Brian,

You've fallen into a trap that is well known on this newsgroup. The
trap is called "conventional wisdom". It occurs when someone who
doesn't really know (you) gains knowledge from someone else who sounds
like he knows and has a bunch of fancy credentials to support his
position, but doesn't really know either (Culick).

Culick is good at writing books and papers and producing lots of fancy
math to prove his theory of what might have happened 107 years ago.
But, Culick wasn't there. His only real experience with an actual
Wright machine is with the AIAA's reproduction 1903. A machine which,
to my knowledge, has never flown. Therefore, even though Culick is
able to produce complex calculations and site lots of "expert" sources
for his paper, he himself probably has zero working knowledge of the
machine in the air. (None that I can document anyway.)

One of the expert sources he cites is "Engler". That would be Nick
Engler of Wright Brothers Airplane Company. Now Engler does have real-
world experience with Wright gliders. How do I know? Because I'm the
one who schleped all three of his gliders from the parking lot out to
his tent on the dune at Jockey's Ridge State Park on Sept 09, 2001.
I've met the guy. He's a nice guy. But, from my experiences, Engler
takes certain liberties when stating facts about the Wrights and their
machines. By that, I mean that he may be right about a point, but
can't prove it. And rather than calling it a theory, he claims it as
fact. That's not something that I do. He also takes certain liberties
in constructing his reproduction machines.

Case-in-point. The upper wing of Engler's 1902 glider calls for two
additional braces that Wilbur didn't need. These braces run diagonally
from the rear spar to the trailing ends of the two center ribs. Engler
claims they're necessary to keep the ribs from breaking if you build a
2-piece wing. (Wilbur's was one-piece and was never disassembled, but
Engler's had to come apart in 2 18' sections be transported.) Well,
somebody else figured out how to build that same 2-piece design into
the same wing without the additional bracing. And in 6 years, he has
never broken those ribs in question. How? That person followed
Wilbur's notes and used a 15-ga solid strand spring-steel wire in his
trailing edge instead of the 7x19 3/32" stainless steel cable that
Engler used. That person's trailing edges are also straight like
Wilbur's, and not scalloped between the ribs like Engler's. See,
Engler was afraid of solid-strand wire. Afraid it might break. And
since "we all know that cable is the only acceptable material to use
in an aircraft", he used it. And introduced a problem and a solution
that never occurred in 1902. Now was he right in doing this? Maybe.
But if you read notebooks "A" - "C", you will never find a single
reference to a wire breakage on any Wright machine. If Wilbur and
Orville never broke a wire, why would I break one? I used the correct
wire and have never broken one.

Second example from Engler. Take a look at his 1901 bicycle-experiment
photos from a few years ago. You'll see a red bike with a horizontal
wheel mounted pannier-style out in front of the handlebars. Look
closely. You'll see that his wheel was mounted to a horizontal support
that connects to the handlebars, and is braced by struts bolted to the
axle of the front wheel. Typical setup for panniers. Also, the test
airfoil and plate look to be about 2"x9". You'll also see this same
design on the replica at Carallion Park. Looks good. Don't work.
Again, go back and read Wilbur's notes. That flat plate is 9"x 18" or
so. And the airfoil is nearly that big too. Second, if you try riding
the pannier-mount bike, you'll see that the test wheel swings from
side to side as you steer, invalidating the test. Third, and this one
is sneaky, Wilbur and Orville drew the description in the book
backwards! How do I know? Because I tried it myself. What would they
have really done? Probably mounted that wheel just like they said, "on
a spar projecting forward". Delivery bikes around 1900 featured a
front basket mounted on tubes that were braised directly to the frame.
(I've seen one.) Is that what the Wright's did? I dunno. But the wheel
is steady that way. Now, about those steel bits that are supposed to
balance. If you look at the drawing in the notebook (or even NASA's
fancy graphic on their site) you'll see the surfaces are mounted on
the leading 1/2 of the test-wheel. But, when you start riding, they
don't stay there for long. Nope, they swing around and smack you in
the face until they reach equilibrium. Wana guess how I know this?
Yea. I tried it myself. Now all of the fancy math still works, but the
fact of the matter is that no one seems to have descovered this little
problem until about a year ago. About the time that I posted photos of
my test-bike on my now-defunct website (thanks AOL). Then, about three
months later, Engler's bike had ditched the pannier-mount for wooden
spars lashed to the bike frame with waxed linen cord. His test
surfaces also grew. And there's Gaffney (or that-other-guy that I met
in 2001) riding down the street on the bike dressed up like Wilbur
showing how the little wing-thingie is balanced in the back 1/2 of the
wheel. Hmmmmmm. Why the sudden change in design? Am I that
influential? If I am, I certainly don't think so.

So, there's what I know about experts that write fancy papers and
claim all sorts of things that they haven't tested and can't prove.
Now I'm not claiming to know what Wilbur and Orville did. I can only
say that I built a machine that is similar to thier 1902 in X-Y-Z
respects and dissimilar in A-B-C resepects. And that my machine
exhibited similar characteristics to those described in the Wright
notebooks, and produced similar test values and results. And, I can
tell you what happens when I warp the left leading edge of MY glider
down in a wind. And that is, it rolls really slowly left until the
right (not left, right) wingtip stalls and falls. That effect is
dependent on airspeed of course. Sometimes it does stall, and
sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it just wallows around like a pig,
from what I've experienced. But, its not the warped-up left trailing
edge that causes the drag or the stall. Its the right wing. From what
I've experienced.

Take that for what its worth, but do not believe me. Go build a Wright
1902 glider yourself. Then take it to Jockey's Ridge and fly it. Then
come tell me what your machine did when you warped the wings. Then
you'll have a theory to add to the Wright-collective-history and you
can call yourself an expert. Throw in some complicated equations and
you'll be as good as Culick or Engler, or me for that matter.

Bob keeps hitting the nail on the head. Try it, test it, make it
better, fly it. Learn from others, but do not be limited by them. They
may not know what the hell they're talking about.

Harry