUR birthplace? Was it where your mother delivered
> you? Or was it where you were conceived? Most people's birthplaces are
> hospitals. Yes, that's because that's just due to the coincidental fact
> that most babies are delivered by obstetricians, and OBs like to work in
> hospitals. But that doesn't change the fact that the birthplace is the
> hospital.
>
> Aviation was conceived thousands of years ago, when the first human looked
> at a bird and thought for the first time "hey, I wonder if there's a way
for
> me to do that". The Wright's oversaw the last bit of gestation of
aviation
> in Dayton (call it the last week of the last trimester if you like), but
the
> actual birth took place at Kitty Hawk with the culmination of thousands of
> years of human progress, represented by that first flight.
>

Wilbur Wright was born in Indiana. If Bishop Wright hadn't moved the family
to Dayton, where Orville was born, Ohio would have needed a different
license plate slogan.

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Are you saying that the Wright's presence in Dayton was any less
> > coincidental?
> >
> > I don't see that Kitty Hawk's *or* Dayton's involvement were anything
more
> > than an accident of history. But the fact of the matter is that the
first
> > powered, controlled heavier-than-air flight occurred at Kitty Hawk, not
> > Dayton.
> >
> > Where do you consider YOUR birthplace? Was it where your mother
delivered
> > you? Or was it where you were conceived? Most people's birthplaces are
> > hospitals. Yes, that's because that's just due to the coincidental fact
> > that most babies are delivered by obstetricians, and OBs like to work in
> > hospitals. But that doesn't change the fact that the birthplace is the
> > hospital.
> >
> > Aviation was conceived thousands of years ago, when the first human
looked
> > at a bird and thought for the first time "hey, I wonder if there's a way
> for
> > me to do that". The Wright's oversaw the last bit of gestation of
> aviation
> > in Dayton (call it the last week of the last trimester if you like), but
> the
> > actual birth took place at Kitty Hawk with the culmination of thousands
of
> > years of human progress, represented by that first flight.
> >
>
> Wilbur Wright was born in Indiana. If Bishop Wright hadn't moved the
family
> to Dayton, where Orville was born, Ohio would have needed a different
> license plate slogan.

And if Bishop Wright hadn't left that god forsaken part of IN we would be
driving automobiles to all those pancake breakfasts. I doubt rural IN
would have sparked the aviation interest in the two brothers or provided the
resources as did urban Dayton. Lotsa _ifs_ surrounding the entire first
flight.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

the original poster quoted a replica from Ohio. That's not the Wright
Experience, is it? Someone else asked how accurate it was. I don't
think any of the replicas except for the Wright Experience's are very
accurate.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
> Ron,
>
> the original poster quoted a replica from Ohio. That's not the Wright
> Experience, is it? Someone else asked how accurate it was. I don't
> think any of the replicas except for the Wright Experience's are very
> accurate.

No, there's anther group called the "Wright Aeroplane Company" out of
the Dayton area. There is YET another group in Virginia making a
replica as well (can't remember the name). Ken Hyde's Wright Experience
I do know for a fact is extremely accurate. I've talked to the prop guy and
Steve Hay (the engine builder) at length.

[Big John]

Ron

From latest AW&ST

Picture of 02 glider under tow and off the ground a few feet. Looks
like they attached a "trike' gear to it and also put bows under the
wing tips to prevent damage to them.

Accompanying text:

A replica of the 1902 Wright Glider made 12 flights on Oct 8 from
Wright Experience facility near Warrenton, VA. The 75% scale model of
the 1903 Wright Flyer, with out engine and propellers, is being used
to train the pilot ultimately picked by training coordinator, Scott
Crossfield, to fly the powered 1903 Flyer exact copy at Kill Devil
Hills, SC on Dec 17. Using a small truck to tow the glider, pilots
Terry Queijo, Kevin Kochersberger and Chris Johnson flew during the
early morning flights

end

They talk about the 1902 Glider and then the 1903 Flyer in almost the
same breath. Picture is of a glider not a stripped down Flyer.

In any event, they are continuing to get ready for a Dec 17 try.

I wonder why they didn't choose some pilots that weigh 100-105 pounds
like flew the man powered aircraft across the English Channel and
other flights? A light pilot would give them a leg up on the low
engine power they will have in the replica engine.

Best of luck to them in their try.

Big John



On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:23:12 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message ...
>> I just heard that the Ohio group that has built a Wright Flyer replica and
>> took it down to Kitty Hawk couldn't get it to fly. I understand this to be
>> practice flights for the December 17th celebration.
>
>The group that's going to fly at Kitty Hawk on Dec 17 is not from Ohio.
>They are out of Haymarket, VA. They are practicing by dragging a
>modified 02 Glider around behind an SUV with Scott Crossfield yelling
>instructions to them out the back.
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Big John" > wrote in message ...


> They talk about the 1902 Glider and then the 1903 Flyer in almost the
> same breath. Picture is of a glider not a stripped down Flyer.

Yeah, it's goofy. There's no scale model. They built a 1902 Wright glider
(accurately), and they've been tweaking it as they go along to make it more
representative of the 03 Flyer

> I wonder why they didn't choose some pilots that weigh 100-105 pounds
> like flew the man powered aircraft across the English Channel and
> other flights? A light pilot would give them a leg up on the low
> engine power they will have in the replica engine.

They're trying not to cheat on Wilbur and Orville. They could do any number
of things to make it easier, but they aren't going to. Kevin is pretty skinny, but
he's a tall guy. Terry isn't that large. It will be one of those two.

About the only thing they have up on the Wright Brothers is a lot more practice
flight time in the 02 variant.

> Best of luck to them in their try.

Yes, everybody has worked really hard on this thing and they are almost without
exception nice people as well.

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Ron,
>
> the original poster quoted a replica from Ohio. That's not the Wright
> Experience, is it? Someone else asked how accurate it was. I don't
> think any of the replicas except for the Wright Experience's are very
> accurate.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


The original Wright Flyer is no more. What hangs in the Smithsonian was
pieced together well after the wreck on Dec. 17, 1903. There are three sets
of blue prints, all drawn well after the fact and all of them have problems.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> Ken Hyde's Wright Experience
> I do know for a fact is extremely accurate. I've talked to the prop guy and
> Steve Hay (the engine builder) at length.
>

I talked to both and Ken a lot, too. Other replicas have stronger engines,
different wing profiles and such stuff. Also, there's the wing spar debate...

I saw people at Ken's place tie and untie wire knots again and again until the
knot would look exactly like the one on the 1903 photographs. Very different
knot from the one on the Smithsonian "original", since Orville restored that
one in 1916 presumably tying knots that were used at that time, not 1903.

THAT's the level of accuracy they're going for. A totally amazing group!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> The original Wright Flyer is no more. What hangs in the Smithsonian was
> pieced together well after the wreck on Dec. 17, 1903. There are three sets
> of blue prints, all drawn well after the fact and all of them have problems.
>

I know that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> The original Wright Flyer is no more. What hangs in the Smithsonian was
> pieced together well after the wreck on Dec. 17, 1903.
>

But since it was pieced together by Orville Wright, it is absolutely
correct. It's just not quite the way it was on December 17, 1903.

[Ron Natalie]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message .com...

>
> The original Wright Flyer is no more. What hangs in the Smithsonian was
> pieced together well after the wreck on Dec. 17, 1903. There are three sets
> of blue prints, all drawn well after the fact and all of them have problems.
>
As of last weekend it's not even hanging. For the first time in a at least a
quarter century, the flyer is down on the floor in a newly opened gallery at
NASM. They also have some actors doing Wilbur and Orville impressions
(they put their costumes and make up on in the same space Margy uses
for her office there).

The WE people not only looked at the flyer but many other contemporary
Wright artifacts to understand the technologies involved. I'm sure this is
as close as we're going to come.

[JerryK]

Supposedly Orville was very concerned about someone copying the design. So
the one in the Smithsonian is not to the original design. AOPA mag had
several articles on this and the differences are significant.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >
> > The original Wright Flyer is no more. What hangs in the Smithsonian was
> > pieced together well after the wreck on Dec. 17, 1903.
> >
>
> But since it was pieced together by Orville Wright, it is absolutely
> correct. It's just not quite the way it was on December 17, 1903.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"JerryK" > wrote in message
news:k6ckb.582250$Oz4.560332@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Supposedly Orville was very concerned about someone copying the design.
So
> the one in the Smithsonian is not to the original design. AOPA mag had
> several articles on this and the differences are significant.
>

The 1903 Flyer was returned to Dayton in crates and remained in them until
1916. By then there was no reason to copy the design.