How Good a Replica?

[Ashton Archer III]

How close to the original Wright Flyer is the new replica?

Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

Will the replica attempt to fly again soon?

Ashton Archer III

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ashton Archer III" > wrote in message
m...
>
> How close to the original Wright Flyer is the new replica?
>

A very great deal of effort and research was expended to make this replica
as close to the original as possible. Surviving pieces of the actual cloth
covering were examined so it could be reproduced exactly. The sole
surviving propeller was examined so that they could be reproduced exactly,
right down to examinining the tool marks so that the same tools could be
used. Available photographs were enhanced and examined to reproduce parts
accurately.


>
> Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
> can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
> that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?
>

No, this replica had been flown a number of times in preparation for the
anniversary celebration. It didn't fly on the 17th because weather
conditions were real crappy.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
> accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
> failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
> with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
> of incidence became too high, and was slightly
> damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
> the next day.

One of the reason the Wrights were flying into the wind was to reduce
damage to the plane in case of a crash.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
>
> In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
> accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
> failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
> with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
> of incidence became too high, and was slightly
> damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
> the next day.
>

The first attempt, which damaged the elevators, or "rudders" as the Wrights
called them, was on December 14th.

[Cub Driver]

>How close to the original Wright Flyer is the new replica?

As close as humanly possible, if you are referring to the Flyer built
by Ken Hyde in Warrenton VA.

There is one difference: it has a seatbelt, mandated by the FAA.

Any other differences, and no doubt there are some, were brought about
by the lack of information about the original.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is one difference: it has a seatbelt, mandated by the FAA.
>

Seatbelt? The Flyer didn't even have a seat.

[John Morley]

Yeah, I heard it had a transponder too, and an altitude encoder, also
mandated by the FAA ;-)!!

John



Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>There is one difference: it has a seatbelt, mandated by the FAA.
>>
>
>
> Seatbelt? The Flyer didn't even have a seat.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, I heard it had a transponder too, and an altitude encoder, also
> mandated by the FAA ;-)!!
>

You're just bein' silly. They were in Class G airspace, no transponder or
encoder required.

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"John Morley" > wrote:

>>Yeah, I heard it had a transponder too, and an altitude encoder, also
>>mandated by the FAA ;-)!!

>You're just bein' silly. They were in Class G airspace, no transponder or
>encoder required.

And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
were in (see FAR 91.215).

[N329DF]

>And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
>required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
>were in (see FAR 91.215).
>

not required as it did not have a electrical system, but it must have had a
waiver from FARS, as it did not have a tach, oil pressure/temp gauge, AS ind,
Altimeter, compass,
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Mike Marron]

(Ashton Archer III) wrote:

>Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
>can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
>that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

Doubtful pilot technique with regards to wing warping had anything
to do with it. The weather conditions in the Chicago area on Dec. 17,
2003 weren't the same as the weather conditions in the Kitty Hawk
area on Dec 17, 1903. The Wright brothers would have simply waited
for better weather conditions.

As an aside, if you're interested in flying the Wright flyer on your
PC:

http://www.mywrightexperience.com/

[Mike Marron]

> (N329DF) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
>>required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
>>were in (see FAR 91.215).

>not required as it did not have a electrical system, but it must have had a
>waiver from FARS, as it did not have a tach, oil pressure/temp gauge, AS ind,
>Altimeter, compass,

Interesting you should mention that. The only instruments that my
first aircraft that I constructed back in 1996 was a tach and an EGT
guage! I flew that airplane for three years without any waivers or
jumping through any legal loopholes whatsoever.


> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
>Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> "Ashton Archer III" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
> > can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
> > that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?
>
> The Wright's designs were by modern standards quite
> unstable and had inconvenient controls. The brothers
> were probably used to these characteristics, from years
> of flying in gliders of their own design. The replica has
> flown on several occasions before this, but must require
> great alertness to fly it.

They intentionally designed for neutral-to-negative stability...

> In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
> accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
> failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
> with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
> of incidence became too high, and was slightly
> damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
> the next day.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
>
> not required as it did not have a electrical system,
>

Not required because it wasn't operating in airspace requiring a transponder
and encoder.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
> required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
> were in (see FAR 91.215).
>

If you actually read FAR 91.215 you'll see there is no exception for replica
aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting you should mention that. The only instruments that my
> first aircraft that I constructed back in 1996 was a tach and an EGT
> guage! I flew that airplane for three years without any waivers or
> jumping through any legal loopholes whatsoever.
>

No you didn't, you just don't understand the difference between an
ultralight and an airplane.

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Interesting you should mention that. The only instruments that my
>>first aircraft that I constructed back in 1996 was a tach and an EGT
>>guage! I flew that airplane for three years without any waivers or
>>jumping through any legal loopholes whatsoever.

>No you didn't, you just don't understand the difference between an
>ultralight and an airplane.

Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings,
etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few
thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me,
Stevie. Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap
fighting contest against a man with no arms.

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
>>required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
>>were in (see FAR 91.215).

>If you actually read FAR 91.215 you'll see there is no exception for replica
>aircraft.

As usual, you're talking out your ass again, Stevie. A transponder
is not required on the replica because the replica wasn't certificated
with an engine-driven electrical system. In the future, please don't
attempt to read the FARS unless you have a CFI like myself nearby
or some other knowledgable person who can explain this stuff to ya,
OK?

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"N329DF" > wrote:

>>not required as it did not have a electrical system,

>Not required because it wasn't operating in airspace requiring a transponder
>and encoder.

Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

[John Keeney]

"Ashton Archer III" > wrote in message
m...
> How close to the original Wright Flyer is the new replica?

Which one?
Some are as close as humanly possible given the level of
knowledge about design, materials and techniques the Wrights
used. I believe this includes the one at Kittyhawk.

> Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
> can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
> that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

The Wrights chose the day the did to fly because the weather was right.
The day of the attempted recreation at Kittyhawk was a day certain,
"weather *PLEASE cooperate*. Guess what, it didn't.

[John Keeney]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Ashton Archer III" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
> > can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
> > that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?
>
> The Wright's designs were by modern standards quite
> unstable and had inconvenient controls. The brothers
> were probably used to these characteristics, from years
> of flying in gliders of their own design. The replica has
> flown on several occasions before this, but must require
> great alertness to fly it.
>
> In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
> accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
> failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
> with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
> of incidence became too high, and was slightly
> damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
> the next day.

Hmm, I thought when I saw the head on camera shot it
looked like he over rotated. I didn't get that impression
from the side angle.

[Stephen Harding]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Ashton Archer III" > wrote in message
>
>>Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
>>can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
>>that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

The replica is perhaps as close as one can get to the real thing. The
original one hanging in the Smithsonian was itself patched up by the
surviving Wright brother (forget which one) many years after the event
from memory and with the thinking the aircraft would only be a display
piece, as opposed to a template for a flying reproduction.

But the bottom line: the Wright flyer is a *very* difficult airplane
to fly!

The Wrights had hours of flying time in similarly behaved gliders
before the actual Flyer flight. These guys had become very good at
handling an aircraft before a powered flight.

Some modern pilots (AF, Navy and Test) have tried their hands at
flying various Flyer reproductions over this and last year and
haven't done too well.

Basically, if you fly a Flyer for very long, you *are* going to
crash, so it's no surprise that someone without equivalent flight
time on the machine would have trouble even getting off the ground,
even with favorable flying conditions for the airplane, that
weren't present for the Dec 17 ceremonial attempt.


SMH

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>

....nothing which appears below. If you're going to trim my words please
trim my name as well.


> >
> > "Ashton Archer III" > wrote in message
> >
> >>Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
> >>can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
> >>that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?
>
> The replica is perhaps as close as one can get to the real thing. The
> original one hanging in the Smithsonian was itself patched up by the
> surviving Wright brother (forget which one) many years after the event
> from memory and with the thinking the aircraft would only be a display
> piece, as opposed to a template for a flying reproduction.
>
> But the bottom line: the Wright flyer is a *very* difficult airplane
> to fly!
>
> The Wrights had hours of flying time in similarly behaved gliders
> before the actual Flyer flight. These guys had become very good at
> handling an aircraft before a powered flight.
>
> Some modern pilots (AF, Navy and Test) have tried their hands at
> flying various Flyer reproductions over this and last year and
> haven't done too well.
>
> Basically, if you fly a Flyer for very long, you *are* going to
> crash, so it's no surprise that someone without equivalent flight
> time on the machine would have trouble even getting off the ground,
> even with favorable flying conditions for the airplane, that
> weren't present for the Dec 17 ceremonial attempt.
>
>
> SMH
>

[[email protected]]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>
>In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
>accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
>failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
>with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
>of incidence became too high, and was slightly
>damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
>the next day.

Small nit..I assume you mean 'angle of attack'?...angle of
incidence is something else again of course.
--

-Gord.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings,
> etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few
> thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me,
> Stevie.
>

One does not require any of those ratings, real or imagined, in order to
explain the difference. It is unlikely you'll be able to understand the
explanation, however, because you're an incredibly stupid person.


>
> Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap
> fighting contest against a man with no arms.
>

Oh, we're not arguing. I'm making simple statements and you're making a
fool of yourself.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
> yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
> wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?
>

Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you
to have them.

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings,
>> etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few
>> thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me,
>> Stevie.

>One does not require any of those ratings, real or imagined, in order to
>explain the difference. It is unlikely you'll be able to understand the
>explanation, however, because you're an incredibly stupid person.

Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings,
etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few
thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me,
Stevie.

>>Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap
>>fighting contest against a man with no arms.

>Oh, we're not arguing. I'm making simple statements and you're making a
>fool of yourself.

Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap fighting
contest against a man with no arms.

[Mike Marron]

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>> Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
>> yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
>> wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

>Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you
>to have them.

Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

N912JT based DOWNTOWN

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
>>> Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
>>> yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
>>> wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?
>
>>Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you
>>to have them.
>
>Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
>yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
> wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?
>
>N912JT based DOWNTOWN

No electrical power?
--

-Gord.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> As usual, you're talking out your ass again, Stevie. A transponder
> is not required on the replica because the replica wasn't certificated
> with an engine-driven electrical system.
>

I just posted a message in which I said you are an incredibly stupid person.
Thank you for proving that point for me, I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me
of name-calling.

Being a replica has nothing to do with the need for a transponder and
encoder. Replica aircraft certificated with engine-driven electrical
systems require transponders and encoders just as non-replica aircraft
certificated with engine-driven electrical systems do. Replica aircraft not
certificated with engine-driven electrical systems have the same exemptions
regarding transponders and encoders that non-replica aircraft not
certificated with engine-driven electrical systems have.

The attempted recreation took place in Class G airspace. No aircraft,
replica or non-replica, engine-driven electrical system or not, is required
to have a transponder and encoder to operate in Class G airspace below
10,000 MSL more than 30 miles from an airport listed appendix D, section 1
of Part 91.

Now, being the "expert" on the FARs that you are, tell me what Part this
replica was certificated under.


>
> In the future, please don't
> attempt to read the FARS unless you have a CFI like myself nearby
> or some other knowledgable person who can explain this stuff to ya,
> OK?
>

A CFI like yourself, if you are a CFI (doubtful), is not in a position to
explain the FARs to anyone.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
> yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
> wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?
>

No, I'm not wrong, it truly is because you don't wish to operate it in any
airspace that would require you to have them.

[Mike Marron]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>N912JT based DOWNTOWN

>No electrical power?

Nope. But something powers my strobes, radio and GPS.. ;)

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>> Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
>> yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
>> wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

>No, I'm not wrong, it truly is because you don't wish to operate it in any
>airspace that would require you to have them.

Stealth.

-Mike (Stealth) Marron

[Mike Marron]

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>A CFI like yourself, if you are a CFI (doubtful), is not in a position to
>explain the FARs to anyone.

Stealth CFI

-Mike (stealthy) Marron

[Cub Driver]

>N912JT



N912JT is Assigned

Assigned/Registered Aircraft Aircraft Description

Serial Number 7724 Type Registration Individual
Manufacturer Name MARRON MICHAEL J Certificate Issue Date
01/10/2003
Model PEGASUS 912 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 53117363
MFR Year 2000 Fractional Owner NO




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Registered Owner

Name MARRON MICHAEL
Street 1656 BELLROSE DR N
City CLEARWATER State FLORIDA Zip Code 33756-2308
County PINELLAS
Country UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Airworthiness

Engine Manufacturer ROTAX Classification Experimental
Engine Model SEE BOMBADIER Category Amateur Built

A/W Date 02/08/2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Owner Names


None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Temporary Certificate

None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fuel Modifications

None

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Stephen Harding]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> ...nothing which appears below. If you're going to trim my words please
> trim my name as well.

Indeed yes.

Apologies.


SMH

[Mike Marron]

>Cub Driver > wrote:

>N912JT


>N912JT is Assigned

>Assigned/Registered Aircraft Aircraft Description

> Serial Number 7724 Type Registration Individual
>Manufacturer Name MARRON MICHAEL J Certificate Issue Date
>01/10/2003
>Model PEGASUS 912 Status Valid
>Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
>Pending Number Change None Dealer No
>Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 53117363
>MFR Year 2000 Fractional Owner NO

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Registered Owner
>
> Name MARRON MICHAEL
>Street 1656 BELLROSE DR N
>City CLEARWATER State FLORIDA Zip Code 33756-2308
>County PINELLAS
>Country UNITED STATES


>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Airworthiness
>
> Engine Manufacturer ROTAX Classification Experimental
>Engine Model SEE BOMBADIER Category Amateur Built
>
> A/W Date 02/08/2003
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Other Owner Names
>
>
>None
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Temporary Certificate
>
>None
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Fuel Modifications
>
>None


Well, there ya' go McNicoll. Looks like Dan has done your homework
for you. Now, if you know how to read an aeronautical chart, you will
note that the area in which I routinely fly is not only under Tampa's
Mode C veil (e.g: transponder required) but it's also surrounded by
all kinds of different Class B, C, D, and E airspace. Like I said, I
can (and do) fly in all this airspace WITHOUT a transponder. I'll
ask you one more time: how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?
Hmmm? Care for some ketchup to go with your crow?


>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>> Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
>> yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
>> wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

>Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you
>to have them.

Wrong again, Stevie boy. The airport where I'm based is under Tampa's
mode C veil therefore all aircraft (besides mine ) must be squawking
1200 the instant their wheels leave the ground. Now why do you s'pose
that is?

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:


>Wrong again, Stevie boy. The airport where I'm based is under Tampa's
>mode C veil therefore all aircraft (besides mine ) must be squawking
>1200 the instant their wheels leave the ground. Now why do you s'pose
>that is?
>
>
>
>
(for the second time) Because your a/c doesn't have electrical
power?
--

-Gord.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, there ya' go McNicoll. Looks like Dan has done your homework
> for you.
>

I didn't have to do any homework.


>
> Now, if you know how to read an aeronautical chart, you will
> note that the area in which I routinely fly is not only under Tampa's
> Mode C veil (e.g: transponder required) but it's also surrounded by
> all kinds of different Class B, C, D, and E airspace. Like I said, I
> can (and do) fly in all this airspace WITHOUT a transponder. I'll
> ask you one more time: how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?
>

You're able to do it because you're unfamiliar with the FARs and thus are
unaware that you must have a transponder in Class B and Class C airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>
> (for the second time) Because your a/c doesn't have electrical
> power?
>
That may be what he's thinking, but that's not the answer. It really is
because he does not wish to operate it in any airspace that would require
him to have them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong again, Stevie boy.
>

Not wrong at all, it really is because you don't wish to operate it in any
airspace that would require you to have them. How could it be any other
way?


>
> The airport where I'm based is under Tampa's
> mode C veil therefore all aircraft (besides mine ) must be squawking
> 1200 the instant their wheels leave the ground. Now why do you s'pose
> that is?
>

It isn't. Aircraft assigned a discrete code don't have to squawk 1200, and
any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven
electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a
system installed, or a balloon or glider, does not even have to have a
transponder. If you were familiar with the FARs you would have known that.

[N329DF]

>You're able to do it because you're unfamiliar with the FARs and thus are
>unaware that you must have a transponder in Class B and Class C airspace.
>
>

no, he is able to do it because he has a WAIVER, very easy to get. We used to
have a Pitts S-2A that did not have room for a Xponder, we applied for a waiver
and got it.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Mike Marron]

(N329DF) wrote:

>>You're able to do it because you're unfamiliar with the FARs and thus are
>>unaware that you must have a transponder in Class B and Class C airspace.

>no, he is able to do it because he has a WAIVER, very easy to get. We used to
>have a Pitts S-2A that did not have room for a Xponder, we applied for a waiver
>and got it.

Actually Matt, in my case I don't even need the waiver (self-launching
glider). With regards to McNicoll, remember never to wrestle with a
pig (you both get dirty, and the pig likes it!)

-Mike Marron
A&P, CFII, Commercial, multi-engine instrument
UFI weightshift/fixed-wing land &sea


> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
>Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>> Wrong again, Stevie boy.

>Not wrong at all, it really is because you don't wish to operate it in any
>airspace that would require you to have them.

How the hell do YOU know how I wish to operate MY airplane?

>How could it be any other way?

You're the self-anointed expert on FAR's Stevie, you tell me!

(Hint: don't expect me to answer if you're too lazy to do your own
homework, or too stubborn to listen to the correct answer!)

>>The airport where I'm based is under Tampa's
>>mode C veil therefore all aircraft (besides mine ) must be squawking
>>1200 the instant their wheels leave the ground. Now why do you s'pose
>>that is?

>It isn't.

Huh? WHAT isn't?!??

>Aircraft assigned a discrete code don't have to squawk 1200,

Huh? Who said anything about a discrete code?

>and any aircraft which was not originally certificated
>with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently
>been certified with such a system installed, or a balloon or glider, does not
>even have to have a transponder.

Finally! I see you've been studying 91.215 like I told you, what,
THREE days ago after you planted your foot firmly in your big
mouth trying to impress with your superficial knowledge of the
FAR's. So, how's the crow taste Stevie boy?

>If you were familiar with the FARs you would have known that.

Riiiiiiiiiight Stevie. Whatever you say Stevie. You can backpedal all
you want, but you're STILL more full of **** than a brontasaurus with
no ass!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
>
> no, he is able to do it because he has a WAIVER, very easy to get.
>

ATC doesn't give waivers to idiots. I base an Aeronca 7AC near Class C
airspace. I have a waiver, Marron does not.

[Mike Marron]

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"N329DF" > wrote:

>>no, he is able to do it because he has a WAIVER, very easy to get.

>ATC doesn't give waivers to idiots. I base an Aeronca 7AC near Class C
>airspace. I have a waiver, Marron does not.

Again, see 91.215 (e.g: I don't need no stinkin' waiver, idiot.)

BTW, enjoy your gutless ol' Aeronca Champ.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> How the hell do YOU know how I wish to operate MY airplane?
>

Simple logic. You've told us your airplane does not have a transponder and
encoder yet you can (and do) legally operate it in any airspace that you
wish. Since transponders and encoders are required equipment in some
airspace, it follows that you do not wish to operate your airplane in any
airspace that would require it to have them.


>
> You're the self-anointed expert on FAR's Stevie, you tell me!
>

It can't be any other way.


>
> (Hint: don't expect me to answer if you're too lazy to do your own
> homework, or too stubborn to listen to the correct answer!)
>

Don't expect you to answer what? I'm the one that GAVE the correct answer.


>
> Huh? WHAT isn't?!??
>

Try to keep up. "It isn't" is the answer to the question you asked; "The
airport where I'm based is under Tampa's mode C veil therefore all aircraft
(besides mine ) must be squawking 1200 the instant their wheels leave the
ground. Now why do you s'pose that is?"


>
> Huh? Who said anything about a discrete code?
>

I did. You said all aircraft (besides yours ) must be squawking 1200, a
nondiscrete code, the instant their wheels leave the ground. That's not
correct. Any aircraft assigned a discrete code by ATC prior to departure
would not have to squawk 1200 the instant their wheels left the ground.


>
> Finally! I see you've been studying 91.215 like I told you,
>

Actually, I haven't. Why would you think I had?


>
> what, THREE days ago after you planted your foot firmly in your
> big mouth trying to impress with your superficial knowledge of the
> FAR's.
>

How did you imagine I had my foot in my mouth?


>
> So, how's the crow taste Stevie boy?
>

I wouldn't know.


>
> Riiiiiiiiiight Stevie. Whatever you say Stevie. You can backpedal all
> you want, but you're STILL more full of **** than a brontasaurus with
> no ass!
>

Backpedaling? How so?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Again, see 91.215 (e.g: I don't need no stinkin' waiver, idiot.)
>

I don't need to review it, what exactly would you like me to explain to you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Stealth CFI
>

I take it you have no idea what Part of the FARs this replica was
certificated under.

[Richard Brooks]

Hmm, I wish I could replicate a table that I once saw.

A replica has to have the involvement of one of the original people. Next,
there was something stating how a copy is brought about Then finally,
there was a facimile.

Anyone else saw or remember this ?

I only remember this as a brother-in-law in the R.A.F. whilst stationed at
Lyneham was involved with making the fuel tanks for a Bleriot copy for a
museum and told me of the various relative positions in making something.

Richard.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> A replica has to have the involvement of one of the original people.
>

Why?

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A replica has to have the involvement of one of the original people.
> >
>
> Why?
>
>

Because, otherwise it is a copy, not a replica!

[Mike Marron]

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>> Again, see 91.215 (e.g: I don't need no stinkin' waiver, idiot.)

>I don't need to review it, what exactly would you like me to explain to you?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because, otherwise it is a copy, not a replica!
>

What do you base that on? One could make the argument that if it's done by
one of the original people it's not a replica at all, it's another original.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>

You'll never learn anything with that attitude.

[Merlin Dorfman]

Cub Driver ) wrote:


: >N912JT



: N912JT is Assigned

: Assigned/Registered Aircraft Aircraft Description

: Serial Number 7724 Type Registration Individual
: Manufacturer Name MARRON MICHAEL J Certificate Issue Date
: 01/10/2003
: Model PEGASUS 912 Status Valid
: Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
: Pending Number Change None Dealer No
: Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 53117363
: MFR Year 2000 Fractional Owner NO

....

AeroWeb seems to be off the air...where do you find information
on aircraft by registration number?

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>>
>
>You'll never learn anything with that attitude.
>
....and from what I've seen he needs to learn a lot...even some
basic aerodynamics.
--

-Gord.

[Dave Holford]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Because, otherwise it is a copy, not a replica!
> >
>
> What do you base that on? One could make the argument that if it's done by
> one of the original people it's not a replica at all, it's another original.


Much to my surprise my dictionary defines a replica as "a duplicate of a
work made by the original artist".

Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> ...and from what I've seen he needs to learn a lot...even some
> basic aerodynamics.
>

He appears to be unteachable.

[Chad Irby]

Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

> Cub Driver ) wrote:

> : N912JT is Assigned
>
> : Assigned/Registered Aircraft Aircraft Description
>
> : Serial Number 7724 Type Registration Individual
> : Manufacturer Name MARRON MICHAEL J Certificate Issue Date
> : 01/10/2003
> : Model PEGASUS 912 Status Valid
> : Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
> : Pending Number Change None Dealer No
> : Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 53117363
> : MFR Year 2000 Fractional Owner NO
> ...
>
> AeroWeb seems to be off the air...where do you find information
> on aircraft by registration number?

It's a microlight trike. What else do you need to know? He's talked
about it before.

Sure, the FAA uses the words "experimental" and "glider," but it's a
fairly standard machine made by a company in the UK. Pretty nice for a
"homebuilt," actually.

<http://www.pegasus-usa.com/quantum.htm>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...
>
> Much to my surprise my dictionary defines a replica as "a duplicate of a
> work made by the original artist".
>

replica

n : something that has been replicated


replicate

v : to duplicate, copy, reproduce, or repeat

[Mike Marron]

>Chad Irby > wrote:

>It's a microlight trike. What else do you need to know? He's talked
>about it before.

Except, my microlight trike happens to be a) N-numbered and b)
powered by a 4-stroke, 80 hp engine. Extremely rare, and very unique
(that's why I can't seem to help myself:;)

>Sure, the FAA uses the words "experimental" and "glider," but it's a
>fairly standard machine made by a company in the UK. Pretty nice for a
>"homebuilt," actually.

You forgot to mention that, without a checkout from me (or some other
competent trike pilot) would literally KILL anyone_on_this_list.

[Dave Holford]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Dave Holford" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Much to my surprise my dictionary defines a replica as "a duplicate of a
> > work made by the original artist".
> >
>
> replica
>
> n : something that has been replicated
>
> replicate
>
> v : to duplicate, copy, reproduce, or repeat


Steve,

I know you have to have the last word, so I'm going to wait for Santa to
deliver my porsche. Hopefully it won't be an 'imitation'.

Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> You forgot to mention that, without a checkout from me (or some other
> competent trike pilot) would literally KILL anyone_on_this_list.
>

What a load of crap.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:

> >Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >It's a microlight trike. What else do you need to know? He's talked
> >about it before.
>
> Except, my microlight trike happens to be a) N-numbered and b)
> powered by a 4-stroke, 80 hp engine. Extremely rare, and very unique
> (that's why I can't seem to help myself:;)
>
> >Sure, the FAA uses the words "experimental" and "glider," but it's a
> >fairly standard machine made by a company in the UK. Pretty nice for a
> >"homebuilt," actually.
>
> You forgot to mention that, without a checkout from me (or some other
> competent trike pilot) would literally KILL anyone_on_this_list.

....and the same for most types of aircraft new to the pilot.

Like a sidecar on a motorcycle can kill someone who's just a two-wheel
rider. It's not because it's hard, it's because it's *different*.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Cub Driver]

> AeroWeb seems to be off the air...where do you find information
>on aircraft by registration number?

I typed the N number into Google. I believe the first option was to
look up the record. (Possibly it was a paid ad?)

It's the FAA registry.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Cub Driver]

>One could make the argument that if it's done by
>one of the original people it's not a replica at all, it's another original.

Good point!

(But on reflection I'm not sure it's true. Maybe it's one of those
things that depends on what the meaning of is is.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Cub Driver]

>Much to my surprise my dictionary defines a replica as "a duplicate of a
>work made by the original artist".

The Shorter Oxford says it somewhat different: it's a duplicate OF A
WORK OF ART, ESPECIALLY one made by the original artist. There are two
distinctions here: I don't think an airplane is a work of art, so this
definition doesn't apply. And the input by the original artist is
merely customary, not necessary.

As applied to an airplane, I reckon the next definition applies: "a
reproduction, a facsimile."

(The first definition is a musical term.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Mike Marron]

>Chad Irby > wrote:
>> Mike Marron > wrote:

>>You forgot to mention that, without a checkout from me (or some other
>>competent trike pilot) would literally KILL anyone_on_this_list.

>...and the same for most types of aircraft new to the pilot.

My point exactly!

>Like a sidecar on a motorcycle can kill someone who's just a two-wheel
>rider. It's not because it's hard, it's because it's *different*.

It can quickly get to be "hard" flying trikes (adverse weather). And
the ground handling of trikes in gusty winds quite frankly sucks. One
of the reason trikes are unlike any other aircraft is because
possessing upper-body physical strength is a not just a definite
advantage, but in some instances (i.e: turbulence, gust fronts,
thunderstorms, etc.) the amount of strength and endurance the pilot
has can literally mean the difference between life and death. To
my fellow GA pilot's amazement, I'll go up in anything a small,
single-engine GA plane is capable of going up in, but when the
weather is really bad I just know that my pilot skills will be tested
to the limit and anticipate having a good workout.

Try it yourself, sometime. The most fun with clothes on!

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:

> >Chad Irby > wrote:
> >> Mike Marron > wrote:
>
> >>You forgot to mention that, without a checkout from me (or some other
> >>competent trike pilot) would literally KILL anyone_on_this_list.
>
> >...and the same for most types of aircraft new to the pilot.
>
> My point exactly!
>
> >Like a sidecar on a motorcycle can kill someone who's just a two-wheel
> >rider. It's not because it's hard, it's because it's *different*.
>
> It can quickly get to be "hard" flying trikes (adverse weather).

....or normal hang gliders.

....or other small planes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Les Matheson]

Actually, pictures I've seen of the original show it did have a wind speed
indicator mounted that functioned (presume) to provide airspeed.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)




"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
> >And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
> >required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
> >were in (see FAR 91.215).
> >
>
> not required as it did not have a electrical system, but it must have had
a
> waiver from FARS, as it did not have a tach, oil pressure/temp gauge, AS
ind,
> Altimeter, compass,
> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
>