Will Wright Replica Fly- Who Knows???

[robert arndt]

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031213/APN/312130537

Rob

p.s. At least the GW No.21 replicas built by two different historical
societies, in two different nations, at two different times, with two
different pilots (one of which was a Luftwaffe pilot) flew easily.
That flies (no pun intended) directly in the face of the Wright's
historic claim that the GW No.21 was IMPOSSIBLE to fly just by it's
configuration alone. Two have flown successfully and it is not
important that the exact engines be reproduced to induce flight. Two
10hp engines were sufficient enough and both machines took off under
their own power, not LAUNCHED into the air.
The Wright replica, OTOH, has been painstakingly replicated with more
historical information available and NASA research. It has crashed
already and no one knows if it will fly on the anniversary date.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
>
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031213/APN/312130537
>
> p.s. At least the GW No.21 replicas built by two different historical
> societies, in two different nations, at two different times, with two
> different pilots (one of which was a Luftwaffe pilot) flew easily.
>

No faithful replica of a Whitehead craft has ever been built or flown by
anyone anywhere.


>
> That flies (no pun intended) directly in the face of the Wright's
> historic claim that the GW No.21 was IMPOSSIBLE to fly just by it's
> configuration alone. Two have flown successfully and it is not
> important that the exact engines be reproduced to induce flight.
>

To prove that Whitehead's craft may have flown successfully ABSOLUTELY
requires that the craft be reproduced exactly as the original, including the
engines.


>
> Two
> 10hp engines were sufficient enough and both machines took off under
> their own power, not LAUNCHED into the air.
> The Wright replica, OTOH, has been painstakingly replicated with more
> historical information available and NASA research. It has crashed
> already and no one knows if it will fly on the anniversary date.
>

You're implying that the Wright Flyer was launched into the air by some
external force. That is not true. The Wright Flyer took off from level
ground solely under it's own power. The Wrights began using their catapult
device in their later experiments at Huffman Prairie, they did not use it at
Kill Devil Hills.

[The Enlightenment]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
>
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031213/APN/312130537
> >
> > p.s. At least the GW No.21 replicas built by two different
historical
> > societies, in two different nations, at two different times, with
two
> > different pilots (one of which was a Luftwaffe pilot) flew easily.
> >
>
> No faithful replica of a Whitehead craft has ever been built or
flown by
> anyone anywhere.
>

As I understand it this is only in the matter of the engines.
Whitehead/Weisskopf used steam engines. These apart from the expense
of replicating them also pose a safety hazard. On the occasion of the
first flight that very plausibly took place the vehicle crashed in
avoiding a 3 story building and the steam severely scaled the stoker.
Whiteheads aircraft also carried 2 people.

His engines are interesting. He developed an 18hp aluminum steam
engine. It would be interesting to compare this to the Wrights cast
Iron petrol engine which because of its primitive state may very well
have had a lower power to weight ratio.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"The Enlightenment" > writes:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >
>>
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031213/APN/312130537
>> >
>> > p.s. At least the GW No.21 replicas built by two different
> historical
>> > societies, in two different nations, at two different times, with
> two
>> > different pilots (one of which was a Luftwaffe pilot) flew easily.
>> >
>>
>> No faithful replica of a Whitehead craft has ever been built or
> flown by
>> anyone anywhere.
>>
>
> As I understand it this is only in the matter of the engines.
> Whitehead/Weisskopf used steam engines. These apart from the expense
> of replicating them also pose a safety hazard. On the occasion of the
> first flight that very plausibly took place the vehicle crashed in
> avoiding a 3 story building and the steam severely scaled the stoker.
> Whiteheads aircraft also carried 2 people.

You're a bit off. While engine were a part of it, the real question
was stability and control. Well, (to paraphrase the Spanish Inquisition)
Stability, Control, and Experience. By Dec. 17th, 1903, the Wrights
had completed an intensive 4 year effort of kite tests, Wind Tunnel
experiments, and actual flight experience, all approached in a
methodical and scientific manner. By the time for their first powered
flight, they had more flight time than anybody else, and more accurate
knowledge of aerodynamics than everybody, all meticulously noted in
their journals. They also saved all of their development and test
test rigs, as well. It would be perfectly feasible to go to the Ford
Museum, where their shop and equipment are on display, and re-run
their experiments.

Whitehead's machine had no provisions for control, and somehow, we're
supposed to believe that he just hopped into his iarplane one day,
made a successful flight, and then hung it up to move on. (The same
goes for those making similar claims about some bloke in New Zealand.)

The "replica" isn't even that - it's a vaguely Whitehead
Machine-shpaced aircraft, with modifications made to make it somewhat
flyable. The rationalizations of the replica team, when this is
pointed out to them, are hilarious. "Well, we did make changes, yes,
but they are the changes that Whitehead would have made."Sure, if he'd
[known what he was doing/actually tried flying the thing/had bothered
to come up with better documentation that Friend of a Friend tales.]
Laughable.

> His engines are interesting. He developed an 18hp aluminum steam
> engine. It would be interesting to compare this to the Wrights cast
> Iron petrol engine which because of its primitive state may very well
> have had a lower power to weight ratio.

Well, it's very easy to make a light, powerful steam engine.
Somewhere around here, I've a picture of Sir Hiram Maxim holding up
one of the 100 HP triple-expansion engines for his captive test rig.
He was in his 70s at the time, so it certainly wasn't that heavy.
Light Steam engines are easy. Light boilers, water reservoirs, water
and fuel feeds, fireboxes, and reguating systems are not.

The Wright's engine, BTW, was cast Alumin(i)um, not Iron. The reason
that they built it themselves was that there weren't any light
stationary engines in the power range that they required. (16-10 HP).
But then, the Wrights knew that the key was efficiency, not raw power.
With their scientifically designed high efficiency propellers, they
were getting much more thrust out of 16 HP than anybody else was
getting from 30. That's another area where Whitehead's clains fall
over. The propeller design is horrendous. Nobody's claiming that the
Wright's engine was any particular mechanical marvel. The
Langley-Manley water cooled radial was an amazing engine. It produced
55 HP for a wight of around 200#, and was probably the best possible
engine in late 1903. Of course, that didn't ensure success for
Langley and Manley. (Manley was Langley's Mechanical Engineer, and a
brilliant one, at that. He was not only the powerplant designer, but
the test pilot, as well. Unfortunately, the Langley Aerodrome was
built without the thorough proving of basic priciples that the Wrights
used as their foundation, especially wrt stability and control, and
the total flight time of the Test Pilot, despite his extensive
theoretical knowledge, was the roughly 2 seconds/flight attempt that
it took for the Aerodrome to plummet into the Potomac from the roof of
Langley's houseboat. Note that despite his failure to fly, Langley
_was_ a cridible scientist with good credentials and a proven track
record, and Manley was a brilliant engineer and constructor.

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

[The Enlightenment]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "The Enlightenment" > writes:
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
> > k.net...
> >>
> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> >
> >>
> >
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031213/APN/312130537
> >> >
> >> > p.s. At least the GW No.21 replicas built by two different
> > historical
> >> > societies, in two different nations, at two different times,
with
> > two
> >> > different pilots (one of which was a Luftwaffe pilot) flew
easily.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No faithful replica of a Whitehead craft has ever been built or
> > flown by
> >> anyone anywhere.
> >>
> >
> > As I understand it this is only in the matter of the engines.
> > Whitehead/Weisskopf used steam engines. These apart from the
expense
> > of replicating them also pose a safety hazard. On the occasion of
the
> > first flight that very plausibly took place the vehicle crashed in
> > avoiding a 3 story building and the steam severely scaled the
stoker.
> > Whiteheads aircraft also carried 2 people.
>
> You're a bit off. While engine were a part of it, the real question
> was stability and control. Well, (to paraphrase the Spanish
Inquisition)
> Stability, Control, and Experience. By Dec. 17th, 1903, the Wrights
> had completed an intensive 4 year effort of kite tests, Wind Tunnel
> experiments, and actual flight experience, all approached in a
> methodical and scientific manner. By the time for their first
powered
> flight, they had more flight time than anybody else, and more
accurate
> knowledge of aerodynamics than everybody, all meticulously noted in
> their journals. They also saved all of their development and test
> test rigs, as well. It would be perfectly feasible to go to the
Ford
> Museum, where their shop and equipment are on display, and re-run
> their experiments.

All of the inventors involved in developing were hard working and
methodical, the Caley, theWrights and Lilienthal probably the most but
certainly Clement Ader, Pearson and Weiskopf as well

I don't destract from thr Wrights work but Whithead clearly was
persistant and somewhat maverick. He had the disadvantage of being
alone, struggling against financial difficulties and of being a
foreigner (of what seems a despised nationality in the US) and a new
child to take care of.

>
> Whitehead's machine had no provisions for control,

No, he had a warping tail to control pitch in the horizontal and
'taverse' plane.

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/whitehead.html
From From Scientific American June 8, 1901 Page 357
"The 10-foot rudder, which corresponds to the tail of a bird, can also
be folded up and can be moved up and down, so as to steer the machine
on its horizontal course. A mast and bowsprit serve to hold all the
parts in their proper relation."

The aircraft had twin variable pitch screws that could be varied to
provide stearing: left and right.

"The wings are immovable and resemble the outstretched wings of a
soaring bird. The steering will be done by running one propeller
faster than the other in a way analogous to the way in which an ocean
steamer having twin screws can be turned, a special aeroplane being
provided to maintain longitudinal and transverse stability. "

Some articles talk of more elaborate warping capabilities but I
haven't researched them enough yet.




> and somehow, we're
> supposed to believe that he just hopped into his iarplane one day,
> made a successful flight, and then hung it up to move on. (The same
> goes for those making similar claims about some bloke in New
Zealand.)

He made a succesfull flight that ended in a crash that scalded his
assisatant in steam such that he was hospitalised.

"Weisskopf comes out unharmed while his stoker has to spend some time
in hospital because scalded by the steam came out during the crash.
The steam motor of Weisskopf is then put into production and sold for
several successful applications. In 1900 he finds a job like mechanic
in the industrial small town of Bridgeport, in Connecticut, while the
police still looks for him in Pittsburg because of his... dangerous
experiments."

http://airsports.fai.org/jun98/jun9805.html

He seems to have had financial troubles and personal troubles which
may explain his lack of success in obtaining recognition. The Wright
generally did not obtain recognition.


>
> The "replica" isn't even that - it's a vaguely Whitehead
> Machine-shpaced aircraft, with modifications made to make it
somewhat
> flyable. The rationalizations of the replica team, when this is
> pointed out to them, are hilarious. "Well, we did make changes, yes,
> but they are the changes that Whitehead would have made."Sure, if
he'd
> [known what he was doing/actually tried flying the thing/had
bothered
> to come up with better documentation that Friend of a Friend tales.]
> Laughable.


There were several replicas. Which one are you talking about? What
changes are you talking about. Who are you paraphrasing?
It's clear you are doing a hatchet job: something that the topic
doesn;t deserve.

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff2.asp
"German test pilot Horst Philipp commented that it was ". a good
landing because I could walk away from the crash." Compare it to the
1901 sketch on the next page drawn by eyewitness Dick Howell, sports
editor for the Bridgeport Sunday Herald; it is nearly identical except
for the landing gear and engines."

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff3.asp
Later in that seven-page statement, Beach writes, "I saw no 10 H.P.
engine for ground propulsion." Then, in the same breath, it reads:
"The Whitehead aeroplane had many interesting features. It was
inherently stable and could be flown safely, always 'pancaking' and
landing on a level keel."
Note the contradictions: how can you not fly, yet have an "inherently
stable" design that could be "flown safely" and land "on a level
keel"? Beach claims he was the closest person to that subject, yet he
contradicts himself repeatedly.
By 1939, the aviation world had forgotten about Whitehead, and it was
politically correct to join the ranks of those hailing the history of
the Wrights. Beach's denial of any knowledge Whitehead ever flew came
12 years after Whitehead's death, so he wasn't able to defend himself.
But Beach's unsigned, contradictory statement was enough to convince
Orville Wright. Orville quoted Beach, as have all other Whitehead
detractors since.


If the photo Beach mentions as showing Whitehead in flight were to
surface, much of aviation history would be substantially rewritten. In
1981, we found a photo at NASM containing the location where Whitehead
exhibited his photos. In the background of that photo was a picture of
Whitehead's machine in flight. Unfortunately, the non-clarity of the
photo rendered it useless.

The Wrights did not produce their December 17, 1903, photos until
1908; that irked publishers and fellow inventors both here and abroad.
They held back their famous 1903 photos in an understandable effort to
first obtain a patent for their design.

To this date, no exact replica of their 1903 Flyer has ever rotated in
still air or light headwinds


>
> > His engines are interesting. He developed an 18hp aluminum steam
> > engine. It would be interesting to compare this to the Wrights
cast
> > Iron petrol engine which because of its primitive state may very
well
> > have had a lower power to weight ratio.
>
> Well, it's very easy to make a light, powerful steam engine.
> Somewhere around here, I've a picture of Sir Hiram Maxim holding up
> one of the 100 HP triple-expansion engines for his captive test rig.
> He was in his 70s at the time, so it certainly wasn't that heavy.
> Light Steam engines are easy. Light boilers, water reservoirs,
water
> and fuel feeds, fireboxes, and reguating systems are not.

He seems to have used an acetylene hydrogen peroxide reaction for his
nos 22

He apparentlly sold engines to other aviators, including Glenn
Curtiss.


>
> The Wright's engine, BTW, was cast Alumin(i)um, not Iron. The
reason
> that they built it themselves was that there weren't any light
> stationary engines in the power range that they required. (16-10
HP).
> But then, the Wrights knew that the key was efficiency, not raw
power.
> With their scientifically designed high efficiency propellers, they
> were getting much more thrust out of 16 HP than anybody else was
> getting from 30. That's another area where Whitehead's clains fall
> over. The propeller design is horrendous.

Quantify "horrendous"

The Wrights efficiency was about 70% as I recall. If Weiskopg
achieved 40% he would still have substantial thrust.

Either way the data should be available.
http://www.wrightexperience.com/progress/props.htm are planing on
comparing Wrights with Whitehead Choanda types


Nobody's claiming that the
> Wright's engine was any particular mechanical marvel. The
> Langley-Manley water cooled radial was an amazing engine. It
produced
> 55 HP for a wight of around 200#, and was probably the best possible
> engine in late 1903. Of course, that didn't ensure success for
> Langley and Manley. (Manley was Langley's Mechanical Engineer, and a
> brilliant one, at that. He was not only the powerplant designer,
but
> the test pilot, as well. Unfortunately, the Langley Aerodrome was
> built without the thorough proving of basic priciples that the
Wrights
> used as their foundation, especially wrt stability and control, and
> the total flight time of the Test Pilot, despite his extensive
> theoretical knowledge, was the roughly 2 seconds/flight attempt that
> it took for the Aerodrome to plummet into the Potomac from the roof
of
> Langley's houseboat. Note that despite his failure to fly, Langley
> _was_ a cridible scientist with good credentials and a proven track
> record, and Manley was a brilliant engineer and constructor.

He also failed with more resources; verifiably more dismally wheras
Whitehead with his unusual driven wheels apparently hoped along the
road many times, presumably when he pulled up the nose.

The Wright may even come out looking a little odd.



"The definition of "flight" is being applied to history in a
subjective manner, and that must cease, if for no other reason than
that it confuses the issue. A machine that rises off level ground
under its own power with no catapulting devices and stays there is
"flying." Examining the records with that definition, it becomes
obvious Whitehead "flew" prior to December 17, 1903. But it appears
others may have as well.
Did Whitehead fly first? No one knows for sure. A.M. Herring may have
been first. Or maybe Maxim. That isn't important. What is important is
that sufficient evidence exists for even the biggest skeptic to
re-examine his ironclad position on the Wright brothers.
In the end, the Wrights can lay clear claim to having developed the
first "practical" airplane. But the first "powered flight?" That is
debatable"

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff7.asp

We cannot definitely say that Whitehead flew in 1901. We can, however,
definitely state that an accurate reproduction of his airframe flew
(with modern engines) in 1997. That, in itself, says something
important.

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

[Stephen Harding]

The Enlightenment wrote:

> His engines are interesting. He developed an 18hp aluminum steam
> engine. It would be interesting to compare this to the Wrights cast
> Iron petrol engine which because of its primitive state may very well
> have had a lower power to weight ratio.

I believe the Wright's engine was also aluminum, not cast iron.


SMH