Wright Replica Fails to Fly

[robert arndt]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1071660144004_47/?hub=CTVNewsAt11

.... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention
to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO,
the Wrights lucked out last century with a rail, right wind, and
warping experience. The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy
replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own
design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. The GW
No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile-
in 1901. The replicas of the GW No.21 flew easily and there is little
doubt that a third aircraft with an exact replica of the
engine/powered gear mechanism would fly as well...

Rob

p.s. So much for the Wright's absurd claim that the GW No.21 could NOT
fly due to its configuration alone. They were proven wrong TWICE with
the replicas that flew in the '80s and '90s. Historically, the early
Taube which strongly resembles the GW No.21 also flew easily.

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1071660144004_47/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
>
> ... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention
> to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO,
> the Wrights lucked out last century with a rail, right wind, and
> warping experience. The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy
> replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own
> design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. The GW
> No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile-
> in 1901. The replicas of the GW No.21 flew easily and there is little
> doubt that a third aircraft with an exact replica of the
> engine/powered gear mechanism would fly as well...
>
> Rob

God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off
yesterday compared to what they were in 1903. Are you actually claiming the
1903 flight was some sort of conspiracy theory? Or that the GW flew a
controlled, poered flight before the Wright demonstration? You are in need
of a few whacks with the loon mallet.

Brooks

>
> p.s. So much for the Wright's absurd claim that the GW No.21 could NOT
> fly due to its configuration alone. They were proven wrong TWICE with
> the replicas that flew in the '80s and '90s. Historically, the early
> Taube which strongly resembles the GW No.21 also flew easily.

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1071660144004_47/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
>
> ... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention
> to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO,

No they didnt

The first crashed injuring the pilot and the team then spent several years
re-engineering the 'replica' and they rationalised the differences between
the machine they built and the one in contemporary photos by arguing
that the photos must represent an early variant of the machine before
Whitehead made the changes necessary to make it fly !

Talk about circular logic

The flight testing of the second replica lasted may weeks during
which the following problems occurred

<Quote>

The wings collapsed during initial tow cart testing. The cause
of the difficulties proved to be structural deficiencies in both
the original design and the reproduction.

Whitehead's original design had obviously included too few
ropes for the tensioning of the flexible bamboo structure.
In addition to this fact, the ropes used on the reproduction machine
were constructed partially of elastic material. As a result, the bamboo
spars were distorted by dynamic air pressure, and wing form and tension
lost.

The first practical measurement of lift showed that a speed of 78 kmh
would be required to get the projected take-off mass airborne, which
meant a power requirement far greater than the Whitehead propeller
engine was capable of providing.

The first subject for trouble-shooting was the construction of the
reproduction airframe and engine, which was obviously too heavy,
even based on the technical standards of the turn of the century.

The airframe was therefore modified to such an extent that weight
was reduced by almost 20 kg, or 11%.

A similar percentage weight saving on the engine would have
reduced the take-off mass to 3580 kg, with a corresponding
reduction in take-off speed required, to 75 kmh. This was still
far too high, however, as it meant a power requirement of 20 hp,
with no reserve for propeller efficiency.

All possibilities of weight saving having been exhausted, a
reduction in flying speed was now only possible via
improvement of wing aerodynamic performance.

The camber of the wing profile installed by the Gustav Weißkopf
Historical Research Society was calibrated.

The results revealed the risks inherent in reproductions due to
deficiencies in construction or historical compatibility, for
the wings were found to be completely without camber.
</Quote>

This is just a sample , they made literally dozens of changes to
'the replica' during the course of testing in order to make the
thing fly, not least of which was the use of a modern engine and propellors

The team themselves were honest about this stating

<Quote>
1. The concept of the Gustave Whitehead Flying Machine No 21
had no inherent weakness which would have ruled out its flying capability.

Attention must, however, be drawn to the following points:

a. Several modifications were required, as is the case with all prototypes
in early stages of development. The modifications performed were
of a structural nature, which did not alter the basic design. There is,
however, no doubt that the necessity for and nature of these
modifications would have been identified and performed by Whitehead.

b. The "recreated" flight control as used in reproduction No 21 B has not
been
verified in the historical documentation included in the referenced
literature. I
t cannot be identified in the glass-plate photographs due their lack of
resolution.
However, the flight as described by Richard Howell over a distance of half a
mile,
or 1,000 metres, would be impossible without flight control, in particular
without
longitudinal control. It cannot be completely ruled out on the other hand,
as the
flying machine possessed a considerable degree of inherent stability, that
Whitehead
could have survived a few hops in calm air without too much trouble,
even without active flight control. Attempts at steering by shifting body
weight
did not provide any evidence of practical value.

2. It was possible to repeat the flights of up to 6 ft described by
eyewitnesses,
at a take-off weight of 3335 N. The thrust required at brake release was
1080 N, which dropped to 714 N at a flying speed of 52 kmh. (Annex 15,
diagram)
</Quote>

See http://www.setp.org/historicalflying.htm
for the full report

> the Wrights lucked out last century with a rail, right wind, and
> warping experience. The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy
> replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own
> design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. The GW
> No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile-
> in 1901. The replicas of the GW No.21 flew easily and there is little
> doubt that a third aircraft with an exact replica of the
> engine/powered gear mechanism would fly as well...
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. So much for the Wright's absurd claim that the GW No.21 could NOT
> fly due to its configuration alone. They were proven wrong TWICE with
> the replicas that flew in the '80s and '90s. Historically, the early
> Taube which strongly resembles the GW No.21 also flew easily.

The machine built in the 80's CRASHED, I suppose this was easy
As I have shown the second replica required structural alterations
and a modern engine to be fitted before it would fly and even then
the team admit it was not truly controllable

Keith

[Mike Marron]

> (robert arndt) wrote:

>The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy replica can't replicate the
>Wright's experience (with their own design) nor the right conditions for
>the flight(s) in 1903.

The weather conditions yesterday in the Chicago area where the replica
attempted to fly were much different than the weather conditions in
Kitty Hawk back in 1903. Not only did the 21st century guys lack the
25 mph winds that Orville & Wilbur had, but they also had to contend
with wet weather conditions.

The wings on their replica were probably waterlogged and I can tell
you from actual experience that attempting to take off in an aircraft
with uncoated fabric wings that have significant amounts of water
accumulated on (and in) the fabric is dicey.

Not unlike frost or ice accumulations on a metal wing, water
accumulations on an uncoated fabric wing seriously degrades
performance. Water tends to collect in the porous fabric and beads
up on the leading edge increasing the takeoff, landing, and stall
speeds and also increases the overall weight of the aircraft.

The bottom line is that due to the lack of wind and all the wet
weather, the tiny 12-hp engine (also an exact replica of the original)
simply didn't have enough grunt to get the replica airborne.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy replica can't replicate
the
> >Wright's experience (with their own design) nor the right conditions for
> >the flight(s) in 1903.

<snip>
> Not unlike frost or ice accumulations on a metal wing, water
> accumulations on an uncoated fabric wing seriously degrades
> performance. Water tends to collect in the porous fabric and beads
> up on the leading edge increasing the takeoff, landing, and stall
> speeds and also increases the overall weight of the aircraft.

The wings were drooping, Mike.

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1071660144004_47/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
>
>>... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention
>>to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO,
>
> No they didnt
>
> The first crashed injuring the pilot and the team then spent several years
> re-engineering the 'replica' and they rationalised the differences between
> the machine they built and the one in contemporary photos by arguing
> that the photos must represent an early variant of the machine before
> Whitehead made the changes necessary to make it fly !

This sounds a bit like the story of "proving" that Langley's airplane
was the real thing before the Wright's.

As some may know, Langley's airplane was launched from a platform in
the Potomac river, only to do an aeronautical example of a belly flop.
Langley claimed the problem wasn't with the airplane, but with the
launching gear. A few months later, Wilbur and Orville took off.

However, Langley didn't give up. The plane "would have flown" before
the Wrights if only the launching gear hadn't broken the airplane.

To prove this, the Langley airplane was "flown again" around 10 years
later in an effort to keep credit away from the Wrights. Curtis, who
had been in continuous litigation with the Wrights (and generally losing),
was only too happy to "reconstruct" the Langley aircraft, to prove the
"Wrights had no rights", to their airplane patents.

The "fixes" included more efficient propellers, more powerful engine,
some structural improvements to the wings, and at some point, a pair of
pontoons to take off from the water without need of the launching boat.

When the "re-test" occurred, Curtis claimed the aircraft did take off
and fly for a distance far greater than what the Wrights had achieved.
Unfortunately, newspapermen reporting the event from shore reported
they couldn't tell if the aircraft left the water or not. If it did,
it wasn't very high nor a very long flight.

Curtis eventually got the Langley aircraft airborne up towards 3,000
feet on many flights, but it just wasn't the same aircraft as 1903.

Of course, Langley was head of the Smithsonian, which accounted for
the Wrights getting no credit in that institution until about WWII,
when the Wright flyer was returned from England to take up residence
in the museum.


SMH

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily.
>

No true GW No.21 replica has ever been constructed.


>
> The GW
> No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile-
> in 1901.
>

No credible evidence of any flight GW No.21 has ever been produced.

[Eugene Griessel]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily.
> >
>
> No true GW No.21 replica has ever been constructed.
>
>
> >
> > The GW
> > No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile-
> > in 1901.
> >
>
> No credible evidence of any flight GW No.21 has ever been produced.

I think that the final summation of the dilemma is in the fact that
although a fair number of pioneers in the 19th century and early 20th
managed to make short uncontrolled hops or glides and that some even
built aircraft that may have been, given the right conditions, capable
of flight - none persevered with their ideas to the point where a
viable flying machine resulted. That is one which could ultimately be
depended upon to fly nearly every time and which finally evolved
beyond a curiosity into a practical tool. Furthermore, like nearly
every major invention, the Wrights stood on the shoulders of many of
those pioneers, evolving and combining proven technologies to the
point where it could all come together in one machine.

As for Herr Weisskopf, if he did indeed fly, his publicity department
let him down badly. The controversy goes back many, many years - I
recall reading something in the mid-sixties where fervent supporters
were kicking up a fuss.
However, having arranged for his aircraft to be photographed
statically, why did he not also arrange for one to be photographed in
flight? Strange that. The excuse that he only flew at night is also
peculiar. And his witnesses' statements are also slightly less than
credible. And finally, having built a flying machine why did he not
persist and evolve the thing into a practical machine - and here we
really run into some pathetic arguments such as he was not interested
in flying, only evolving a motor. If indeed this latter argument was
the case he would have done better with a horseless carriage rather
than attempting to pioneer two unkowns at once.

In the final summation it matters little whether Whitehead did indeed
manage
sustained, controllable flight prior to the Wrights. He neither
exploited it nor documented it beyond reasonable doubt and he
certainly did not advance to a point where he could demonstrate his
achievement repeatedly.

That honour indisputably goes to Orville and Wilbur. Whether the
modern replica of their machine flies or not neither proves nor
disproves that fact.

Eugene Griessel

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off
> yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:

<snip of idiot imnsulting poster>

> According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
> Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
> of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
> pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
> a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track? :)

> I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
> weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
> interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700 pound
original. (ie wet)

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
>
> <snip of idiot imnsulting poster>
>
> > According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
> > Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
> > of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
> > pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
> > a little.
>
> You mean the guy who invented the 8-track? :)
>
> > I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
> > weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
> > interesting concept, at any rate.
>
> The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700
pound
> original. (ie wet)
>
>
John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
in the admiral's band!

Jimmy

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > <snip of idiot imnsulting poster>
> >
> > > According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
> > > Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
> > > of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
> > > pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
> > > a little.
> >
> > You mean the guy who invented the 8-track? :)
> >
> > > I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
> > > weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
> > > interesting concept, at any rate.
> >
> > The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700
pound
> > original. (ie wet)
> >
> >
> John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
> It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
> in the admiral's band!

You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip of idiot imnsulting poster>
> > >
> > > > According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
> > > > Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the
success
> > > > of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
> > > > pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved
performance
> > > > a little.
> > >
> > > You mean the guy who invented the 8-track? :)
> > >
> > > > I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
> > > > weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's
an
> > > > interesting concept, at any rate.
> > >
> > > The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700
> pound
> > > original. (ie wet)
> > >
> > >
> > John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
> > It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
> > in the admiral's band!
>
> You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?
>
>
Absolutely, and it had to make a BIG difference.
Reminds me of the first *water repellant* running suit I bought
back around '82, and it was heavy as hell, dry. Hot as hell inside
within the first mile, too. Can't recall the trade name offhand.
That was '80s technology. The replica, for sure, wasn't waterproof.

JK

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> > God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off
> > yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.
>
> According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
> Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
> of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
> pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
> a little.
>
> I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
> weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
> interesting concept, at any rate.
>

I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
to explain that.

Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
flown off Lake Erie in January....

--

FF

[Ugly Bob]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> Mary Shafer > wrote in message
>...
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit
off
> > > yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.
> >
> > According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
> > Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
> > of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
> > pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
> > a little.
> >
> > I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
> > weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
> > interesting concept, at any rate.
> >
>
> I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
> Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
> Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
> to explain that.
>
> Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
> flown off Lake Erie in January....
>
> --
>
> FF

Had they gotten airborne, Fred, would you have been able to see
them on your Raytheon AN/FPS-115 Phased Array Warning
System? Theoretically speaking, that is.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pavepaws.htm

-Ugly Bob

[Cub Driver]

>I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
>Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
>Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
>to explain that.

Well, they did get off the ground--I think forty-odd minutes that
summer :) The problem seemed to be that there was no wind on Huffman
Prairie outside Dayton, as compared to 27 mph at Kitty Hawk on
December 17.

The 1903 Flyer was wrecked. The 1904 was slightly different. Some
historians regard the 1905 Flyer as the first real airplane. It could
take off with insignificant headwind.

What made the Wrights remarkable was that they understood the
principles of flight, including the desirability of a headwind. One of
their competitors crashed when he took off downwind, on the theory
that the wind would blow him into the air.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip of idiot imnsulting poster>
> > > >
> > > > > According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
> > > > > Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the
> success
> > > > > of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
> > > > > pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved
> performance
> > > > > a little.
> > > >
> > > > You mean the guy who invented the 8-track? :)
> > > >
> > > > > I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
> > > > > weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though.
It's
> an
> > > > > interesting concept, at any rate.
> > > >
> > > > The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the
700
> > pound
> > > > original. (ie wet)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
> > > It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
> > > in the admiral's band!
> >
> > You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?
> >
> >
> Absolutely, and it had to make a BIG difference.
> Reminds me of the first *water repellant* running suit I bought
> back around '82, and it was heavy as hell, dry. Hot as hell inside
> within the first mile, too. Can't recall the trade name offhand.
> That was '80s technology. The replica, for sure, wasn't waterproof.

We had guys on my wrestling team in high school that ran in those rubber
looking suits to lose weight fast.

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>What made the Wrights remarkable was that they understood the
>principles of flight, including the desirability of a headwind. One of
>their competitors crashed when he took off downwind, on the theory
>that the wind would blow him into the air.
>
>
Isn't it amazing how little they really knew about heavier than
air flight?...here's the Wright Brother's competition making a
mistake that any kid now-a-days wouldn't make.

Such a basic mistake that it really showed that they had very
little understanding of the mechanics of flight at all.
--

-Gord.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> Isn't it amazing how little they really knew about heavier than
> air flight?...here's the Wright Brother's competition making a
> mistake that any kid now-a-days wouldn't make.
>
> Such a basic mistake that it really showed that they had very
> little understanding of the mechanics of flight at all.

....and that the Wrights had a handle on it that you now consider "basic."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Ron]

>>What made the Wrights remarkable was that they understood the
>>principles of flight, including the desirability of a headwind. One of
>>their competitors crashed when he took off downwind, on the theory
>>that the wind would blow him into the air.
>>
>>
> Isn't it amazing how little they really knew about heavier than
>air flight?...here's the Wright Brother's competition making a
>mistake that any kid now-a-days wouldn't make.
>
>Such a basic mistake that it really showed that they had very
>little understanding of the mechanics of flight at all.
>--
>
>-Gord.

Oh there are still people today who think you have to be careful when making a
turn when flying downwind, so you dont stall the plane.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Ugly Bob" > wrote in message >...
> > > >
> >
> > I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
> > Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
> > Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
> > to explain that.
> >
> > Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
> > flown off Lake Erie in January....
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
>
> Had they gotten airborne, Fred, would you have been able to see
> them on your Raytheon AN/FPS-115 Phased Array Warning
> System? Theoretically speaking, that is.
>
> http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pavepaws.htm
>

In 1904, no.

BTW, shouldn't you be out malletting some spammers?

--

FF

[George Ruch]

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

>Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>
>I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
>Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
>Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
>to explain that.
>
>Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
>flown off Lake Erie in January....

More likely the lack of consistent onshore winds. You can get a decent
onshore breeze off Lake Erie during the summer, but not the consistent
15-25 kt. onshore winds they needed to assist their takeoff.


| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip of idiot imnsulting poster>
> > > > >
> > > > > > According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather
at
> > > > > > Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the
> > success
> > > > > > of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
> > > > > > pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved
> > performance
> > > > > > a little.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean the guy who invented the 8-track? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about
the
> > > > > > weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though.
> It's
> > an
> > > > > > interesting concept, at any rate.
> > > > >
> > > > > The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the
> 700
> > > pound
> > > > > original. (ie wet)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
> > > > It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
> > > > in the admiral's band!
> > >
> > > You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?
> > >
> > >
> > Absolutely, and it had to make a BIG difference.
> > Reminds me of the first *water repellant* running suit I bought
> > back around '82, and it was heavy as hell, dry. Hot as hell inside
> > within the first mile, too. Can't recall the trade name offhand.
> > That was '80s technology. The replica, for sure, wasn't waterproof.
>
> We had guys on my wrestling team in high school that ran in those rubber
> looking suits to lose weight fast.
>
>
With a 28" waist and 145 lbs., training for the "Ironman", it was not
so good, but I sure could use it now! :-)
JK