Wright Replica FAILS to Fly

[robert arndt]

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

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

Rob

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
> flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in
the wright bros. story.

true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
the wrights' achievement.

historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming
before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening]
rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to
have invented agriculture and the context is lost.

it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the
initial premise.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
>
> Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
> proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
> No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
> Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
> flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.
>

There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

[Bill Silvey]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
>
> Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
> proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
> No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
> Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
> flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.
>
> Rob

Time for you to go in the killfile, Kraut-eater.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Les Matheson]

The picture with the article clearly shows an aircraft that is not a replica
of the 1903 Kitty Hawk flyer. This replica had seats for two upright, and
appears to be closer to the Wright's military aircraft of 1905?

Les

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
> >
> > Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
> > proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
> > No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
> > Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
> > flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.
> >
>
> There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:4NYcb.18248$a16.4996@lakeread01...
>
> The picture with the article clearly shows an aircraft that is not a
replica
> of the 1903 Kitty Hawk flyer. This replica had seats for two upright,
and
> appears to be closer to the Wright's military aircraft of 1905?
>

I believe the first Wright airplane for the military was built in 1908,
which was also their first two-seat airplane and the first that didn't have
the pilot lying prone. But this airplane isn't even a faithful replica of
that one. This airplane has wheels, the Wrights' were still launching from
a track and landing on skids in 1908. This airfoil also looks much thicker
than anything the Wrights' used. T

[Michael Starke]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
> >
> > Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
> > proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
> > No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
> > Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
> > flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.
> >
>
> There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

Threre were:

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp



>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03

[B2431]

>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
>>
>> Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
>> proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
>> No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
>> Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
>> flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.
>>

Inetersting article. It mentions an Wright replica that fails to fly yet shows
a picture of a "1903" flying according to the caption. The article mentions
other replicas. Failure of one to fly in circumstances other than the Wrights
experienced proves only that that one failed to fly, not that the Wrights
failed to fly.

TLC had a show of a faithful replica being built. They even built their engine
from original drawings using materials that existed in 1903. They found some
cloth of the type the Wrights used, sent it to an expert for evaluation and had
some made.

An interesting aside is the Smithonian's Flyer is apparently made from parts
from more than one airplane. The show made mention of this if I heard them
correctly.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

> wrote:

> it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in
> the wright bros. story.
>
> true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
> everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
> the wrights' achievement.
>
> historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming
> before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening]
> rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to
> have invented agriculture and the context is lost.
>
> it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the
> initial premise.

Here's that shipment of capital letters you've been waiting for - We're
back-ordered on the letters "L" and "Y," so I'll ship the rest of those
later.

AAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH
IIIIIIIIIIIIJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKKKKKKKLLL
MMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPP
QQQQQQQQQQQQRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTT
UUUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVVVWWWWWWWWWWWWXXXXXXXXXXXX
YYYY ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Hope these work.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[robert arndt]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
> >
> > Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
> > proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
> > No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
> > Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
> > flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.
> >
> > Rob
>
> Time for you to go in the killfile, Kraut-eater.

Hey Bill, with all your "hot air" maybe you could just stand behind
the Wright Flyer replica and rant on to generate the necessary lift
for the a/c!
As for the kill file statement- go ahead, I don't care. This is a NG
and it exists to debate such topics as "who flew first" or "who broke
Mach 1 first". So you disagree with me. Fine. If you have to killfile
anyone who disagrees with you then you are childish and immature.
My point above is not to take away from the Wright's flight, only to
dispute their claims that the GW No.1 could not fly based solely on
its design. How ironic that the two GW No.21 replicas did fly while
the Flyer replica fails to get off the ground.
The only true problem with all of this is a single photo of the GW
No.21 in flight. That could have been solved in 1901 if the scientific
reporter for the newpaper article had taken photos- he didn't as he
preferred sketches. That is certainly not Gustav Weisskopf's fault...
but it prevents him from proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the GW
No.21 flew BEFORE the Wrights by 2 yrs.
Too bad we can't time travel back to that date in time and view the
event firsthand; yet, for some diehards on this NG it wouldn't matter.
They just want to forever wave the USA-Number-One flag around and
ignore other nations aeronautical achievements (or to a lesser extent
downgrade them).
But I could care less. Germany is firmly in aeronautical history and
deserves proper credit for their contributions in both war and peace.
Fair enough?

Rob

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in
> the wright bros. story.
>
> true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
> everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
> the wrights' achievement.
>
> historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming
> before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening]
> rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to
> have invented agriculture and the context is lost.
>
> it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the
> initial premise.
>

The fact remains that there is no credible evidence that anyone achieved
powered, sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air flight prior to the Wrights
achievement on December 17, 1903.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Starke" > wrote in message
news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Threre were:
>

There weren't. Sufficient data to create replicas of Whiteheads aircraft
simply does not exist. Craft have been built, with the benefit of some 80
years of aeroengineering knowledge, that resemble Whitehead's aircraft, but
that is all.

[Cub Driver]

>true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
>everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
>the wrights' achievement.

Except for "arbitrarily", you have nailed it very nicely.

Nothing nationalistic in it, as far as I am concerned. In 1903 my
mother and father were living in Ireland.

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 fact remains that there is no credible evidence that anyone achieved
>powered, sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air flight prior to the Wrights
>achievement on December 17, 1903.

Just so. (You did neglect to mention "landed at more or less the same
altitude.")

The Wright Flyer *flew*. Anyone who investigates the event at
Kittyhawk will agree with that. Only after understanding that the
plane flew are we required to define what we mean by flight--in other
words, the definition follows the event, as in the case of most human
endeavors. To some that may seem arbitrary; to me it's just the way
the human mind works.

Apparently there is some argument that Scott Crossfield? and not Chuck
Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier, though this is
not a debate that interests me very much. But I have read most of the
standard histories of flight, and despite all the interesting
attempts, I just can't see one before the Wright Flyer that I would
define as flight.

Too bad for Mr. Cawley's coachman! Too bad for Augustus Whitehead! I'm
not even sure I spell their names correctly, because they failed to
achieve flight.

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Michael Starke" > wrote in message
news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
> > >
> > > Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
> > > proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
> > > No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
> > > Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
> > > flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.
> > >
> >
> > There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.
>
> Threre were:
>
> http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp
>

No sir , no detailed plans of that aircraft exist, the airframe itself was
destroyed
without these at best you have a modern aeronautical engineers
interpretation
of what such an aircraft MIGHT have been.

Keith

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Starke" > wrote in message
> news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
> > > >
> > > > Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
> > > > proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
> > > > No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
> > > > Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
> > > > flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.
> >
> > Threre were:
> >
> > http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp
> >
>
> No sir , no detailed plans of that aircraft exist, the airframe itself was
> destroyed
> without these at best you have a modern aeronautical engineers
> interpretation
> of what such an aircraft MIGHT have been.
>
> Keith

Far from it Keith, they painstakingly recreated the No.21 using the
Pentegon's photographic analysis methods and even succeeded in
procuring the bamboo ribs from the original company that sold them to
Weisskopf and the Japanese silk used for the wings. The only problem
is with the motor, which of course was what Weisskopf was most
interested in and most unique part of the GW No.21. Most people
mistakenly think the guy wanted to be an aviation pioneer. That simply
is not the truth. He built that plane and others to test his motors,
which would have been his personal business if he had succeeded in
that area of development. Aviation, he said, would be left to others.
I have no doubt his motor worked on the original No.21, but even with
modern 10 hp engines the basic layout of the a/c proved sound enough
to fly. The Wrights said that was impossible- and they were WRONG
twice. Two DIFFERENT replicas were built and flown during different
decades with different pilots and they both flew. To me, the GW No.21
is as sound a design as the original Taube (which ironically resembles
the GW No.21).

Rob

[TBBlakeley]

I see that Rob the NAZI is back spreading his unbelievable lies again...first
it was that the Nazi's design a bigger aircraft thatr the Hughes Flying
Boat...but gee, they never built it...now it;s the Wright flyer and the first
supersonic flight.....Hey Nazi Rob, will your buddies be the first on the moon
next?..maybe built the world's fastest aircraft...well, maybe, at least, they
designed it????

Hey, they won WWII also...well, at least they, you, planned it...so that too
make you Nazis right, again...well, at least in you and your nazi friend's
eyes. Any chance you are one of those boys from Brazil?????

Keep on dreamin' Rob....it's really entertaining how warped your mind is...but
even better that you actually put your dillusions in print.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Far from it Keith, they painstakingly recreated the No.21 using the
> Pentegon's photographic analysis methods and even succeeded in
> procuring the bamboo ribs from the original company that sold them to
> Weisskopf and the Japanese silk used for the wings. The only problem
> is with the motor, which of course was what Weisskopf was most
> interested in and most unique part of the GW No.21. Most people
> mistakenly think the guy wanted to be an aviation pioneer. That simply
> is not the truth. He built that plane and others to test his motors,
> which would have been his personal business if he had succeeded in
> that area of development. Aviation, he said, would be left to others.
> I have no doubt his motor worked on the original No.21, but even with
> modern 10 hp engines the basic layout of the a/c proved sound enough
> to fly. The Wrights said that was impossible- and they were WRONG
> twice. Two DIFFERENT replicas were built and flown during different
> decades with different pilots and they both flew. To me, the GW No.21
> is as sound a design as the original Taube (which ironically resembles
> the GW No.21).
>

No. Didn't happen. No true replica of Whiteheads aircraft has ever been
built or flown. Aircraft that resemble Whiteheads but with far more
powerful engines, efficient propellers, and control systems completely
different from Whiteheads have been flown.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Wright Flyer *flew*. Anyone who investigates the event at
> Kittyhawk will agree with that. Only after understanding that the
> plane flew are we required to define what we mean by flight--in other
> words, the definition follows the event, as in the case of most human
> endeavors. To some that may seem arbitrary; to me it's just the way
> the human mind works.
>

If that were true, wouldn't Clement Ader be credited with the first flight?
He is credited with being first to leave the ground in a powered,
heavier-than-air machine. He wasn't credited with the first flight because
he did not control his machine. It was known at the time, before the
Wrights flew, that true flight required control.


>
> Apparently there is some argument that Scott Crossfield? and not Chuck
> Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier, though this is
> not a debate that interests me very much.
>

I believe you mean George Welch, not Scott Crossfield. There are several
claims to supersonic flight before Yeager, the only one with some merit is
George Welch in the XP-86.


>
> Too bad for Mr. Cawley's coachman! Too bad for Augustus Whitehead! I'm
> not even sure I spell their names correctly, because they failed to
> achieve flight.
>

That would be George Cayley's coachman, and Gustave Whitehead.

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Starke" > wrote in message
> > news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40516-2003Sep20.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily
enough,
> > > > > proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
> > > > > No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
> > > > > Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and
controlled
> > > > > flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the
Wrights.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.
> > >
> > > Threre were:
> > >
> > > http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp
> > >
> >
> > No sir , no detailed plans of that aircraft exist, the airframe itself
was
> > destroyed
> > without these at best you have a modern aeronautical engineers
> > interpretation
> > of what such an aircraft MIGHT have been.
> >
> > Keith
>
> Far from it Keith, they painstakingly recreated the No.21 using the
> Pentegon's photographic analysis methods and even succeeded in
> procuring the bamboo ribs from the original company that sold them to
> Weisskopf and the Japanese silk used for the wings. The only problem
> is with the motor, which of course was what Weisskopf was most
> interested in and most unique part of the GW No.21.


No sir what they did was rebuild something that LOOKED like
No. 21. The photos wouldnt show the details of how control
wires and surfaces were rigged for example nor how the fabric and
bamboo were attached to each other.

> Most people
> mistakenly think the guy wanted to be an aviation pioneer. That simply
> is not the truth. He built that plane and others to test his motors,

That can be done adequately on a test bed, an airframe is
not a requirement.

> which would have been his personal business if he had succeeded in
> that area of development. Aviation, he said, would be left to others.
> I have no doubt his motor worked on the original No.21, but even with
> modern 10 hp engines the basic layout of the a/c proved sound enough
> to fly. The Wrights said that was impossible- and they were WRONG
> twice. Two DIFFERENT replicas were built and flown during different
> decades with different pilots and they both flew. To me, the GW No.21
> is as sound a design as the original Taube (which ironically resembles
> the GW No.21).
>
> Rob

The fact that the design was not adopted by other aviators argues
otherwise.

Keith

[robert arndt]

(TBBlakeley) wrote in message >...
> I see that Rob the NAZI is back spreading his unbelievable lies again...first
> it was that the Nazi's design a bigger aircraft thatr the Hughes Flying
> Boat...but gee, they never built it...

No, I said that the HK-1 was no big deal since the Nazis had equally
large designs and engines at the end of WW2. That is a fact. Check out
the ultra-large seaplane section of "Luftwaffe Secret Projects,
Strategic Bombers 1935-1945".

now it;s the Wright flyer and the first
> supersonic flight.....

which are topics debated by many more people than myself and certain
publications like Flight Journal and such. So? This a NG. Calling me a
Nazi becuause I favor a different historical view than you is
juvenile.

Hey Nazi Rob, will your buddies be the first on the moon
> next?..

No need to go there since American astronauts were trained by Nazi
engineers living in the US postwar and got to the moon via the Saturn
V- Von Braun's ship and dream come true.

maybe built the world's fastest aircraft...well, maybe, at least,
they
> designed it????

Quite possibly as the entire German disc aircraft program is still
highly classified since it is directly linked to all US/UK/Canadian
postwar developments in that area, the flying descendents of which we
regard as the very blackest projects.
>
> Hey, they won WWII also...well, at least they, you, planned it...so that too
> make you Nazis right, again...well, at least in you and your nazi friend's
> eyes. Any chance you are one of those boys from Brazil?????

No, they lost WW2 but saved the Allies a decade or more in postwar
aviation/space development... the wind tunnel data alone invaluable
not to mention all the thousands of German scientists, engineers, and
specialists that were employed by the govts of US, USSR, France, UK,
and Canada.
>
> Keep on dreamin' Rob....it's really entertaining how warped your mind is...but
> even better that you actually put your dillusions in print.

No brain warping here, just the historical reality of Germany's
contribution to aviation. And hey, Gustav Weisskopf flew in 1901...
long before the Nazis appeared, so save the "Nazi vilification" theme
of your posts.

Rob

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:08:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>If that were true, wouldn't Clement Ader be credited with the first flight?
>He is credited with being first to leave the ground in a powered,
>heavier-than-air machine. He wasn't credited with the first flight because
>he did not control his machine. It was known at the time, before the
>Wrights flew, that true flight required control.

Not at all. If I saw a plane "flying" out of control, I would not
define it as flight.

That's assuming that Mr. Ader, whose name unfortunately has never come
to my attention, is indeed credited with this feat. What sort of a
landing did his uncontrolled aircraft make?

Many years ago I saw a film that consisted entirely of unsuccessful
flights--folks jumping off barn roofs with flapping wings, taking off
in crates that collapsed, etc. About half of them left the ground in a
powered heavier-than-air machine, but none of them flew. Perhaps Mr.
Ader was among them?


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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:08:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >If that were true, wouldn't Clement Ader be credited with the first
flight?
> >He is credited with being first to leave the ground in a powered,
> >heavier-than-air machine. He wasn't credited with the first flight
because
> >he did not control his machine. It was known at the time, before the
> >Wrights flew, that true flight required control.
>
> Not at all. If I saw a plane "flying" out of control, I would not
> define it as flight.
>
> That's assuming that Mr. Ader, whose name unfortunately has never come
> to my attention, is indeed credited with this feat. What sort of a
> landing did his uncontrolled aircraft make?
>

Hard , it was wrecked.

To quote Ader himself

'The "Avion" obeyed, recovered a little, and remained for some seconds
headed towards its intended course, but it could not struggle against the
wind; instead of going back, on the contrary it drifted farther and farther
away. And ill-luck had it that the drift took the direction towards part of
the School of Musketry, which was guarded by posts and barriers. Frightened
at the prospect of breaking ourselves against these obstacles, surprised at
seeing the earth getting farther away from under the "Avion," and very much
impressed by seeing it rushing sideways at a sickening speed, instinctively
we stopped everything. What passed through our thoughts at this moment which
threatened a tragic turn would be difficult to set down. All at once came a
great shock, splintering, a heavy concussion: we had landed.'

> Many years ago I saw a film that consisted entirely of unsuccessful
> flights--folks jumping off barn roofs with flapping wings, taking off
> in crates that collapsed, etc. About half of them left the ground in a
> powered heavier-than-air machine, but none of them flew. Perhaps Mr.
> Ader was among them?
>

The French military, who witnessed the flight, were not impressed
and stated that while the aircraft made several short hops it
did not achieve controlled flight and they withdrew funding.

Mr Ader's machine seems to have been capable of developing
enough lift to fly but lacked efficient controls.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Wright Replica FAILS to Fly
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 9/29/03 4:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>Mr Ader's machine seems to have been capable of developing
>enough lift to fly but lacked efficient controls.
>
>Keith

Sounds like a B-26. (grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not at all. If I saw a plane "flying" out of control, I would not
> define it as flight.
>
> That's assuming that Mr. Ader, whose name unfortunately has never come
> to my attention, is indeed credited with this feat. What sort of a
> landing did his uncontrolled aircraft make?
>

In 1890 Clement Ader's "Eole" rose from level ground under it's own power
and traveled some 50 yards or so at an altitude of about one foot before
settling back down. Since Ader had not equipped the craft with any kind of
flight control system, this was obviously not controlled flight, but it was
the first time a manned heavier-than-air machine took off from level ground
under its own power.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hard , it was wrecked.
>
> To quote Ader himself
>
> 'The "Avion" obeyed, recovered a little, and remained for some seconds
> headed towards its intended course, but it could not struggle against the
> wind; instead of going back, on the contrary it drifted farther and
farther
> away. And ill-luck had it that the drift took the direction towards part
of
> the School of Musketry, which was guarded by posts and barriers.
Frightened
> at the prospect of breaking ourselves against these obstacles, surprised
at
> seeing the earth getting farther away from under the "Avion," and very
much
> impressed by seeing it rushing sideways at a sickening speed,
instinctively
> we stopped everything. What passed through our thoughts at this moment
which
> threatened a tragic turn would be difficult to set down. All at once came
a
> great shock, splintering, a heavy concussion: we had landed.'
>
> > Many years ago I saw a film that consisted entirely of unsuccessful
> > flights--folks jumping off barn roofs with flapping wings, taking off
> > in crates that collapsed, etc. About half of them left the ground in a
> > powered heavier-than-air machine, but none of them flew. Perhaps Mr.
> > Ader was among them?
> >
>
> The French military, who witnessed the flight, were not impressed
> and stated that while the aircraft made several short hops it
> did not achieve controlled flight and they withdrew funding.
>
> Mr Ader's machine seems to have been capable of developing
> enough lift to fly but lacked efficient controls.
>

I was referring to Ader's earlier "Eole" of 1890, not the "Avion".

[Bill Silvey]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Not at all. If I saw a plane "flying" out of control, I would not
>> define it as flight.
>>
>> That's assuming that Mr. Ader, whose name unfortunately has never
>> come to my attention, is indeed credited with this feat. What sort
>> of a landing did his uncontrolled aircraft make?
>>
>
> In 1890 Clement Ader's "Eole" rose from level ground under it's own
> power and traveled some 50 yards or so at an altitude of about one
> foot before settling back down. Since Ader had not equipped the
> craft with any kind of flight control system, this was obviously not
> controlled flight, but it was the first time a manned
> heavier-than-air machine took off from level ground under its own
> power.

The Montgoflier(sp) brothers would be devastated to hear this.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Montgoflier(sp) brothers would be devastated to hear this.
>

It's Montgolfier. Why would they be devastated?

[Bill Silvey]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The Montgoflier(sp) brothers would be devastated to hear this.
>>
>
> It's Montgolfier. Why would they be devastated?

Because I misread your post...sorry about that...!

Move along! Nothing to see here. :-)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>

> >
> > Mr Ader's machine seems to have been capable of developing
> > enough lift to fly but lacked efficient controls.
> >
>
> I was referring to Ader's earlier "Eole" of 1890, not the "Avion".
>
>

That aircraft made a single flight of around 50m and seems to
have been incapable of sustaining powered flight.

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> That aircraft made a single flight of around 50m and seems to
> have been incapable of sustaining powered flight.
>

Yes, but it was the first time a manned heavier-than-air machine took off
from level ground
under its own power.

[Steve Hix]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Not at all. If I saw a plane "flying" out of control, I would not
> > define it as flight.
> >
> > That's assuming that Mr. Ader, whose name unfortunately has never come
> > to my attention, is indeed credited with this feat. What sort of a
> > landing did his uncontrolled aircraft make?
> >
>
> In 1890 Clement Ader's "Eole" rose from level ground under it's own power
> and traveled some 50 yards or so at an altitude of about one foot before
> settling back down. Since Ader had not equipped the craft with any kind of
> flight control system, this was obviously not controlled flight, but it was
> the first time a manned heavier-than-air machine took off from level ground
> under its own power.

It fell a bit short on the "controlled" part, though.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
>
> It fell a bit short on the "controlled" part, though.
>

Yes, I probably should have mentioned that Ader had not equipped his craft
with any kind of
flight control system, so this was obviously not controlled flight.

[Steve Hix]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It fell a bit short on the "controlled" part, though.
> >
>
> Yes, I probably should have mentioned that Ader had not equipped his craft
> with any kind of
> flight control system, so this was obviously not controlled flight.

I can see rafting down a fairly-sedate river in an inflated inner tube,
but flying in something equivalent is another thing altogether... :}

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can see rafting down a fairly-sedate river in an inflated inner tube,
> but flying in something equivalent is another thing altogether... :}
>

You might consider following the thread a bit closer.

[Steve Hix]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I can see rafting down a fairly-sedate river in an inflated inner tube,
> > but flying in something equivalent is another thing altogether... :}
>
> You might consider following the thread a bit closer.

Sigh...

According to *you*:

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Yes, I probably should have mentioned that Ader had not equipped his craft
> with any kind of flight control system, so this was obviously not controlled
> flight.

Ergo the simile: Ader's gadget compared to an inflated inner tube,
drifting downstream.

Need any further clarification?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sigh...
>
> According to *you*:
>
> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > Yes, I probably should have mentioned that Ader had not equipped his
craft
> > with any kind of flight control system, so this was obviously not
controlled
> > flight.
>
> Ergo the simile: Ader's gadget compared to an inflated inner tube,
> drifting downstream.
>
> Need any further clarification?
>

Sigh... Not I, but I think someone does.


McNicoll:
"In 1890 Clement Ader's "Eole" rose from level ground under it's own power
and traveled some 50 yards or so at an altitude of about one foot before
settling back down. Since Ader had not equipped the craft with any kind of
flight control system, this was obviously not controlled flight, but it was
the first time a manned heavier-than-air machine took off from level ground
under its own power."


Hix:
"It fell a bit short on the 'controlled' part, though."


McNicoll:
"Yes, I probably should have mentioned that Ader had not equipped his craft
with any kind of flight control system, so this was obviously not controlled
flight."


Had you followed the thread a bit closer, you might have observed that I DID
say that Ader had not equipped his craft with any kind of flight control
system, so this was obviously not controlled flight.