Wright Flyer I Model Airplane

[[email protected]]

The Wright Flyer was also known as the Flyer I and sometimes Kitty
Hawk. It was an experimental airplane designed and built by the Wright
Brothers. It was the first sustained controlled heavier-than-air
powered flight.

Warplanes.com offers the Wright Brother Flyer I model airplane on 30%
sale. It has a span of 20 inches and length of 10 inches. It was a
complete replica of the original aircraft and it will be a perfect
desktop display.

For more information visit our website: http://www.warplanes.com/.

[wesleymarceaux[_2_]]

All of you are missing the point. The pilot of the RV6 lost power and had to
make allot of choices quick. One fact that sticks is the stall speed of
these heavy planes.The stall speed is the problem. Had she had an emergency
chute to open ,,,the plane and pilots could have been saved.Lighter craft
can land at slower speeds and to decrees the stall speed by 20 miles an
hour will put the impact G forces nearly 100% slower than at 55 miles an
hour.Airbags in the proper places could also have prevented the man from
loosing his wife. Inthe cheapest auto made,,airbags are included and the
price of the car is less than 20k. Not only are the engines antique, but
the safety ideas and design manors are also stuck in the pass.. My heart
goes out to him and his children for their loss and look to the future when
safety in the cockpit will be number one. The devices are there. Just need
to start applying them.
> wrote in message
...
> The Wright Flyer was also known as the Flyer I and sometimes Kitty
> Hawk. It was an experimental airplane designed and built by the Wright
> Brothers. It was the first sustained controlled heavier-than-air
> powered flight.
>
> Warplanes.com offers the Wright Brother Flyer I model airplane on 30%
> sale. It has a span of 20 inches and length of 10 inches. It was a
> complete replica of the original aircraft and it will be a perfect
> desktop display.
>
> For more information visit our website: http://www.warplanes.com/.

[wright1902glider]

On Feb 18, 10:55*pm, "
> wrote:
> The Wright Flyer was also known as the Flyer I and sometimes Kitty
> Hawk.


Actually, I've never been able to document that either of the brothers
ever formally named any of thier aircraft. The name "Wright Flyer"
seems to have evolved between 1905 and 1908 from the brothers'
references to the 1905 machine as "our flyer". This was usually used
as an abreviation of thier formal term "our flying machine." The word
"aeroplane" had been used in Europe as a reference to European-
designed machines at the time. Our modern word airplane came later.
The first references to the term "Wright Kitty Hawk" seem to stem from
its days at the London Science Museum. That term was also used when
the Smithsonian moved the flying machine back to the United States.

However, I have found several references in the Wrights' letters and
notebooks from 1903 to the "whopper flying machine." This is of course
a reference to the 1903 powered machine. In comparison the the 1902
glider, the 1903 flying machine was 8' greater in span, 1 1/2' greater
in chord, had doubble-surface wings, doubble front rudders (cannard
elevators), much more massive landing gear, and was nearly 3' taller.
It also outweighed its older sibling by 486 lbs. By general comparison
(which I've had the opportunity to do several times), the 1903 machine
is about 1/3 larger than the 1902 glider, twice as large as the 1901
machine, and dwarfs the 1900 machine. It truly was a "whopper" in its
day.

Harry Frey
Wright Brothers Enterprises
Wright 1902 glider #8
Wright 1899 kite
Wright 1878 bat
Wright 1901 test bicycle

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

wesleymarceaux wrote:
> All of you are missing the point. The pilot of the RV6 lost power and had to
> make allot of choices quick. One fact that sticks is the stall speed of
> these heavy planes.The stall speed is the problem. Had she had an emergency
> chute to open ,,,the plane and pilots could have been saved.Lighter craft
> can land at slower speeds and to decrees the stall speed by 20 miles an
> hour will put the impact G forces nearly 100% slower than at 55 miles an
> hour.Airbags in the proper places could also have prevented the man from
> loosing his wife. Inthe cheapest auto made,,airbags are included and the
> price of the car is less than 20k. Not only are the engines antique, but
> the safety ideas and design manors are also stuck in the pass.. My heart
> goes out to him and his children for their loss and look to the future when
> safety in the cockpit will be number one. The devices are there. Just need
> to start applying them.
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Wright Flyer was also known as the Flyer I


First I have to ask why you put this in a thread about the Wright Flyer?
But I've fixed that.

You do realize that the RV6 is a kit built aircraft? And it is not that
heavy at 1600 lbs MGW. And while 49-55mph isn't the lowest stall speed
out there it is in no way excessive.

BRS does make a chute capable of the weight of the RV6 but I don't think
I've ever seen on installed. To install one you have to give something
up and that something is the ability to carry weight be it fuel, baggage
or people. Also in this case I'm not sure the aircraft would have had
enough altitude to deploy it.

As for airbags and other crash worthiness features that are in modern
cars. There are some seat belt based airbags on the market now. They
haven't been on the market long enough to show if they are actually
helpful though. And no aircraft will every be as crash worthy as an
automobile. They have to be light as compared to a car. And even the
safest cars aren't designed to have the people in it survive a crash
much faster than the speed equal to that of the stall speed of the
slowest aircraft. At least not with the current technology or at a cost
that would make a C-150 cost several million dollars.

[Sliker]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:30:12 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>
>First I have to ask why you put this in a thread about the Wright Flyer?
>But I've fixed that.
>
>You do realize that the RV6 is a kit built aircraft? And it is not that
>heavy at 1600 lbs MGW. And while 49-55mph isn't the lowest stall speed
>out there it is in no way excessive.
>
>BRS does make a chute capable of the weight of the RV6 but I don't think
>I've ever seen on installed. To install one you have to give something
>up and that something is the ability to carry weight be it fuel, baggage
>or people. Also in this case I'm not sure the aircraft would have had
>enough altitude to deploy it.
>
>As for airbags and other crash worthiness features that are in modern
>cars. There are some seat belt based airbags on the market now. They
>haven't been on the market long enough to show if they are actually
>helpful though. And no aircraft will every be as crash worthy as an
>automobile. They have to be light as compared to a car. And even the
>safest cars aren't designed to have the people in it survive a crash
>much faster than the speed equal to that of the stall speed of the
>slowest aircraft. At least not with the current technology or at a cost
>that would make a C-150 cost several million dollars.

Airbags, BRS chutes, we're going down the wrong path. Those are things
that are needed in a crash. It's better to "fly the plane" to prevent
their needing to be used. An airbag won't help much if you get in a
spin. A lot of times the plane hits in more of a flat attitude and
they wouldn't be of much help. Plus, with the speed of aircraft
accidents, the forces are so high, the benifit is dubious. The BRS
chute would have more success. Someone in an RV-6 or similar,
expericing an engine out, might be so overwhelmed by the whole affair,
they may be better off just pulling the chute handle and forgetting
trying to wrestle it down to the ground. Espeicially if over trees
with no open fields or over mountains. Cars hit everything
horizontally, so the forces are easier to plan for. In a plane, you'd
need airbags all around you. Impossible. You can't apply car thinking
to airplanes. They are too different.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Sliker" > wrote

> The BRS
> chute would have more success.

It would have had absolutely no chance of saving the people in this crash.
They might not have even been able to get to the activation handle in time,
and if it had been deployed, there is ___no___ chance that it would have
been able to fully open and slow the airplane to a survivable speed.

> Someone in an RV-6 or similar,
> expericing an engine out, might be so overwhelmed by the whole affair,
> they may be better off just pulling the chute handle and forgetting
> trying to wrestle it down to the ground. Espeicially if over trees
> with no open fields or over mountains.

Can't argue against that fact, at all. A chute would be the best choice
over unfriendly terrain with nowhere to land. There are places in the area
surrounding my house here in NC that you would be hard pressed to find a
good landing field, and even more true at night. Of course, many people say
you can do two out of three, but never all three of the following. Single
engine, mountains, night.

> Cars hit everything
> horizontally, so the forces are easier to plan for. In a plane, you'd
> need airbags all around you. Impossible. You can't apply car thinking
> to airplanes. They are too different.

Not only that, but airbags deflate rapidly, and while that is OK with cars,
airplanes often have several deadly deceleration jolts before they come to
rest.
--
Jim in NC

[Charles Vincent]

Morgans wrote:
> "Sliker" > wrote
>
>> The BRS
>> chute would have more success.
>
> It would have had absolutely no chance of saving the people in this crash.
> They might not have even been able to get to the activation handle in time,
> and if it had been deployed, there is ___no___ chance that it would have
> been able to fully open and slow the airplane to a survivable speed.
>

BRS gone bad......

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PX7G0u0yI&feature=related>


Charles

[Anthony W]

Charles Vincent wrote:

> BRS gone bad......
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PX7G0u0yI&feature=related>
>
>
> Charles

Did the pilot survive that crash?

Tony

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Anthony W wrote:

> Charles Vincent wrote:
>
>> BRS gone bad......
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PX7G0u0yI&feature=related>
>>
>>
>> Charles
>
>
> Did the pilot survive that crash?
>
> Tony

Very unlikely

[Charles Vincent]

cavalamb himself wrote:
> Anthony W wrote:
>
>> Charles Vincent wrote:
>>
>>> BRS gone bad......
>>>
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PX7G0u0yI&feature=related>
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles
>>
>>
>> Did the pilot survive that crash?
>>
>> Tony
>
> Very unlikely

Someone posted in the chatter below the video:

"While I was at Airborne Windsports about a month ago the BRS subject
came up and this incident was part of the discussion. This pilot had a
rep as a bit of a cowboy. He decided (for some strange reason)to
relocate the pull handle from the cockpit to the control bar. When he
rotated and pushed the bar forward it stretched the release cable and
fired the chute. He was lucky and survived the incident."

I have no way of verifying this though.....

Charles

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Charles Vincent" > wrot>>
>
> BRS gone bad......
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PX7G0u0yI&feature=related>

No doubt!

I always wonder how that guy fared, as result of that crash. Surely at
least broken bones!

It looks like the chute just fell out of the tube, without the rocket
firing; is that what happened?
--
Jim in NC

[Pelican]

>Morgans wrote:
>> "Sliker" > wrote
>>
>>> The BRS
>>> chute would have more success.
>>
>> It would have had absolutely no chance of saving the people in this crash.
>> They might not have even been able to get to the activation handle in time,
>> and if it had been deployed, there is ___no___ chance that it would have
>> been able to fully open and slow the airplane to a survivable speed.

Well, if the BRS had been installed, and if they had enough altitude
to deploy it, it would have worked. But is it known what altitude they
were at when the engine failed? Nothing I've read so far indicates
that. But in this case, it's all hypothetical anyway. No BRS was
available, Their only chance was to have flown the airplane to the
ground under control, which doesn't seem to have been the case.
In a lot of homebuilts(or just about any single), one of the worst
times to loose the engine is on takeoff at low altitude. And in that
situation, it's necessary to push the nose over instantly at a rate
that will just about float you off the seat, If you were climbing
slow, to prevent a stall. Not many pilots react that quickly, and the
thing stalls so fast they loose all their options.