QNH???

[John]

Bryan Martin wrote:

> Try http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule3.html on the second page.
>
>
> in article , Marlbra at
> wrote on 2/22/05 3:17 AM:
>
>> my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
>> means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
>> something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
>> but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
>> guys and gals.....Im new here
>
>
From the above mentioned web page.
John


Q-codes

Note: the letters in the Q-code nomenclature have no literal significance,
these are remnants of an extensive notation system from the days of
wireless-telegraphy. There were some 200 three letter Q-codes each
representing a sentence, a phrase or a question, for instance QRM "I am
being interfered with"!. Some 30 Q-codes are still used by amateur radio /
morse code enthusiasts and the four below, plus QDM (the magnetic bearing
to a station), still survive in aviation. For a full listing of Q-codes try
www.cbug.org.uk/allqcodes.htm


QNE: is the ISA Standard Pressure altimeter setting of 1013.2 hPa. The term
QNE is now rarely encountered but if you set 1013.2 on the altimeter
pressure-setting scale while parked the altimeter will indicate the current
ISA pressure altitude of the airfield - which is the first step in
calculating density altitude. QNE is also the standard factory setting for
altitude encoding.

[Marlbra]

my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
guys and gals.....Im new here

[Frank van der Hulst]

Marlbra wrote:
> my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
> means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
> something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
> but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
> guys and gals.....Im new here

QNH is the pressure that the air would be at sea level, if it wasn't for
the land all being above sea level. If you were to bore a hole down to
sea level, and lower a barometer down the hole to the bottom, then QNH
is what pressure the barometer would read. Theoretically.

If you set your altimeter to QNH, then it will accurately show you
altitude above sea level, so you can avoid busting into someone's
controlled airspace. It will also show the airfield elevation when
you're on the ground at the airfield.

Frank

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Marlbra > wrote:
>my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
>means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
>something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
>but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
>guys and gals.....Im new here

It means do it "Quietly, No Hu-hu".


Well, you *asked* <grin>


Seriously, it is just a "code". an *arbitrary* symbol to which a particular
meaning has been assigned.

"Q" codes date from the days of Morse-code communications, where there was
a definite performance advantage to be gained by having "short-cut' symbols
for many "common" messages/phrases. example: it is *much* faster to
send the 3 Morse-symbols for "QRU" than it is to transmit "I have no traffic
for your station".

[Jan Carlsson]

Yes but...

>"QNH is a calculated number that makes your altimeter read
correctly (true altitude = pressure altitude) "<

True alt is above sea or land in true feet or meter.
Pressure alt. is alt above the Std 29.92/1013.25 level, and that surface can
be above or below SL depending on atmosphere pressure.

Jan Carlsson
www.jcpropellerdesign.com


"T o d d P a t t i s t" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> Frank van der Hulst > wrote:
>
> >QNH is the pressure that the air would be at sea level, if it wasn't for
> >the land all being above sea level. If you were to bore a hole down to
> >sea level, and lower a barometer down the hole to the bottom, then QNH
> >is what pressure the barometer would read. Theoretically.
>
> I think "Theoretically" is the important part of this. When
> you set QNH at the local airport, the altimeter reads
> correctly only at the altitude of that local field (unless
> the atmospheric temp and pressure changes with altitude in
> the standard way, which it almost never does.) So, just
> like there is a difference between true altitude and
> pressure altitude when flying above the airport, the
> imaginary barometer-in-the-hole won't really read QNH when
> at the true altitude of the sea.
>
> QNH is a calculated number that makes your altimeter read
> correctly (true altitude = pressure altitude) at the
> altitude/elevation of the reporting station. Everywhere
> else (including at the true altitude of the sea) it's wrong,
> but as long as we're all wrong by the same amount, we don't
> run into each other.
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

[Samm Munn]

QNH, QFE, QFF, QNE
When an airport measures the local air pressure, then this pressure is
called QFE. An airplane which has set the altimeter to the QFE value will
read zero feet on the altimeter when it is on the ground at this airport.

The QFE can be transformed into QNH by calculations and/or tables or
diagrams. In fact what happens is that the measured QFE is being corrected
for non-standard temperature, non-standard-humidity etc.

The resulting value is called QFF. This QFF value is then corrected for
field elevation, that means that it is transformed into a pressure as it
would have been at mean sea level (MSL) under standard conditions QNE (29.92
inches or 1013.2 mb of mercury at 59 degrees fahrenheit or 15 degrees
centigrade).

The resulting value is a local pressure value which we call QNH. An
airplane which has set the altitude to QNH value will read the field
elevation on the altimeter when it is standing at this airport!

Samm
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . -
Antoine de St-Exupéry


"Marlbra" > wrote in message
...
> my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
> means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
> something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
> but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
> guys and gals.....Im new here

[Jan Carlsson]

I agree, but you sat tru alt=Pressure alt, that will only happend if QNH is
1013.25 if flying with any other QNH setting pressure alt will not be what
you see on the altimeter, it will be the alt above SL (with its errors from
dif. temp. and other factors)

Jan

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> Aside from the fact that you snipped off the last part of my
> sentence - what was the "but" part. Did you disagree with
> me? Looks to me like a case of contentious agreement :-)
>
>
> "Jan Carlsson" > wrote:
>
> >Yes but...
> >
> >>"QNH is a calculated number that makes your altimeter read
> >correctly (true altitude = pressure altitude) "<
> >
> >True alt is above sea or land in true feet or meter.
> >Pressure alt. is alt above the Std 29.92/1013.25 level, and that surface
can
> >be above or below SL depending on atmosphere pressure.
> >
> >Jan Carlsson
> >www.jcpropellerdesign.com
> >
> >
> >"T o d d P a t t i s t" > skrev i
meddelandet
> ...
> >> Frank van der Hulst > wrote:
> >>
> >> >QNH is the pressure that the air would be at sea level, if it wasn't
for
> >> >the land all being above sea level. If you were to bore a hole down to
> >> >sea level, and lower a barometer down the hole to the bottom, then QNH
> >> >is what pressure the barometer would read. Theoretically.
> >>
> >> I think "Theoretically" is the important part of this. When
> >> you set QNH at the local airport, the altimeter reads
> >> correctly only at the altitude of that local field (unless
> >> the atmospheric temp and pressure changes with altitude in
> >> the standard way, which it almost never does.) So, just
> >> like there is a difference between true altitude and
> >> pressure altitude when flying above the airport, the
> >> imaginary barometer-in-the-hole won't really read QNH when
> >> at the true altitude of the sea.
> >>
> >> QNH is a calculated number that makes your altimeter read
> >> correctly (true altitude = pressure altitude) at the
> >> altitude/elevation of the reporting station. Everywhere
> >> else (including at the true altitude of the sea) it's wrong,
> >> but as long as we're all wrong by the same amount, we don't
> >> run into each other.
> >>
> >> T o d d P a t t i s t
> >> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> >> ___
> >> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> >> Share what you learn.
> >
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

[Dean Wilkinson]

Back when I worked at Boeing one of the test pilots told me that QFE and QNE
stood for Queen's Field Elevation (altimeter reference to the field so it
read zero on the runway) and Queen's Normal Elevation (altimeter referenced
to sea level). I don't know if this was just a memory aid, or if QFE and
QNE are actually acronyms for Queen's Field Elevation and Queen's Normal
Elevation.... anyone know?

Dean

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Dean Wilkinson > wrote:
>Back when I worked at Boeing one of the test pilots told me that QFE and QNE
>stood for Queen's Field Elevation (altimeter reference to the field so it
>read zero on the runway) and Queen's Normal Elevation (altimeter referenced
>to sea level). I don't know if this was just a memory aid, or if QFE and
>QNE are actually acronyms for Queen's Field Elevation and Queen's Normal
>Elevation.... anyone know?

Yup. *NOT* true. 'Q codes' are just that _codes_. Not Acronyms.

Furthermore, "logic" shoots down both your 'memory aid' interpretations.
an "elevation" is a _distance_ measurement above a reference point, not
a 'pressure' reference. One can trust the "Queen's English" to use words
properly. <grin>

[Jughugs]

On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in that
dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!


"Robert Bonomi" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dean Wilkinson > wrote:
> >Back when I worked at Boeing one of the test pilots told me that QFE and
QNE
> >stood for Queen's Field Elevation (altimeter reference to the field so it
> >read zero on the runway) and Queen's Normal Elevation (altimeter
referenced
> >to sea level). I don't know if this was just a memory aid, or if QFE and
> >QNE are actually acronyms for Queen's Field Elevation and Queen's Normal
> >Elevation.... anyone know?
>
> Yup. *NOT* true. 'Q codes' are just that _codes_. Not Acronyms.
>
> Furthermore, "logic" shoots down both your 'memory aid' interpretations.
> an "elevation" is a _distance_ measurement above a reference point, not
> a 'pressure' reference. One can trust the "Queen's English" to use words
> properly. <grin>
>
>

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Jughugs wrote:

> On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in that
> dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
>

Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight. The
Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in hot air
balloons in the 1700s.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Frank van der Hulst]

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> Jughugs wrote:
>
>> On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in
>> that
>> dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
>>
>
> Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight. The
> Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in hot air
> balloons in the 1700s.

Actually, controlled *powered* heavier than air flight... really quite a
small insignificant subset ;-)

[Marlbra]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:44:01 +1300, Frank van der Hulst
> wrote:

thanks for that frank, instructor basically told me WHAT QNH actually
was, I was just curious as to what the letters stand for

Cheers

>Marlbra wrote:
>> my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
>> means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
>> something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
>> but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
>> guys and gals.....Im new here
>
>QNH is the pressure that the air would be at sea level, if it wasn't for
>the land all being above sea level. If you were to bore a hole down to
>sea level, and lower a barometer down the hole to the bottom, then QNH
>is what pressure the barometer would read. Theoretically.
>
>If you set your altimeter to QNH, then it will accurately show you
>altitude above sea level, so you can avoid busting into someone's
>controlled airspace. It will also show the airfield elevation when
>you're on the ground at the airfield.
>
>Frank

[Marlbra]

good grief, now thats getting down and dirty.... thnkas for the
totally technical link, will not bother to wade through it lol....
appreciate the help though

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:48:31 -0500, Bryan Martin
> wrote:

>Try http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule3.html on the second page.
>
>
>in article , Marlbra at
wrote on 2/22/05 3:17 AM:
>
>> my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
>> means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
>> something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
>> but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
>> guys and gals.....Im new here

[Marlbra]

Awesome, that pretty much explains it..... even I got the gist of that
so cheers.... I wont lose any more sleep, looks like I started a mini
WW3 by some of the other posts..... <gulp>

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:45:30 +0000, John > wrote:

>Bryan Martin wrote:
>
>> Try http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule3.html on the second page.
>>
>>
>> in article , Marlbra at
>> wrote on 2/22/05 3:17 AM:
>>
>>> my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
>>> means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
>>> something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
>>> but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
>>> guys and gals.....Im new here
>>
>>
>From the above mentioned web page.
>John
>
>
>Q-codes
>
> Note: the letters in the Q-code nomenclature have no literal significance,
>these are remnants of an extensive notation system from the days of
>wireless-telegraphy. There were some 200 three letter Q-codes each
>representing a sentence, a phrase or a question, for instance QRM "I am
>being interfered with"!. Some 30 Q-codes are still used by amateur radio /
>morse code enthusiasts and the four below, plus QDM (the magnetic bearing
>to a station), still survive in aviation. For a full listing of Q-codes try
>www.cbug.org.uk/allqcodes.htm
>
>
>QNE: is the ISA Standard Pressure altimeter setting of 1013.2 hPa. The term
>QNE is now rarely encountered but if you set 1013.2 on the altimeter
>pressure-setting scale while parked the altimeter will indicate the current
>ISA pressure altitude of the airfield - which is the first step in
>calculating density altitude. QNE is also the standard factory setting for
>altitude encoding.
>
>

[Marlbra]

again........ brilliant, consise... my thanks

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:41:55 -0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>In article >,
>Marlbra > wrote:
>>my instructor told me not to worry about what "qnh" actually
>>means......... can someone here enlighten me please? i know it has
>>something to do with the barometric pressure and setting alt meter,
>>but what does QNH stand for...... as always thanks for your patience
>>guys and gals.....Im new here
>
>It means do it "Quietly, No Hu-hu".
>
>
>Well, you *asked* <grin>
>
>
>Seriously, it is just a "code". an *arbitrary* symbol to which a particular
>meaning has been assigned.
>
>"Q" codes date from the days of Morse-code communications, where there was
>a definite performance advantage to be gained by having "short-cut' symbols
>for many "common" messages/phrases. example: it is *much* faster to
>send the 3 Morse-symbols for "QRU" than it is to transmit "I have no traffic
>for your station".
>

[Marlbra]

lol......... I'm hoping to have *controlled powered flight by about
2006!!! all going well... wish me luck :-)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:20:38 +1300, Frank van der Hulst
> wrote:

>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>> Jughugs wrote:
>>
>>> On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in
>>> that
>>> dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
>>>
>>
>> Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight. The
>> Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in hot air
>> balloons in the 1700s.
>
>Actually, controlled *powered* heavier than air flight... really quite a
>small insignificant subset ;-)

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Frank van der Hulst wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> Jughugs wrote:
>>
>>> On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in
>>> that
>>> dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
>>>
>>
>> Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight.
>> The Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in
>> hot air balloons in the 1700s.
>
>
> Actually, controlled *powered* heavier than air flight... really quite a
> small insignificant subset ;-)

See? Every time I nit pick someone does it to me. It's the circle of
life :) Did anyone produce a controllable glider before the Wright model
of 1901? Lilienthal's gliders were point, glide, crash, repeat until you
kill yourself. If memory serves he had no steering capability.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

While in the USAF and stationed in the UK, we used "queer f*****g
English" (QFE) as a memory aid for the altimeter setting at English
airfields and "quite near home" (QNH) for the altimeter setting at US
airfields knowing that the former will read zero on the ground and the
latter field elevation above MSL on the ground.

[Jean-Paul Roy]

Maybe just quit nit picking.

Just an opinion

Jean-Paul
"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:L0kTd.2033$Sn6.1589@lakeread03...
> Frank van der Hulst wrote:
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> >
> >> Jughugs wrote:
> >>
> >>> On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in
> >>> that
> >>> dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight.
> >> The Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in
> >> hot air balloons in the 1700s.
> >
> >
> > Actually, controlled *powered* heavier than air flight... really quite a
> > small insignificant subset ;-)
>
> See? Every time I nit pick someone does it to me. It's the circle of
> life :) Did anyone produce a controllable glider before the Wright model
> of 1901? Lilienthal's gliders were point, glide, crash, repeat until you
> kill yourself. If memory serves he had no steering capability.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

[Tim Ward]

"Frank van der Hulst" > wrote in message
...
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> > Jughugs wrote:
> >
> >> On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in
> >> that
> >> dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
> >>
> >
> > Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight. The
> > Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in hot air
> > balloons in the 1700s.
>
> Actually, controlled *powered* heavier than air flight... really quite a
> small insignificant subset ;-)

I think I could argue that the 1902 glider was an unpowered, controlled
heavier than air flying machine.

Tim Ward

[Frank van der Hulst]

Tim Ward wrote:
> "Frank van der Hulst" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>>
>>>Jughugs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in
>>>>that
>>>>dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight. The
>>>Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in hot air
>>>balloons in the 1700s.
>>
>>Actually, controlled *powered* heavier than air flight... really quite a
>>small insignificant subset ;-)
>
>
> I think I could argue that the 1902 glider was an unpowered, controlled
> heavier than air flying machine.

No problem with that. However, George Cayley (of the dental-challenged
pompus [sic] dung-hole country mentioned earlier) built and a flew a
man-carrying glider in 1854. Controllable? Who knows.

And of course Otto Lillienthal had weight-shift gliders flying
successfully from 1893 or so.

Frank

[[email protected]]

Frank van der Hulst wrote:
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> Jughugs wrote:
>>
>>> On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in
>>> that
>>> dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
>>>
>>
>> Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight.
>> The Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in
>> hot air balloons in the 1700s.
>
>
> Actually, controlled *powered* heavier than air flight... really quite a
> small insignificant subset ;-)

Actually - CONTROLLED powered heaver than air flight was pioneered in
N.Z. by Pearce much as I hate to admit it, the Wright flyer was a long
way from controlled.

[Frank van der Hulst]

wrote:
> Actually - CONTROLLED powered heaver than air flight was pioneered in
> N.Z. by Pearce much as I hate to admit it, the Wright flyer was a long
> way from controlled.

Much as I wish you were right, Pearse's flights were not controlled...
otherwise he wouldn't have landed on top of gorse hedges.

Frank

[Tim Ward]

" > wrote in message
...
> Frank van der Hulst wrote:
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> >
> >> Jughugs wrote:
> >>
> >>> On top of that... manned flight was invented HERE in the US... not in
> >>> that
> >>> dental-challenged, pompus, take credit for everything, dung-hole!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually controlled heavier than air flight was, not manned flight.
> >> The Montgolfier of brothers of France were making manned flights in
> >> hot air balloons in the 1700s.
> >
> >
> > Actually, controlled *powered* heavier than air flight... really quite a
> > small insignificant subset ;-)
>
> Actually - CONTROLLED powered heaver than air flight was pioneered in
> N.Z. by Pearce much as I hate to admit it, the Wright flyer was a long
> way from controlled.

Curiously, Pearce would have disagreed with you, and said as much in a 1923
letter to the local newspaper.

Tim Ward

[vk6ad]

There are several interesting articles on the net about Mr Pearse's early
flights in 1902/1903. Here is the most thorough one I found after a short
search:

http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/NewZ/research.html

It seems clear enough on the evidence that he was flying earlier than the
Wright Brothers but we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Cheers
vk6ad
Perth Australia

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

vk6ad wrote:

> There are several interesting articles on the net about Mr Pearse's early
> flights in 1902/1903. Here is the most thorough one I found after a short
> search:
>
> http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/NewZ/research.html
>
> It seems clear enough on the evidence that he was flying earlier than the
> Wright Brothers but we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good story.
>
> Cheers
> vk6ad
> Perth Australia
>
>
Actually the article does say he was flying, but it also says the
flights were not controlled since they tended to wind up in hedges or
water. I would be curious about the prop that was straightened after the
crash into the hedges. If it was wood it would be hard to do that.

Danm U.S. Air Force, retired

[Frank van der Hulst]

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

> I would be curious about the prop that was straightened after the
> crash into the hedges. If it was wood it would be hard to do that.

The picture I've seen showed a multi-bladed (8?, 10? blades) prop,
kind-of like what you see on the top of one of those old Australian
wanter-pump windmills. Each blade was made of bent sheet metal.

Frank

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:41:03 +0800, "vk6ad" <philatwotechdotcomdotau>
wrote:

>There are several interesting articles on the net about Mr Pearse's early
>flights in 1902/1903. Here is the most thorough one I found after a short
>search:
>
>http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/NewZ/research.html
>
>It seems clear enough on the evidence that he was flying earlier than the
>Wright Brothers but we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good story.
>
>Cheers
>vk6ad
>Perth Australia

Hmmm, right in the first paragraph of the very story you cite is this:
"Wild and inaccurate statements have been publicised from time to time
concerning Richard Pearse's achievements in the field of aviation.
However. no responsible researcher has ever claimed that he achieved
fully controlled flight before the Wright brothers, or indeed at any
time. To attain fully controlled flight a pilot would have to be able
to get his plane into the air, fly it on a chosen course and land it
at a predetermined destination. Obviously Pearse's short "hops" or
"flights", whilst they established the fact that he could readily
become airborne, did not come within this category, but neither, for
that matter, did the first powered flights of the Wright brothers in
December 1903. The Wiight brothers, however, had the resources
necessary to continue their experimentation until they achieved fully
controlled flight."

This appears to state unequivocally that Pearce did not achieve
controlled flight before the Wright Bros. Did you actually read the
information you cited?

Corky Scott

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Frank van der Hulst wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> I would be curious about the prop that was straightened after the
>> crash into the hedges. If it was wood it would be hard to do that.
>
>
> The picture I've seen showed a multi-bladed (8?, 10? blades) prop,
> kind-of like what you see on the top of one of those old Australian
> wanter-pump windmills. Each blade was made of bent sheet metal.
>
> Frank

That would have been logical at the time. The U.S. was full of windmills
like that too.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[vk6ad]

Yes and especially the bit you also quoted "but neither, for that matter,
did the first powered flights of the Wright brothers in December 1903"

Anyway its just a moot point. If it wasn't Pearse or the Wrights it would
have been somebody else soon afterwards. The main thing is we are here in
2005 with the freedom and technology to build and fly our own aircraft.

By the way I did go for a fly in the 100th Anniversary of the Wright's
famous flight.

73
Phil vk6ad

quoting Corky Scott:
"Did you actually read the information you cited?"

Corky Scott

[Frank van der Hulst]

vk6ad wrote:
> Anyway its just a moot point. If it wasn't Pearse or the Wrights it would
> have been somebody else soon afterwards.

No, I think it's fairly clear that the Wrights were *years* ahead of
other aviation pioneers. If it wasn't the Wrights on Dec 17 1903, it
would have been the Wrights soon afterwards.

Frank