Wright model B crash on Nova

[Corky Scott]

Finally got to see this program over Thanksgiving. Very interesting
but I don't understand what happened.

The assembly went very well and the engine was installed and run and
everyone was ready for the first flight when it started raining. It
rained and rained and rained for about a week. Finally it stopped and
everyone leaped to get the Model B out and fire it up.

Needless to say, the grass runway was a mess and the pilot decided to
taxi down it a bit to try to find some non washed out area's. This is
where things got confusing to me.

I did not see the washed out areas, but I'm assuming that they were
certainly there. The pilot survived the ensuing crash and explained
that he got halfway down and the airplane was at full power and he
found the rudders much more sensitive than previous tests. He was
nearly out of control while taxiing.

He was halfway down the runway and for some reason felt he had to make
a decision about whether to takeoff or not. This is the part I don't
understand. Why did he have to takeoff or not? Couldn't he have
simply shut the engine down?

Once in the air, he found that turning was a problem: the airplane
seemed to go into nearly uncontrollable skids. He recovered from
several and then attempted once again to turn back to the airport to
land and it went into another skid and crashed into the trees.

The pilot was rescued from the airplane and the airplane was recovered
from the treetops and is being rebuilt.

But why did the pilot feel it was a takeoff or crash situation, which
is how it was presented on the show. Surely there is some way to shut
the engine off, isn't there?

Thanks, Corky Scott

PS, sorry if this has been gone over previously, I didn't see it if it
was.

[Icebound]

Corky Scott wrote:
> ... snip...,
>
> Once in the air, he found that turning was a problem: the airplane
> seemed to go into nearly uncontrollable skids. He recovered from
> several and then attempted once again to turn back to the airport

.... snip ...

Turning? Was the 1903 Wright Flyer capable of turning???

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
>
> Turning? Was the 1903 Wright Flyer capable of turning???
>

I suppose it was theoretically capable, but it was not attempted. Turns
were made with the 1904 Flyer, and the 1905 Flyer turned a complete circle.
But the subject line refers to the Wright Model B, which first flew in 1910.

[H.J.]

Bunch of rookies with laptops can't match the original Masters of the Skies.

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Finally got to see this program over Thanksgiving. Very interesting
> but I don't understand what happened.
>
> The assembly went very well and the engine was installed and run and
> everyone was ready for the first flight when it started raining. It
> rained and rained and rained for about a week. Finally it stopped and
> everyone leaped to get the Model B out and fire it up.
>
> Needless to say, the grass runway was a mess and the pilot decided to
> taxi down it a bit to try to find some non washed out area's. This is
> where things got confusing to me.
>
> I did not see the washed out areas, but I'm assuming that they were
> certainly there. The pilot survived the ensuing crash and explained
> that he got halfway down and the airplane was at full power and he
> found the rudders much more sensitive than previous tests. He was
> nearly out of control while taxiing.
>
> He was halfway down the runway and for some reason felt he had to make
> a decision about whether to takeoff or not. This is the part I don't
> understand. Why did he have to takeoff or not? Couldn't he have
> simply shut the engine down?
>
> Once in the air, he found that turning was a problem: the airplane
> seemed to go into nearly uncontrollable skids. He recovered from
> several and then attempted once again to turn back to the airport to
> land and it went into another skid and crashed into the trees.
>
> The pilot was rescued from the airplane and the airplane was recovered
> from the treetops and is being rebuilt.
>
> But why did the pilot feel it was a takeoff or crash situation, which
> is how it was presented on the show. Surely there is some way to shut
> the engine off, isn't there?
>
> Thanks, Corky Scott
>
> PS, sorry if this has been gone over previously, I didn't see it if it
> was.
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
> Corky Scott wrote:
> > ... snip...,
> >
> > Once in the air, he found that turning was a problem: the airplane
> > seemed to go into nearly uncontrollable skids. He recovered from
> > several and then attempted once again to turn back to the airport
>
> ... snip ...
>
> Turning? Was the 1903 Wright Flyer capable of turning???


The Model B is not even close to the '03 Flyer. The Model B was quite
capable of turning. Obviously the '03 Flyer did not live long enough to
attempt any turns.

[Ron Natalie]

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

>
> The Model B is not even close to the '03 Flyer. The Model B was quite
> capable of turning. Obviously the '03 Flyer did not live long enough to
> attempt any turns.

I think it lived just fine (it still exists, well sort of). However, they just moved
on to better designs.

[Dave Stadt]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> >
> > The Model B is not even close to the '03 Flyer. The Model B was quite
> > capable of turning. Obviously the '03 Flyer did not live long enough to
> > attempt any turns.
>
> I think it lived just fine (it still exists, well sort of). However,
they just moved
> on to better designs.


I guess you could say it showed its turning ability during its last flight.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Icebound wrote:
>
> Turning? Was the 1903 Wright Flyer capable of turning???

Yes.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes.
>

You appear pretty sure about that. What do you base it on?

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> You appear pretty sure about that. What do you base it on?


December 17, 1903 flight 5 at which time it done did _turn_ itself into a
pile of scrap wood.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> December 17, 1903 flight 5 at which time it done did _turn_ itself into a
> pile of scrap wood.
>

There were only four flights on December 17, 1903. The Flyer received minor
damage on the fourth flight. They were discussing repairs prior to a
possible fifth flight when a gust of wind picked up the Flyer and rolled it
into a ball.

[Wizard of Draws]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> He was halfway down the runway and for some reason felt he had to make
> a decision about whether to takeoff or not. This is the part I don't
> understand. Why did he have to takeoff or not? Couldn't he have
> simply shut the engine down?
>

He said that he knew he wouldn't have been able to stop in time without
hitting trees, so he elected to take-off instead.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

"Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[COUGARNFW]

Corky...

Exactly the question we discussed after the show.

Did not and do not believe the "explanation" and really believe the builder.

Neal

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Corky Scott) said:
>He was halfway down the runway and for some reason felt he had to make
>a decision about whether to takeoff or not. This is the part I don't
>understand. Why did he have to takeoff or not? Couldn't he have
>simply shut the engine down?

There was a very quick discussion on the show that he didn't think he
could stop in time to miss crashing into the trees at the end. Given the
choice between a sure crash if he stayed on the ground or a likely crash
if he lifted up, he elected to take off.

Wasn't the Wright B pretty close to the Vin Fizz (which I think was a
modified EX)? In which case, it should have been a pretty capable plane.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"The surreality of the universe tends towards a maximum" -- Skud's Law
"Never formulate a law or axiom that you're not prepared to live with
the consequences of." -- Skud's Meta-Law

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >
> > December 17, 1903 flight 5 at which time it done did _turn_ itself into
a
> > pile of scrap wood.
> >
>
> There were only four flights on December 17, 1903. The Flyer received
minor
> damage on the fourth flight. They were discussing repairs prior to a
> possible fifth flight when a gust of wind picked up the Flyer and rolled
it
> into a ball.

Exactly.

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Icebound wrote:
> >
> > Turning? Was the 1903 Wright Flyer capable of turning???
>
> Yes.

No. It was capapble of small amounts of directional control, pretty much limitted
to adjusting the straight ahead ground track. It didn't have enough control to make
anything that resembles a real turn.