The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience

[John Carrier]

Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of programs
to celebrate the Wright Centennial (Dec 17th) with reenactments of the
famous flight. The key ingredient to both efforts (are there more?) is a
reproduction Wright Flyer in 1903 trim. This is trickier than it might seem
.... the Smithsonian flyer was damaged after the fourth flight and was
modified several times between 1903 and its presentation to the museum.
Notes/blueprints are not extensive. It's obviously a challenge to reverse
engineer the machine to an authentic configuration, right down to the
engine.

The Wright Experience is sponsored by Ford, EAA and others. They've got a
towed glider and a flight simulator for training. Several pilots chosen.
Scott Crossfield is a consultant (and test pilot for the glider!).

The Wright Stuff appears to be smaller scale. Never the less, their product
appears to be of similar quality and authenticity to the other program. The
apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria) looks
like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized technique
compared to conventional aircraft.

Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?

R / John

[Mike Marron]

>"John Carrier" > wrote:

>Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of programs
>to celebrate the Wright Centennial (Dec 17th) with reenactments of the
>famous flight. The key ingredient to both efforts (are there more?) is a
>reproduction Wright Flyer in 1903 trim. This is trickier than it might seem
>... the Smithsonian flyer was damaged after the fourth flight and was
>modified several times between 1903 and its presentation to the museum.
>Notes/blueprints are not extensive. It's obviously a challenge to reverse
>engineer the machine to an authentic configuration, right down to the
>engine.

>The Wright Experience is sponsored by Ford, EAA and others. They've got a
>towed glider and a flight simulator for training. Several pilots chosen.
>Scott Crossfield is a consultant (and test pilot for the glider!).

>The Wright Stuff appears to be smaller scale. Never the less, their product
>appears to be of similar quality and authenticity to the other program. The
>apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria) looks
>like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized technique
>compared to conventional aircraft.

>Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?

I watched the same show and was impressed by their efforts to
duplicate the Wright Flyer -- esp. the engine as you said (the engine
was built from scratch in Germany). However, I was diappointed when
they said to tune in (next month?) for the next episode as they kinda
left ya dangling...

-Mike Marron

[Dave Kearton]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
programs

Snip

>. The
> apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria)
looks
> like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized
technique
> compared to conventional aircraft.
>
> Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?
>
> R / John
>
>



Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never been in
a plane before to be the pilot.


....or maybe his brother ...



CHeers

Dave Kearton

[Mike Marron]

>"Dave Kearton" > wrote:

>Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman
>who's never been in a plane before to be the pilot.

>...or maybe his brother ...

Good point, but unfortunately they're both dead. But as an
avid aficionado of flexwing flight, throw ME in that briar patch!

BTW, when it comes to the '03 Wright Flyer, personally I wouldn't
be so much concerned with the wing warping method of control
as I would the methods of pitch and yaw. Not to mention being
propelled by an engine that has external combustion chambers(?!)

-Mike Marron
CFII, A&P, UFI (fixed-wing, weightshift land & sea)

[Dave Kearton]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>
> >Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman
> >who's never been in a plane before to be the pilot.
>
> >...or maybe his brother ...
>
> Good point, but unfortunately they're both dead. But as an
> avid aficionado of flexwing flight, throw ME in that briar patch!
>

Hmmm, I'd guessed that the originals weren't available. The last of
them died in '48 (Orville ??)

A replica will do.


shifting the thread by a couple of degrees ...

Anybody know the truth in the story about the returning Apollo 11 crew
being congratulated by a very ancient Wright Bros mechanic ?




Cheers



Dave Kearton

[Cub Driver]

>The key ingredient to both efforts (are there more?)

There are three, but I think the third one is a reproduction of a
1907? Flyer.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>
>Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never been in
>a plane before to be the pilot.

The pilot of the Warrenton VA reproduction will be the woman airline
pilot.

(You read it here first!)



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Leslie Swartz]

We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General South
back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for years. Don't
know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

Less rare now than in 1991 at least.

Steve Swartz


"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
programs
> to celebrate the Wright Centennial (Dec 17th) with reenactments of the
> famous flight. The key ingredient to both efforts (are there more?) is a
> reproduction Wright Flyer in 1903 trim. This is trickier than it might
seem
> ... the Smithsonian flyer was damaged after the fourth flight and was
> modified several times between 1903 and its presentation to the museum.
> Notes/blueprints are not extensive. It's obviously a challenge to reverse
> engineer the machine to an authentic configuration, right down to the
> engine.
>
> The Wright Experience is sponsored by Ford, EAA and others. They've got a
> towed glider and a flight simulator for training. Several pilots chosen.
> Scott Crossfield is a consultant (and test pilot for the glider!).
>
> The Wright Stuff appears to be smaller scale. Never the less, their
product
> appears to be of similar quality and authenticity to the other program.
The
> apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria)
looks
> like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized
technique
> compared to conventional aircraft.
>
> Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?
>
> R / John
>
>

[Thomas Schoene]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message

> We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General
> South back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for
> years. Don't know about the most recently publicized repros, but
> methinks thay are not as rare as the TV folks would have you believe?
>
> Less rare now than in 1991 at least.

The issue is the degree of authenticity. There are quite a few
reproductions, but they tend to be modernized (either later models like the
1905 Flyer, or using modern materials, or both.) The goal here has been to
get as close a possible to the exact configuration the Wrights flew in
December 1903.

BTW: There is recent news on the Chicago attempts -- the could not get it to
fly, reportedly due to lack of wind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[John Carrier]

> We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General South
> back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for years.
Don't
> know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not
as
> rare as the TV folks would have you believe?
>
> Less rare now than in 1991 at least.

I think the biggest issue is the engine. There aren't many reproductions of
the Wright Flyer powerplant. Substitute a relatively modern design and
power delivery ceases to be an issue.

Minor mods to the original Flyer design could result in a very flyable
aircraft that looked quite authentic, but because of its improvements
(something the Wrights were incorporating in the design after their initial
success) wouldn't come close to emulating the original. So far I've found
only two efforts where the machine is a genuine attempt to reproduce the
original Flyer, right down to its engine.

R / John

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:05 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> wrote:

>know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
>rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
right) even unto the engine.

The EAA effort is accompanied by a flight simulator, in which the
public can attempt to fly the thang. Evidently it is hugely difficult,
and experienced pilots climb down from the simulator sweating and
trembling. www.warbirdforum.com/wrightst.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Marc Reeve]

John Carrier > wrote:

> > We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General South
> > back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for years.
> > Don't know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay
> > are not as rare as the TV folks would have you believe?
> >
> > Less rare now than in 1991 at least.
>
> I think the biggest issue is the engine. There aren't many reproductions
> of the Wright Flyer powerplant. Substitute a relatively modern design and
> power delivery ceases to be an issue.
>
> Minor mods to the original Flyer design could result in a very flyable
> aircraft that looked quite authentic, but because of its improvements
> (something the Wrights were incorporating in the design after their initial
> success) wouldn't come close to emulating the original. So far I've found
> only two efforts where the machine is a genuine attempt to reproduce the
> original Flyer, right down to its engine.
>
What I'm wondering is, are any of the replicators also using a catapult,
as the brothers Wright did for initial takeoff?

If not, I suspect they may have a mite more trouble getting off the
ground. 1903 Flyer did not have wheels, as I recall...

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Marc Reeve]

Cub Driver > wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not
> >as rare as the TV folks would have you believe?
>
> The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
> materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
> Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
> the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
> Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
> right) even unto the engine.

Yeah, they're the ones that borrowed the engine jigs from the AF Museum
(the same jigs which are now part of the missing exhibits investigation)
to try to duplicate the power plant as well.

I still want to know if anyone's duplicated the falling-weight catapult
as well.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[robert arndt]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:05 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
> >rare as the TV folks would have you believe?
>
> The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
> materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
> Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
> the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
> Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
> right) even unto the engine.
>
> The EAA effort is accompanied by a flight simulator, in which the
> public can attempt to fly the thang. Evidently it is hugely difficult,
> and experienced pilots climb down from the simulator sweating and
> trembling. www.warbirdforum.com/wrightst.htm
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Big deal. Historic replicas of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
No.21 have flown in both the '80s and '90s- the latter by a Luftwaffe
pilot. The Wrights dismissed the aircraft as having flown first due to
its design... which they claimed "could never fly". The original
flight and the two replicas proved them wrong. The fact that the NASM
continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
began is BS. It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.
If only the scientific reporter of that flight had used a camera
instead of a sketch of that flight aviation history would be very
different. But of course Weisskopf was a German immigrant and not
intent on pioneering aviation; rather, he was fixated on engine
development which failed in the US. Returning to Germany after never
achieving US citizenship, Weisskof died... and was soon forgotten by
everyone except for those in Germany.
His name deserves to be up there with Lilienthal and Zeppelin. But
America will never see it no matter what the evidence. Even if his
exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew the
Wright myth will continue on just like the Yeager myth of breaking
Mach 1 first.
When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
latter.

Rob

p.s. Wright lovers everywhere, no offense intended. Their achievement
is worthy but you cannot just ignore other people's achievements or
just blindly accept the "official" history of everything. The way GW
is treated historically is shameful to say the least, deceitful at its
worst.

[Mike Marron]

Walt Boyne was a career Air Force pilot with 5,000 flying hours. He
went on to become director of the Smithsonian's National Air and
Space Museum, founder of Air & Space magazine, and he is
widely-recognized as the world's foremost authority on aviation. He
has written thirty-six works of nonfiction and five novels on
aviation, and is one of the few writers to have been on the New York
Times' best seller list for .. both fiction and non-fiction.

He taps into his skills to explore the psychology of the Wright
brothers .. their family .. and their fierce circle of competitors in
the new book (1) : DAWN OVER KITTY HAWK: THE NOVEL
OF THE WRIGHT BROTHERS .

For years it seemed certain that Samuel Langley, Secretary of the
Smithsonian, would be the first to take to the skies in powered
flight. The French, who had flown the first balloon in 1783, were
determined that it would be a Frenchman who would fly first, and they
considered the Wright brothers of Dayton, Ohio to be liars not flyers,
unable to get off the ground with any aircraft of their own design.

Orville and Wilbur had to struggle against more than gravity--they had
to break the bonds of dominance that their father, Bishop Milton
Wright, exercised over them. To him they were just "the boys"
until well into their thirties, and his word was absolute law in the
tightly-knit Wright household. He would have preferred them to be
lawyers or teachers, and the Bishop watched with cynical detachment
as Orville and Wilbur went from kites to powered flight in their
famous Flyer in just four years.

On December 17, 1903, they signaled the dawn of aviation with their
four history making flights at Kitty Hawk, only to find that no one
cared in the least about their great invention. Even though they were
ten years ahead of all competition, they found that they could
not sell their aircraft to the U.S. government even as Alexander
Graham Bell and Louis Blériot, were plundering their ideas.

The Wright Brothers gave the gift of flight to mankind, changing the
world in ways even they never dreamed of. Walt Boyne's new book
tells for the first time ever the human side of the two brothers.

- Stephen Coonts : "A magnificent novel of the dawn of the aviation
age by the world's foremost aviation historian, DAWN OVER KITTY HAWK
dramatically exposes the humanity, conflicts and genius of the men who
gave us wings. This terrific historical novel is as captivating, and
as revealing, as Gore Vidal's Lincoln. You owe yourself this ride."

[From the "FIGHTER PILOT" email list]

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:07:00 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

>What I'm wondering is, are any of the replicators also using a catapult,
>as the brothers Wright did for initial takeoff?

They used the catapult in Ohio, not at Kitty Hawk. I'm not sure how
much the later Flyer resembled the configuration that first flew, so I
don't know how much it mattered, though.

>If not, I suspect they may have a mite more trouble getting off the
>ground. 1903 Flyer did not have wheels, as I recall...

That;s why they used a track laid on the sand. Presumably they did
the same in Ohio.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

[Kyle Boatright]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

>
> Big deal. Historic replicas of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
> No.21 have flown in both the '80s and '90s- the latter by a Luftwaffe
> pilot. The Wrights dismissed the aircraft as having flown first due to
> its design... which they claimed "could never fly". The original
> flight and the two replicas proved them wrong. The fact that the NASM
> continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
> began is BS. It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.
> If only the scientific reporter of that flight had used a camera
> instead of a sketch of that flight aviation history would be very
> different. But of course Weisskopf was a German immigrant and not
> intent on pioneering aviation; rather, he was fixated on engine
> development which failed in the US. Returning to Germany after never
> achieving US citizenship, Weisskof died... and was soon forgotten by
> everyone except for those in Germany.
> His name deserves to be up there with Lilienthal and Zeppelin. But
> America will never see it no matter what the evidence. Even if his
> exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew the
> Wright myth will continue on just like the Yeager myth of breaking
> Mach 1 first.
> When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
> latter.
>
> Rob

Rob,

Your claims are almost certainly untrue. I'm sure you know this, but are
trolling with more and more of your "Wild claims about German Aviation" tour
(like your claim today on Rec. Aviation. Military that the ME-262 was the
first aircraft to break the sound barrier.) That idea has been soundly
thumped there, so I'll take on this one...

Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible, that
the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low HP
engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical if
you want to fly. Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.

I'm sure you will argue that a couple of groups have built and flown
"replicas" of Whitehead's aircraft? Without drawings or an example to use
as a go-by, claiming you've built a replica is a bit far fetched, especially
when you use modern engines and propellers like those re-creators did. With
modern engines and propellors, you can make any shape fly... Just look at
the Facetmobile and a hundred other not-very-efficient designs.

Finally, if Whitehead got his "airplane #21" to fly, why didn't any of his
later creations fly? Certainly he would have improved his design, rather
than starting with a successful design, flying it a time or two, then moving
on to designs that were unable to fly...

Another good angle for you to take would be to ask "There were period
articles written about Whitehead's flights. Certainly you're not
questioning the credibility of those reporters?"... I used to believe in the
accuracy of magazine articles (and newspaper articles too), but after about
the 10th glowing article in Popular Science/Mechanics/etc on the Moeller
Skycar, I realized that reporters get a bit carried away in their search to
either: A) Sell more subscriptions, or B) Be the guy who wrote about the
next big thing that hasn't quite happened yet.

Now, run along and dig up some WWII German scientist who, on his deathbead,
claimed that he and Werner VonBraun designed and built the first SR-71.
Which was secreted to the US, but wasn't flown until the 1960's. I'm sure
we'll have fun with that one too.

KB

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Dave Kearton" > writes:
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
> programs
>
> Snip
>
>>. The
>> apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria)
> looks
>> like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized
> technique
>> compared to conventional aircraft.
>>
>> Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?
>>
>> R / John
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never been in
> a plane before to be the pilot.
>
>
> ...or maybe his brother ...

A couple of points, Dave. The Wrights weren't bicycle repairment,
they were bicycle _manufacturers_, designing and building their own
bikes (The Wright Flyer, as a matter of fact) from the ground up. Not
the same thing at all.

They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
before. When they realized that Lilienthal's data was incorrect, they
derived everything from scratch, using various test rigs adn their own
wind tunnels. By 1903, they knew more about air propeller efficienfy
adn stability and control than anyone. They also took teh same
systematic approach to flying. They began flying gliders at Kitty
Hawk in 1900, and spent 1900, 1901, and 1902 perfecting the control of
their aircraft, and learning to fly. (As an aside, that's one of the
things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
(Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitehead, ahd
that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
swimming improved quite a bit, though) After tje extensive
experiments of 1900-1903, I'd say that by Dec 1903, the Wrights had
more flight time than anyone else.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Cub Driver]

>Finally, if Whitehead got his "airplane #21" to fly, why didn't any of his
>later creations fly? Certainly he would have improved his design, rather
>than starting with a successful design, flying it a time or two, then moving
>on to designs that were unable to fly...

Just so. It's like the European "discoveries" of the Americas before
Columbus. If it's not provable, and if it led to nothing, then it
might as well not have happened.

Perhaps in the case of Columbus we use the wrong word, and "opening"
is what he did. And in the case of the Wrights, perhaps what we mean
is "they achieved replicable powered flight." But that is a bit long
to go on a postage stamp.

The Wrights were the first to fly. Put as many asterisks after it as
you like, having to do with power / proof / whatever, but they were
the first to fly.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[patrick mitchel]

Peter Stickney > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dave Kearton" > writes:
> > "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
> > programs
> >
> > Snip
> >
> >>. The
> >> apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria)
> > looks
> >> like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized
> > technique
> >> compared to conventional aircraft.
> >>
> >> Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?
> >>
> >> R / John
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never
been in
> > a plane before to be the pilot.
> >
> >
> > ...or maybe his brother ...
>
> A couple of points, Dave. The Wrights weren't bicycle repairment,
> they were bicycle _manufacturers_, designing and building their own
> bikes (The Wright Flyer, as a matter of fact) from the ground up. Not
> the same thing at all.
>
> They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
> the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
> before. When they realized that Lilienthal's data was incorrect, they
> derived everything from scratch, using various test rigs adn their own
> wind tunnels. By 1903, they knew more about air propeller efficienfy
> adn stability and control than anyone. They also took teh same
> systematic approach to flying. They began flying gliders at Kitty
> Hawk in 1900, and spent 1900, 1901, and 1902 perfecting the control of
> their aircraft, and learning to fly. (As an aside, that's one of the
> things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
> (Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitehead, ahd
> that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
> them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
> machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
> especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
> 3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
> swimming improved quite a bit, though) After tje extensive
> experiments of 1900-1903, I'd say that by Dec 1903, the Wrights had
> more flight time than anyone else.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Why did they choose a canard....seems to me that all the natural analogs
have a "tail" in the trailing position. All the soaring birds and the like.
Was there something about "seeing" the pitch attitude that gave them
confidence in that approach? Regards Pat

[robert arndt]

> Your claims are almost certainly untrue. I'm sure you know this, but are
> trolling with more and more of your "Wild claims about German Aviation" tour
> (like your claim today on Rec. Aviation. Military that the ME-262 was the
> first aircraft to break the sound barrier.) That idea has been soundly
> thumped there, so I'll take on this one...

Certainly untrue? Did YOU witness the flight in 1901? A scientific
reporter did and drew a sketch of the aircraft IN FLIGHT. Furthermore,
that FLIGHT was witnessed by hundreds of people in Connecticut on that
day. Second, regarding the Me-262 and Mach 1 there is absolutely no
way for the 1946 US Flight Manual to mention the Me-262 being able to
break Mach 1 in a critical dive based solely on captured German wind
tunnel data as it took a full 11 years to evaluate all that
information. At the time of printing in 1946 Wright Patterson held
thousands of tons captured aviation documents. Sorry, they got that
info from the Germans directly or someone in the US broke the barrier
in a captured 262.
>
> Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
> his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
> not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
> weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
> engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
> because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
> engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible, that
> the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
> Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
> Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low HP
> engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical if
> you want to fly. Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.

Yet the aircraft FLEW in 1901. The missing design of his engine does
not in any way discredit the flight. Because YOU can't figure it out
doesn't mean Weisskopf didn't build it and use it.
>
> I'm sure you will argue that a couple of groups have built and flown
> "replicas" of Whitehead's aircraft? Without drawings or an example to use
> as a go-by, claiming you've built a replica is a bit far fetched, especially
> when you use modern engines and propellers like those re-creators did. With
> modern engines and propellors, you can make any shape fly... Just look at
> the Facetmobile and a hundred other not-very-efficient designs.

Perhaps you should investigate the replicas yourself since every
detail available was painstakingly recreated. Remember, the Wrights
claimed the GW NO.21 could NEVER fly based on its design- not the
motor. Again, they were proven wrong. The GW No.21 is pretty close to
the first Taube in basic structure, albeit more primitive... which all
early aviation models were at the time in question.
>
> Finally, if Whitehead got his "airplane #21" to fly, why didn't any of his
> later creations fly? Certainly he would have improved his design, rather
> than starting with a successful design, flying it a time or two, then moving
> on to designs that were unable to fly...

As stated by Weisskopf himself his real interest was in the
development of motors and would leave the adventures of pioneering
flight to others. To have a successful flight in 1901 is amazing in
itself. But that doesn't naturally mean Weisskopf would excel as an
inventor or aircraft designer. He concentrated on different motors but
failed in the US- returning home to Germany. Sad but true. Sort of
like those with one hit wonders that are never heard of again. Nothing
suspicious about that, happens all the time.
>
> Another good angle for you to take would be to ask "There were period
> articles written about Whitehead's flights. Certainly you're not
> questioning the credibility of those reporters?"... I used to believe in the
> accuracy of magazine articles (and newspaper articles too), but after about
> the 10th glowing article in Popular Science/Mechanics/etc on the Moeller
> Skycar, I realized that reporters get a bit carried away in their search to
> either: A) Sell more subscriptions, or B) Be the guy who wrote about the
> next big thing that hasn't quite happened yet.

No, there is strong debate going on over those articles and
contradictions; however, the reporter that covered the flight only had
to use a camera to capture the machine in flight and we wouldn't be
having this argument. Sadly, he chose to draw a sketch. That isn't
Weisskopf's fault. And the poor sport Wrights angered over US
disinterest in their designs went to Europe... only to return with an
ironclad "guarantee" of their aviation status based solely on
blackmailing. No "first to fly" no aircraft to be preserved.
>
> Now, run along and dig up some WWII German scientist who, on his deathbead,
> claimed that he and Werner VonBraun designed and built the first SR-71.
> Which was secreted to the US, but wasn't flown until the 1960's. I'm sure
> we'll have fun with that one too.
>
> KB

Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
SR-71. BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2 (aka Peenemunde EMW
A-6). Coincidence? Maybe not...

Rob

[Gordon]

Rob wrote:

>Second, regarding the Me-262 and Mach 1 there is absolutely no
>way for the 1946 US Flight Manual to mention the Me-262 being able to
>break Mach 1 in a critical dive based solely on captured German wind
>tunnel data as it took a full 11 years to evaluate all that
>information.

Errr, since we were involved in high speed flight experiments at the time that
the German data was captured, does it not make a wee bit o sense that this data
would be culled through, first? The more esoteric stuff was likely
back-shelved for later in the evaluation period, but anything that the US
thought it could use RIGHT then was destributed to various aviation companies
for their use, RIGHT then. We captured the wind tunnels while they were in
use, and we actually kept the German staffs at the sites, showing us what they
were working on when the bell rang. THAT info was not sat upon for 11 years -
it was taken directly to Wright Pat for immediate evaluation, as were the jets
themselves. Or are you saying that we evaluated the Mach characteristics of
the slave-built jets without bothering to check what the German engineers had
to say about them?! Rob, that's ludicrous.

> At the time of printing in 1946 Wright Patterson held
>thousands of tons captured aviation documents.

But...sadly... not a bit of it claimed the 262 HAD gone supersonic - you just
think it does, because of a single paragraph in a book that, SURPRISE, used a
bunch of those supposedly unread German documents of yours for sources. Which
is it - did the Americans not read the Mach 1 research for years after the war,
or not??

> Sorry, they got that
>info from the Germans directly or someone in the US broke the barrier
>in a captured 262.

"...got that info from the Germans directly..."

I believe that's what I said earlier, Rob - that we obtained HG III and other
wind tunnel data, combined it with pilot's anecdotal compression stories, and
the result was a single notation in the postwar pilot's manual. Makes a lot
more sense than claiming an aircraft with thick wings, flat intakes, and a
rounded off nose somehow punched through the barrier, and then failed to report
it for 60 years.

You still ignore the problem that NO other Me 262 pilot (cept Mutke), either
Luftwaffe or postwar, made any sort of a similar claim. Mutke's postwar
revelation ignores (as you do) the improbable nature of Mach 1 flight in an
aircraft without proper mach-capable wings or engine intakes. Mutke is laughed
down by both his friends and detractors - he is known as a "crazy
gynochologist" and NOT as a test pilot, which he never was. His aircraft was
not instrumented to provide accurate airspeed data and his statements in
private even cast doubt on his on-line claims (I printed the on-line story, and
sent it to him for his signature - he carefully lined out one of the speed
figures and wrote in a smaller, more believable number). All things
considered, he is not a credible source for a Mach 1 claim - nor would I accept
as fact any such story that surfaced first, decades after the event. Mutke
kept his "event" a secret - so good, in fact, that his unit filed no loss or
damage report to match the supposedly thrashed Me 262 that he claims to have
piloted to Mach 1 and back. "White 9", the only candidate put forth as his
"Mach 1 aircraft" somehow suffered incredible damage due to his failure to
monitor his speed and disregard of his direct instructions from Heinz Bär
immediately prior to launch, so we already know something of Mutke's piloting
skills. His Mach 1 flight was an "accident" according to him - but an accident
that caused heavy damage to his "turbo". Being the kind of asshole that I am,
I went to the JG 7 loss records, which are intact, btw, and no such loss or
damage is reported on the date he claims. So, lets ignore Mutke's baseless
claims and get back to the facts - there were no wartime claims of a Mach 1
event in Germany, although there was plenty of high speed wind tunnel
experimentation in the final year. So we are left with your theory that
requires a US or Brit postwar test pilot that supposedly "did the deed" - but
none did, or claimed they did, in the last six decades. Whatever gag order you
may think they are under, these pilots are now elder gents that take orders
from no one - the British test pilots are emphatic that Mach 1 was not possible
in the Nazi jet, and further, they link the 'tuck under' and other negative
aerodynamic high speed tendancies as reasons why it could never exceed .88.

On the US side, a friend of mine has three shelves of binders, filled with
reams of Wright Patterson Me 262 test documents and pilot reports - Chuck has
also known the principal test pilots for years and has many of their original
notes and documents. Any Mach 1 data in there? Damn the mundanity, no. 30+
binders full of every sort of high speed flight test or evaluation and none of
it agrees with you.

Again, a Mach 1 event requires a suitable aircraft, a pilot, a date, and a
location. Documentation from the time of the event is also critical - to keep
from having arguments 60 years after the event.

You can't provide any one of those five required items and instead cling to a
single paragraph that was prepared by engineers and technical writers that
definitely had access to German wind tunnel data, regardless of your rather
biased claims.

Rob, I really am fascinated with the Me 262 - but years of familiarity with the
beast do not cloud my vision, to give it supernatural powers or abilities that
it clearly lacked.

You never have contacted Mutke, have you...? Or done any original research on
this issue? You are starting to sound a bit shrill - ignoring the bits you
can't explain and staying "on message", repeating the same claim over and over,
with the same cryptic proof from that one pilot's handbook -- which mentions
the characteristics of the Me 262 approaching compressibility, NOT a true
transonic event. The engineers of the day were aware that the two types of
event were different, but didn't have anything concrete in their hands to judge
which type of event had been reported by the early jet pilots.

>> Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
>> his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
>> not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
>> weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
>> engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
>> because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
>> engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible,
>that
>> the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
>> Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
>> Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low
>HP
>> engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical
>if
>> you want to fly.

Agree. The props on his craft would have wasted practically all of the HP the
magic engine produced.

>> Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.
>
>Yet the aircraft FLEW in 1901. The missing design of his engine does
>not in any way discredit the flight. Because YOU can't figure it out.

A 'drawing' doesn't stand up very well to scrutiny when the Wrights produced a
*photo*, to go along with their achievement. Your desire to take people's word
for everything, in the absence of direct physical evidence, is not good for
your case, Rob - human observers aren't known for their accuracy when facing a
totally unfamiliar event, such as witnessing the inauguaral human flight.

>Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
>are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
>several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
>SR-71.

Care to post the telemetry data or something else that can be checked..?

Which is higher - the drag coefficient of a disk, or a dart?

(Please ignore any questions that don't fit your preconcieved ideas.)

> BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
>strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2

That's more than a stretch, that's grabbing at straws. Other than the fact
that they are rocket powered and had an occupant, the manned V-2 and the X-15
have very little in common. Not launched the same, controlled the same; one is
a vertically launched two-stage rocket, the other is a small, air-dropped
endo-atmospheric test aircraft. The X-15 used nose reaction motors to adjust
its trajectory - something the manned V-2 seems to lack. Only you could see a
connection here, Rob! LOL

v/r
Gordon

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

> ...(As an aside, that's one of the
> things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
> (Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitehead, ahd
> that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
> them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
> machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
> especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
> 3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
> swimming improved quite a bit, though)...

Manley also designed and built Langley's gasoline engine, and it
was about as good as they got at the time. IIRC, a 5-cylinder
radial putting out 52hp. Wonder what the Wright's could have
done with that engine.

[Cub Driver]

Surely this can easily be proved? Two Me 262s are for sale at this
moment. They are certainly better-built than the originals, with far
better engines. If the original could fly faster than Mach 1, then the
replicas can.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gregg Germain]

John Carrier > wrote:
: Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of programs
: to celebrate the Wright Centennial (Dec 17th) with reenactments of the
: famous flight. The key ingredient to both efforts (are there more?) is a
: reproduction Wright Flyer in 1903 trim. This is trickier than it might seem
: ... the Smithsonian flyer was damaged after the fourth flight and was
: modified several times between 1903 and its presentation to the museum.
: Notes/blueprints are not extensive. It's obviously a challenge to reverse
: engineer the machine to an authentic configuration, right down to the
: engine.

: The Wright Experience is sponsored by Ford, EAA and others. They've got a
: towed glider and a flight simulator for training. Several pilots chosen.
: Scott Crossfield is a consultant (and test pilot for the glider!).

: The Wright Stuff appears to be smaller scale. Never the less, their product
: appears to be of similar quality and authenticity to the other program. The
: apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria) looks
: like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized technique
: compared to conventional aircraft.

: Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?

: R / John

I only saw a small piece of the TV pr9ogram, and read a few snippest
in the paper, but....

Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as
the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind?



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

[Mike Marron]

>Gregg Germain > wrote:

> Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as
> the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind?

It could fly w/o sufficient wind, but just didn't have the oomph to
take off by itself due to it's puny 12-hp engine tasked with getting
600 lbs. of airplane into the air.

-Mike Marron

[robert arndt]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> Surely this can easily be proved? Two Me 262s are for sale at this
> moment. They are certainly better-built than the originals, with far
> better engines. If the original could fly faster than Mach 1, then the
> replicas can.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Agreed, but who would want to put their life on the line to prove it?
During WW2 the Germans piloting both the Me-262 and 163 were hitting
the barrier in high speed critical dives. The reason no other
Luftwaffe pilots have come forward to support the WW2 Mach 1 claim is
simple- none returned alive to tell about it.
One of the most famous Me-163 Versuchs machines in testing reached 702
mph in such a dive and barely survived with the Me-163s tail ripped to
shreds. He's very fortunate his a/c didn't explode with the volatile
fuel onboard (which would certainly be the case for those that in
combat did break the barrier and died in the process). Same for the
Me-262 except in Mutke's case his a/c WAS severly damaged with the
wings, engines, and body badly damaged. He himself did not realize the
significance of that flight until Mach flight was better known in the
years after the war. No mystery there...
The USAF is the final authority when it comes to the historical
accuracy of Mach flight and maybe someday will reveal what they
discovered in Germany in 1945 and exactly what was done at Wright
Patterson with the Me-262. But since the truth is still masked by
secrecy (in the name of national security) I don't see this happening
any time soon.

Rob

p.s. there are many cases in WW2 of missing Me-262 and 163 aircraft
that never reached their destination nor returned from combat. Its
easy to just write them off as accidents, shot down, ditched
someplace... but I believe at least a few of these broke the barrier
and their a/c became critically damaged beyond control resulting in
their death. The Luftwaffe simply didnt have the time and resources in
1945 to investigate Mach flight beyond the realization that their jet
and rocket a/c were hitting the barrier on occasion. That's why their
pilots were told specifically not to exceed critical speeds that
threatened their a/c. In combat, this just isn't reasonable and no
doubt many Luftwaffe pilots were forced into high speed dives that
cost them their lives.

[Gordon]

>The reason no other
>Luftwaffe pilots have come forward to support the WW2 Mach 1 claim is
>simple- none returned alive to tell about it.

Then who gave the US the "supersonic" info for their pilots manual? ;) (Pssst
- it was engineers working the problem at O'trau.)

>One of the most famous Me-163 Versuchs machines in testing reached 702
>mph in such a dive and barely survived with the Me-163s tail ripped to
>shreds.

Another sterling example of your accuracy, Rob? That particular aircraft was
damaged during a high speed _climb_, not a dive. Getting that sort of detail
wrong makes me believe you are going from memory here, when you should be
quoting from a document or book - try "Top Secret Bird"; it'll help you.

>He's very fortunate his a/c didn't explode with the volatile
>fuel onboard (which would certainly be the case for those that in
>combat did break the barrier and died in the process).

C'mon, Rob - give me the name of ONE Luftwaffe pilot from EKdo 16 or JG 400
that died in the manner you just described. This statement is entirely
fabricated! ROB, NO one died in this manner - unless you can provide names and
circumstances (and I am able to provide corrections, from the German records).
Yer dreamin', dude. Oh, I forgot - in your world, aircraft with 2-foot thick
WOODEN wings and blunt noses are supersonic aircraft.

I am also puzzled about your 'break the barrier in combat' mention. What do
you base it on? Can you provide any examples of ANY aircraft engaging in a
supersonic dogfight?

>Same for the
>Me-262 except in Mutke's case his a/c WAS severly damaged with the
>wings, engines, and body badly damaged.

NO photo - no proof. NO wartime statement by the pilot - no proof. NO
aircraft loss/damaged report - no proof. The "Silber" aircraft were strategic
assets of the Third Reich, not like the litter piles of Bf 109s and Focke Wulfs
that were all over Germany as the war ended: EVERY Me 262 was tracked by higher
authority and each one was haggled over by various units and Flots. To have
lost two (Mutkes + the guy he was supposedly going to rescue) and have neither
of them reported is just not possible. No "White 9" was removed from service
due to damage by JG 7, or any other LW unit, on the day he claims. Or, perhaps
you have some sort of proof that has eluded researchers like Richard Eger,
Manfred Boehme, and others..? Ignore me forever - but it won't change that
dozens of highly experienced pilots and engineers were approached by Mutke
PERSONALLY, and all refused to agree with his position, for the most basic of
reasons: he was wrong. Instead of parroting his website, why not INVESTIGATE
what he claims? Its not rocket science, but I have to warn you, you won't like
what you find.

>He himself did not realize the
>significance of that flight until Mach flight was better known in the
>years after the war. No mystery there...

The mystery is how he could effectively destroy an Me 262 without it being
recorded. See, when they lost one or had one pranged, they had to notify
everyone - I have the page-by-page loss files for those that were dicked up due
to various causes. In fact, the only losses I am missing are the combat losses
(I have quite a few, but definitely not most) -- but the prangs are all in the
massive file (BTW, Rob, you should order it - it wont back up your position in
the least, but it will educate you a bit, with genuine, accurate, wartime
information). Mutke managed to screw up a 262, apparently right in front of
the Old Schoolmaster (Bär), but the instructor seems to have entirely missed
it. ODD, that, considering he was spring-loaded to ground any pilot that
damaged a 262 due to not following instructions. By Mutke's own statement, he
wasn't.

BTW, when you have written to Mutke, what was his reply? Wait, I forgot - you
don't actually research anything, you just accept what you read on the net.

>The USAF is the final authority when it comes to the historical
>accuracy of Mach flight

Ok.?

>and maybe someday will reveal what they
>discovered in Germany in 1945 and exactly what was done at Wright
>Patterson with the Me-262.

Those files are _not_ closed. Have you EVER visited NARA, NARA II, or Wright
Pat?? Answer: NO.

>But since the truth is still masked by
>secrecy (in the name of national security) I don't see this happening
>any time soon.

Go back to reading LW 46 comics, Rob. When you are interested in reading
original wartime documents, filled with all sorts of fascinating things every
bit as exciting as the warped versions you have accepted as truth, let me know
and I can give you some great file numbers to start with.

Gordon

[TJ]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

> Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
> are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
> several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
> SR-71. BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
> strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2 (aka Peenemunde EMW
> A-6). Coincidence? Maybe not...
>
> Rob


Come on Rob. It wasn't so long ago that you were informing the group that
the SR-71 was flying missions over the Soviet Union!


TJ

[Cub Driver]

> Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as
> the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind?

Sure they can fly. An airplane in the air does not know whether the
wind is blowing or not.

*Taking off* however is a different matter.

The steady wind at Kill Devil Hill was also essential for the kite
trials that preceded powered flight in the Wright Flyer. Unlike an
airplane, a kite is tethered to the ground and the airstream is
provided not by a propeller but by the differential between the speed
of the air and that of the ground.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

>Cub Driver > wrote:
>>Gregg Germain > wrote:

>>Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as
>>the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind?

>Sure they can fly. An airplane in the air does not know whether the
>wind is blowing or not.

Despite what you probably learned in your private pilot ground
school, this statement is not entirely true.

For all practical purposes, Ed's 55,000 lb. Thud (for example)
probably didn't know whether the wind is blowing or not. But your
700 lb. Cub certainly does.

If you still have your AC-61 23 (FAA Pilot's Handbook of
Aeronautical Knowledge) see page 114. If you don't have it
handy, here is the pertinent excerpt:

"It has been thought that wind cannot affect an aircraft once it is
flying except for drift and groundspeed. This is true with steady
winds or winds that change gradually. It isn't true, however, if the
wind changes faster than the aircraft mass can be accelerated
or decelerated."

It boils down to this: those of us who fly extremely lightweight A/C
are much more intimately acquainted with the subtle nuances of
how wind effects our planes in flight than are our he-man counterparts
who drive their heavyweights around the sky at .9 mach for the most
totally oblivious to what the wind is doing.

But then, coming from a GA background, I also didn't much care about
the wind after takeoff and my 6,000 lb. AeroCommander loaded with
1,500 lbs. of cargo didn't care either. Simply turn the required
amount of degrees into the wind to compensate for drift and be done
with it.

But since taking up flexwing aviation and having flown several
dozen different make & models of delightfully lightweight birds,
I've changed my tune a bit here.

>The steady wind at Kill Devil Hill was also essential for the kite
>trials that preceded powered flight in the Wright Flyer. Unlike an
>airplane, a kite is tethered to the ground and the airstream is
>provided not by a propeller but by the differential between the speed
>of the air and that of the ground.

This is all true, but it doesn't support your contention that, "an
airplane in the air does not know whether the wind is blowing or
not."

If you don't understand this, try dragging a banner behind your Cub
someday. For maximum effect, try this little experiment by flying from
a steady state wind towards the shoreline so as to experience a
sudden change in wind direction from a tailwind to an onshore
seabreeze.

You're happily cruising along in your Cub headed straight for the
beach with the banner flapping lazily behind and slightly below
your Cub's tailfeathers.

You then fly into the onshore seabreeze airmass and suddenly all the
slack in the banner towline tightens up and the banner streaming
behind straightens out. You exclaim, "This shouldn't be, I'm part of
the airmass!"

Another good example is drifting along in a balloon. You're moving
over the ground, but not a breath of air in the balloon. You are
changing altitudes to catch a wind going another direction, and
suddenly the little flags on the balloon flutter and you feel a little
breeze.

Once again, you protest, "This shouldn't be, I'm part of the airmass!"
The balloon replies, "Yes, grazihopper, but I have inertia and once I
have adjusted to the new wind, we will be floating in silence once
more."

-Mike Marron

[Gregg Germain]

Mike Marron > wrote:
:>Gregg Germain > wrote:

:> Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as
:> the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind?

: It could fly w/o sufficient wind, but just didn't have the oomph to
: take off by itself due to it's puny 12-hp engine tasked with getting
: 600 lbs. of airplane into the air.

: -Mike Marron

Hi Mike,

Well that's what I meant by "fly" though I didn't use precise
language.

In other words, on a calm day, the Wright Flyer would not take off.



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

[Mike Marron]

>Gregg Germain > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>It could fly w/o sufficient wind, but just didn't have the oomph to
>>take off by itself due to it's puny 12-hp engine tasked with getting
>>600 lbs. of airplane into the air.

>Hi Mike,

>Well that's what I meant by "fly" though I didn't use precise
>language.

>In other words, on a calm day, the Wright Flyer would not take off.

With a long enough runway it could take off in calm air. But since
Kitty Hawk is only about 500 miles from their bicycle shop in Ohio
whereas the Bonneville Salt Flats is more than 1500 miles away,
the 100 ft. dunes and onshore seabreezes at Kitty Hawk worked
out just fine for their purposes.

-Mike Marron

[Cub Driver]

>In other words, on a calm day, the Wright Flyer would not take off.

Just so.

Note that much the same was true of most carrier aircraft in WWII, at
least as the planes were arranged on deck. (Parked aircraft took up
much of the available space.) The carrier steamed into the wind at
high speed, giving 25 knots or more over the bow. The most famous
example was the launch of the Dootlittle raiders in April 1942, when
you can see a B-25 actually dipping below deck level as it took off
for Japan.

Today, there is seldom any effort to take off from carriers. Jets are
routinely catapulted.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>With a long enough runway it could take off in calm air. But since
>Kitty Hawk is only about 500 miles from their bicycle shop in Ohio
>whereas the Bonneville Salt Flats is more than 1500 miles away,

Given that the first flight was shorter than the wingspan of a modern
jetliner, are you sure about this? Perhaps it would have run out of
gas or fallen apart or the pilot jolted off before becoming airborne?
The temps on the salt flats would have been a hindering factor as
well, both aerodynamically and mechanically.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

The wind doesn't affect the Cub when its airborne. *Changes* in
windspeed affect the Cub.

But they don't help it fly.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

>Cub Driver > wrote:

>The wind doesn't affect the Cub when its airborne. *Changes* in
>windspeed affect the Cub.

>But they don't help it fly.

Typical "heavy iron" mindset of a pilot who simply drives around
burning holes in the sky and never discovers the joys of surfing the
wind.

In any event, no offense but I couldn't disagree more and it sounds to
me that you just don't like the wind. Happiness is a limp windsock and
all that jazz.

-Mike (perhaps a few soarplane lessons might help?) Marron

[Mike Marron]

>Cub Driver > wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>With a long enough runway it could take off in calm air. But since
>>Kitty Hawk is only about 500 miles from their bicycle shop in Ohio
>>whereas the Bonneville Salt Flats is more than 1500 miles away,

>Given that the first flight was shorter than the wingspan of a modern
>jetliner, are you sure about this? Perhaps it would have run out of
>gas or fallen apart or the pilot jolted off before becoming airborne?

Perhaps. But then, neither of us can definitively state one way or
another that it would NOT have been possible to takeoff under
its own power in calm air given a long enough runway.

>The temps on the salt flats would have been a hindering factor as
>well, both aerodynamically and mechanically.

I just checked the mean temperatures of the Wendover UT area
(closest I could find to the salt flats) and didn't see any reason why
temps would have been a hindrance (esp. in the wintertime).

-Mike Marron

[Chris Mark]

>om: Cub Driver lo

>The most famous
>example was the launch of the Dootlittle raiders in April 1942, when
>you can see a B-25 actually dipping below deck level as it took off
>for Japan.

That was Travis Hoover's plane. He was the second off after Doolittle.
Apparently the pitch up of the deck as he launched put the nose up too high and
he dropped down to pick up air speed. Whether that was done with conscious
intent or whether that's just the way the inert mass behaved when trundled off
the front end of a flight deck depends on whose telling the tale. Apparently
timing the launch to coincide with the correct angle of the pitching deck was
critical and it took a near miss for the navy guy waving the flag (whatever you
call him) to get the timing exactly right, the progress of a B-25 down the
flight deck not being exactly the same as that of the single-engine jobs the
navy was used to launching.


Chris Mark

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"patrick mitchel" > writes:

Sorry for taking so long for the reply, but there's only so many hours
in the week, and I've had a lot to do at my Day Job.
>
> Peter Stickney > wrote in message
>> They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
>> the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
>> before. When they realized that Lilienthal's data was incorrect, they
>> derived everything from scratch, using various test rigs adn their own
>> wind tunnels. By 1903, they knew more about air propeller efficienfy
>> adn stability and control than anyone. They also took the same
>> systematic approach to flying. They began flying gliders at Kitty
>> Hawk in 1900, and spent 1900, 1901, and 1902 perfecting the control of
>> their aircraft, and learning to fly. (As an aside, that's one of the
>> things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
>> (Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitheead, ahd
>> that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
>> them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
>> machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
>> especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
>> 3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
>> swimming improved quite a bit, though) After tje extensive
>> experiments of 1900-1903, I'd say that by Dec 1903, the Wrights had
>> more flight time than anyone else.

> Why did they choose a canard....seems to me that all the natural analogs
> have a "tail" in the trailing position. All the soaring birds and the like.
> Was there something about "seeing" the pitch attitude that gave them
> confidence in that approach? Regards Pat

Well, birds with canards, (With the possible exception of the
semi-mythical Woose Grock (Wrongwayus invertibuttacus) or Inverted
Grouse of the North Woods, whose backward flight causes hunters to
pull lead in the wrong direction, and is mostly known by its taunting
call of EEOOOMISSSSDMEE, EEOOOMISSSSEDMEE) have a hard time eating. :)

Seriously, though, I think they did it for reasons of efficiency. A
fixed wing all by itseld, wants to pivot in a "nose down" direction.

The conventional tail of an airplane or bird balances this by
generatnig lift in the direction opposite that of the wing. So,
although it balances the pitching moment of the wing, it increases the
amount of work that the wing must do. A canard (Forward Stabilizer)
can achieve the same goal while generating lift in the same direction
as the wing. therehy helping out with the lift. The drawbacks are
that the canard can disturb the airflow over the wing in some
configurations, (Or help teh airflow in others), and it adds to the
length of the airplane, since it has to be stuck out far enough ahead
of the wing to get a proper amount of leverage. After 1909, the
Wrights wnet to a more conventional layout, with the stabilizer in
back, with the rudder.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Big deal. Historic replicas of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
> No.21 have flown in both the '80s and '90s- the latter by a Luftwaffe
> pilot.
>

Not true. No historic replica of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
No.21 has ever been built or flown.


>
> The Wrights dismissed the aircraft as having flown first due to
> its design... which they claimed "could never fly". The original
> flight and the two replicas proved them wrong.
>

There's no reliable evidence that there was an "original flight", the
lookalike aircraft prove only that an aircraft that looks like Whitehead's
can fly. They say absolutely nothing about Whitehead's work.


>
> The fact that the NASM
> continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
> began is BS.
>

Not.


>
> It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.
>

There's no reliable evidence that Whitehead's aircraft flew.


>
> If only the scientific reporter of that flight had used a camera
> instead of a sketch of that flight aviation history would be very
> different.
>

There was no scientific reporter of that "flight".


>
> But of course Weisskopf was a German immigrant and not
> intent on pioneering aviation; rather, he was fixated on engine
> development which failed in the US. Returning to Germany after never
> achieving US citizenship, Weisskof died... and was soon forgotten by
> everyone except for those in Germany.
> His name deserves to be up there with Lilienthal and Zeppelin.
>

Lilienthal and Zeppelin made contributions to the science of flight,
Whitehead did not.


>
> But America will never see it no matter what the evidence.
>

No evidence.


>
> Even if his
> exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew the
> Wright myth will continue on just like the Yeager myth of breaking
> Mach 1 first.
>

Even if his exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew,
it would not prove that Whitehead flew.


>
> When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
> latter.
>

Your messages about Whitehead indicate you have little interest in real
history.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Certainly untrue? Did YOU witness the flight in 1901?
>

Of course he did not. NOBODY witnessed that "flight"!

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:24:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> Certainly untrue? Did YOU witness the flight in 1901?
>>
>
>Of course he did not. NOBODY witnessed that "flight"!
>
But Rob had a dream in which he had a vision in which somebody told
him that their third cousin's great great uncle was THERE, so we know
it must have happened!!!

Al Minyard

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Strayhorn
> writes
>In article >,
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
>
>> A couple of points, Dave. The Wrights weren't bicycle repairment,
>> they were bicycle _manufacturers_, designing and building their own
>> bikes (The Wright Flyer, as a matter of fact) from the ground up. Not
>> the same thing at all.
>>
OT: Bicycle Repair Man was a Monty Python superhero.

>> They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
>> the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
>> before.
>
>I once lived next door to the Wright Memorial in Kill Devil Hills, back
>in the days before high fences and admission fees. It was no big matter
>to walk across the back yard and into the exhibition hall, where
>the brothers' log books were once on display in glass cases. The
>park service folks used to turn a page a day in each book to keep
>them from fading, so over the course of a year I got a good squint
>at their work since I liked to make that walk most afternoons.
>
>These guys were precise, meticulous, careful and smart. And the pages
>were filled with the kind of math that would make most college students
>today throw up their hands in despair. Every aspect of that airplane
>was studied in great detail - which construction methods worked,
>which airfoils provided the best lift, even such details as the best
>stores in Elizabeth City or Norfolk to buy canvas, wire, dope, etc.
>Most pages were annotated and cross-referenced to other logbooks.
>

Are there different grades of canvas? I associate it with tents, which
can be bloody heavy. I was under the impression that when most aircraft
were fabric covered, if you couldn't get Irish linen, then high-quality
cotton was OK.

Clarification will be gratefully received.

>All done in beautiful handwriting, too, something else you don't
>see much of today.
>
>I wish someone would publish a facsimile edition, it would be worth
>the money just as an exercise in logic and the scientific method.
>More than anything else, these logbooks give an insight into how
>the brothers achieved what they did.
>

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Keith Willshaw]

"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...

>
> Are there different grades of canvas?

There sure are.

> I associate it with tents, which
> can be bloody heavy. I was under the impression that when most aircraft
> were fabric covered, if you couldn't get Irish linen, then high-quality
> cotton was OK.
>
> Clarification will be gratefully received.
>

Canvas can be made in many grades and from different
stocks including hemp, linen and cotton. The finer grades
of linen canvas are mainly used for art supplies and photographic
backdrops these days but they are much lighter than the material
used in most tents.

Keith

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Keith Willshaw <keithNoSp
> writes
>
>"Peter Twydell" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Are there different grades of canvas?
>
>There sure are.
>
>> I associate it with tents, which
>> can be bloody heavy. I was under the impression that when most aircraft
>> were fabric covered, if you couldn't get Irish linen, then high-quality
>> cotton was OK.
>>
>> Clarification will be gratefully received.
>>
>
>Canvas can be made in many grades and from different
>stocks including hemp, linen and cotton. The finer grades
>of linen canvas are mainly used for art supplies and photographic
>backdrops these days but they are much lighter than the material
>used in most tents.
>
>Keith
>
>
I do hate it when people point out to me what should have been obvious
all along!

I was so fixated on the concept of canvas tents that I completely
overlooked the fact that SWMBO and her father used to paint in oils on
canvas.

Thanks, Keith.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Peter Twydell > writes:
> In article >, Strayhorn
> > writes
>>In article >,
>> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A couple of points, Dave. The Wrights weren't bicycle repairment,
>>> they were bicycle _manufacturers_, designing and building their own
>>> bikes (The Wright Flyer, as a matter of fact) from the ground up. Not
>>> the same thing at all.
>>>
> OT: Bicycle Repair Man was a Monty Python superhero.

Yes, after changing out of his Secret Identity of S.J. Superman.

> Are there different grades of canvas? I associate it with tents, which
> can be bloody heavy. I was under the impression that when most aircraft
> were fabric covered, if you couldn't get Irish linen, then high-quality
> cotton was OK.
>
> Clarification will be gratefully received.

Well, there's canvas and then there's canvas. The first two dictionary
entries that pop up for me read as follows:
1) A strong cloth made of hemp, flax, or cotton; - used for tents,
sails, etc.
2) a) A coarse cloth so woven as to form regular meshes for working
with the needle, as in tapestry, or worsted work.
b) A piece of strong cloth of which the surface has been prepared
to receive painting, commonly painting in oil.

So, at a glance, Irish Linen could, in fact, be considered a type of
canvas, or, perhaps a cotton twill. IIRC, the Wrights used a Sateen,
which is a cotton with a treated surface.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Mike Marron]

> (Peter Stickney) wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

>IIRC, the Wrights used a Sateen, which is a cotton with a treated surface.

Too bad dacron, trilam or mylar used on modern experimentals and
ultralights weren't available at the time.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
> Well, there's canvas and then there's canvas. The first two dictionary
> entries that pop up for me read as follows:
> 1) A strong cloth made of hemp, flax, or cotton; - used for tents,
> sails, etc.
> 2) a) A coarse cloth so woven as to form regular meshes for working
> with the needle, as in tapestry, or worsted work.
> b) A piece of strong cloth of which the surface has been prepared
> to receive painting, commonly painting in oil.
>
> So, at a glance, Irish Linen could, in fact, be considered a type of
> canvas, or, perhaps a cotton twill.

Cotten yes, twill no. Canvas is a plainweave fabric, strictly
alternating over and under of warp (lengthwise) and weft (across). Twill
weaves involve the warp/weft pattern varying in particular ways.

A 2/2 twill has the warp skip over twice, then under, while the weft
also skips over then under. Denim is a usually this type of twill, and
is the reason you see the diagonal pattern on the surface of the cloth.
(Blue jeans denim usually uses dyed warp, in blue, with undyed weft. It
got its name because it was first commercially woven in Nimes, so fabric
"de Nimes" became "denim". Or so the story goes.)

Other twills might be 3/3 or 3/2 or other patterns.

> IIRC, the Wrights used a Sateen, which is a cotton with a treated surface.

Sateen can be cotton or linen, or sometimes rayon. It's tightly-woven
warp-emphasis (not a "balanced weave") fabric intended to look like
satin. The weave makes it hold its shape well, rather than being
stretchy, like a knit or crocheted fabric. A perle cotton, treated by
strong alkaline (IIRC) is shiny, and would look very like satin.

Sorry, I got a little wound up.

(I'd be handweaving now, but things are in disarray at the house, and
the looms aren't accessible until quite a bit of jun...um...stuff gets
reorganized after the carpet replacement.)

[John Mazor]

Steve Hix > simpered:

>In article >,
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>
>> Well, there's canvas and then there's canvas. The first two dictionary
>> entries that pop up for me read as follows:
>> 1) A strong cloth made of hemp, flax, or cotton; - used for tents,
>> sails, etc.
>> 2) a) A coarse cloth so woven as to form regular meshes for working
>> with the needle, as in tapestry, or worsted work.
>> b) A piece of strong cloth of which the surface has been prepared
>> to receive painting, commonly painting in oil.
>>
>> So, at a glance, Irish Linen could, in fact, be considered a type of
>> canvas, or, perhaps a cotton twill.
>
>Cotten yes, twill oh no. Canvas is a plainweave fabric, strictly
>alternating over and under of warp (lengthwise) and weft (across). Twill
>weaves involve the warp/weft pattern varying in particular ways. Silly.
>
>A 2/2 twill has the warp skip over twice, then under, while the weft
>also skips over then under. Mmmm. Denim is a usually this type of twill, and
>is the reason you see the diagonal pattern on the surface of the cloth.
>(Blue jeans "denim" usually uses dyed warp, in blue, with undyed weft. It
>got its name because it was first commercially woven in Nimes, so fabric
>"de Nimes" became "denim". Or so the story goes.) Lovely. Don't you think? Hmmm?
>
>Other twills might be 3/3 or 3/2 or other patterns.
>
>> IIRC, the Wrights used a Sateen, which is a cotton with a treated surface.
>
>Sateen can be cotton or linen, or sometimes rayon. It's tightly-woven tight clenched young warp-emphasis (not a "balanced weave - ooooohhh") fabric intended to look like satin. <simper> <involutary twitch of all-too-expressive wrist> The weave makes it hold its shape well <wink>, rather than being stretchy, like a knit or crocheted fabric. A perle cotton, treated by strong alkaline (IIRC) is shiny, and would look very like satin.
>
>Sorry, I got a little wound up. <moue>
>
>(I'd be handweaving now, but things are in disarray at the house, and
>the looms aren't accessible until quite a bit of jun...um...stuff gets
>reorganized after the carpet replacement.)

Shouldn't you be out there sodomizing young boys, Bishop?

John Mazor

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:41:47 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


>Well, there's canvas and then there's canvas. The first two dictionary
>entries that pop up for me read as follows:

>2) a) A coarse cloth so woven as to form regular meshes for working
>with the needle, as in tapestry, or worsted work.

I needlepoint (do canvas work) and it's certainly not what you'd use
to cover a wing. The holes are bigger than the warp and weft threads.

Canvas, as in the fabric used in sails, is tabby weave, like duck. It
can be made from cotton, hemp, linen, ramie, or other fibers. The
weight and the closeness of the weave varies.

>So, at a glance, Irish Linen could, in fact, be considered a type of
>canvas, or, perhaps a cotton twill. IIRC, the Wrights used a Sateen,
>which is a cotton with a treated surface.

Nope. Sateen is a weave, just like twill. It's not treated and it's
not necessarily cotton. Rather, it has floating threads on the
surface, just like satin. In fact, the difference between sateen and
satin is whether it's the warp threads or the woof threads that float.

Anyway, sateen can be made from any fiber, although some of them
aren't as practical as others. So can twill and satin, for that
matter.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(John Mazor) wrote:
>
> Steve Hix > simpered:

Too technical for you, John?

> >In article >,
> > (Peter Stickney) wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, there's canvas and then there's canvas. The first two dictionary
> >> entries that pop up for me read as follows:
> >> 1) A strong cloth made of hemp, flax, or cotton; - used for tents,
> >> sails, etc.
> >> 2) a) A coarse cloth so woven as to form regular meshes for working
> >> with the needle, as in tapestry, or worsted work.
> >> b) A piece of strong cloth of which the surface has been prepared
> >> to receive painting, commonly painting in oil.
> >>
> >> So, at a glance, Irish Linen could, in fact, be considered a type of
> >> canvas, or, perhaps a cotton twill.
> >
> >Cotten yes, twill oh no. Canvas is a plainweave fabric, strictly
> >alternating over and under of warp (lengthwise) and weft (across). Twill
> >weaves involve the warp/weft pattern varying in particular ways. Silly.

Note that the "Silly" above was added by John Mazor, for whatever
reason helps him sleep better at night.

> >A 2/2 twill has the warp skip over twice, then under, while the weft
> >also skips over then under. Mmmm. Denim is a usually this type of twill,
> >and
> >is the reason you see the diagonal pattern on the surface of the cloth.
> >(Blue jeans "denim" usually uses dyed warp, in blue, with undyed weft. It
> >got its name because it was first commercially woven in Nimes, so fabric
> >"de Nimes" became "denim". Or so the story goes.) Lovely. Don't you think?
> > Hmmm?

As was the "Lovely...Hmmm?" segment.

> >Other twills might be 3/3 or 3/2 or other patterns.
> >
> >> IIRC, the Wrights used a Sateen, which is a cotton with a treated surface.
> >
> >Sateen can be cotton or linen, or sometimes rayon. It's tightly-woven tight
> >clenched young warp-emphasis (not a "balanced weave - ooooohhh") fabric
> >intended to look like satin. <simper> <involutary twitch of
> >all-too-expressive wrist>

Etc. etc. etc. Mazor seems to be getting quite worked up, for some
reason.

> > The weave makes it hold its shape well <wink>,
> >rather than being stretchy, like a knit or crocheted fabric. A perle cotton,
> >treated by strong alkaline (IIRC) is shiny, and would look very like satin.
> >
> >Sorry, I got a little wound up. <moue>

And the "<moue>".

> >(I'd be handweaving now, but things are in disarray at the house, and
> >the looms aren't accessible until quite a bit of jun...um...stuff gets
> >reorganized after the carpet replacement.)
>
> Shouldn't you be out there sodomizing young boys, Bishop?
>
> John Mazor

No, John. Probably better if you didn't project your own problems on
others. (And who the hell is "Bishop"?)

I got interested in weaving through historical reenactments, where I was
involved in competitive target shooting.

And why in the world should you care, one way or the other. If you're
not interested in some hobby, too bad. Most people probably aren't
interested in whatever yours might be. So what?

If Rosie Grier could take up needlepoint, I don't see any problem with
handweaving as a hobby. Not that I'd care in any case.

Oh, almost forgot: FOAD, Mazor.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...

> No, John. Probably better if you didn't project your own problems on
> others. (And who the hell is "Bishop"?)
>
> I got interested in weaving through historical reenactments, where I
was
> involved in competitive target shooting.
>
> And why in the world should you care, one way or the other. If you're
> not interested in some hobby, too bad. Most people probably aren't
> interested in whatever yours might be. So what?
>
> If Rosie Grier could take up needlepoint, I don't see any problem with
> handweaving as a hobby. Not that I'd care in any case.

The idiosyncratic Montréal Canadiens goaltender, Jacques Plante, was
famous for knitting, even in the dressing room. Why shouldn't lesser
mortals like ourselves take up such crafts?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Marc Reeve]

Mary Shafer > wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:41:47 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
> wrote:
>
> >Well, there's canvas and then there's canvas. The first two dictionary
> >entries that pop up for me read as follows:
>
> >2) a) A coarse cloth so woven as to form regular meshes for working
> >with the needle, as in tapestry, or worsted work.
>
> I needlepoint (do canvas work) and it's certainly not what you'd use
> to cover a wing. The holes are bigger than the warp and weft threads.
>
> Canvas, as in the fabric used in sails, is tabby weave, like duck. It
> can be made from cotton, hemp, linen, ramie, or other fibers. The
> weight and the closeness of the weave varies.
>
> >So, at a glance, Irish Linen could, in fact, be considered a type of
> >canvas, or, perhaps a cotton twill. IIRC, the Wrights used a Sateen,
> >which is a cotton with a treated surface.
>
> Nope. Sateen is a weave, just like twill. It's not treated and it's
> not necessarily cotton. Rather, it has floating threads on the
> surface, just like satin. In fact, the difference between sateen and
> satin is whether it's the warp threads or the woof threads that float.
>
> Anyway, sateen can be made from any fiber, although some of them
> aren't as practical as others. So can twill and satin, for that
> matter.
>
I had a vague memory that the 1903 Flyer was covered with cotton muslin.
So I googled around and discovered that while the 1900-1902 gliders were
indeed covered in "French sateen", the 1903 Flyer was covered in "Pride
of the West" brand muslin, a very fine weave commonly used for
petticoats.

Once they went into series production, they used waterproofed cotton
cloth (rubberized) for the wing coverings.

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Marc Reeve) writes:
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>> >So, at a glance, Irish Linen could, in fact, be considered a type of
>> >canvas, or, perhaps a cotton twill. IIRC, the Wrights used a Sateen,
>> >which is a cotton with a treated surface.
>>
>> Nope. Sateen is a weave, just like twill. It's not treated and it's
>> not necessarily cotton. Rather, it has floating threads on the
>> surface, just like satin. In fact, the difference between sateen and
>> satin is whether it's the warp threads or the woof threads that float.
>>
>> Anyway, sateen can be made from any fiber, although some of them
>> aren't as practical as others. So can twill and satin, for that
>> matter.
>>
> I had a vague memory that the 1903 Flyer was covered with cotton muslin.
> So I googled around and discovered that while the 1900-1902 gliders were
> indeed covered in "French sateen", the 1903 Flyer was covered in "Pride
> of the West" brand muslin, a very fine weave commonly used for
> petticoats.
>
> Once they went into series production, they used waterproofed cotton
> cloth (rubberized) for the wing coverings.

I'd like to express my belated thanks to Steve, Mary, adn Marc for teh
information. I'd like to say that it's more than I ever wanted to
know about early aircraft covering materiels, bit I found that there
was more to it than I thought. It was darned interesting, actually.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster