Wright Replica FAILS to Fly

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

Rob

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in
the wright bros. story.

true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
the wrights' achievement.

historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming
before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening]
rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to
have invented agriculture and the context is lost.

it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the
initial premise.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

Rob

Time for you to go in the killfile, Kraut-eater.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

The picture with the article clearly shows an aircraft that is not a replica
of the 1903 Kitty Hawk flyer. This replica had seats for two upright, and
appears to be closer to the Wright's military aircraft of 1905?

Les

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

"Les Matheson" wrote in message
news:4NYcb.18248$a16.4996@lakeread01...

The picture with the article clearly shows an aircraft that is not a
replica
of the 1903 Kitty Hawk flyer. This replica had seats for two upright,
and
appears to be closer to the Wright's military aircraft of 1905?


I believe the first Wright airplane for the military was built in 1908,
which was also their first two-seat airplane and the first that didn't have
the pilot lying prone. But this airplane isn't even a faithful replica of
that one. This airplane has wheels, the Wrights' were still launching from
a track and landing on skids in 1908. This airfoil also looks much thicker
than anything the Wrights' used. T

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

Threre we

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


Inetersting article. It mentions an Wright replica that fails to fly yet shows
a picture of a "1903" flying according to the caption. The article mentions
other replicas. Failure of one to fly in circumstances other than the Wrights
experienced proves only that that one failed to fly, not that the Wrights
failed to fly.

TLC had a show of a faithful replica being built. They even built their engine
from original drawings using materials that existed in 1903. They found some
cloth of the type the Wrights used, sent it to an expert for evaluation and had
some made.

An interesting aside is the Smithonian's Flyer is apparently made from parts
from more than one airplane. The show made mention of this if I heard them
correctly.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

wrote:

it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in
the wright bros. story.

true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
the wrights' achievement.

historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming
before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening]
rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to
have invented agriculture and the context is lost.

it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the
initial premise.

Here's that shipment of capital letters you've been waiting for - We're
back-ordered on the letters "L" and "Y," so I'll ship the rest of those
later.

AAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH
IIIIIIIIIIIIJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKKKKKKKLLL
MMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPP
QQQQQQQQQQQQRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTT
UUUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVVVWWWWWWWWWWWWXXXXXXXXXXXX
YYYY ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Hope these work.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message om...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

Rob

Time for you to go in the killfile, Kraut-eater.

Hey Bill, with all your "hot air" maybe you could just stand behind
the Wright Flyer replica and rant on to generate the necessary lift
for the a/c!
As for the kill file statement- go ahead, I don't care. This is a NG
and it exists to debate such topics as "who flew first" or "who broke
Mach 1 first". So you disagree with me. Fine. If you have to killfile
anyone who disagrees with you then you are childish and immature.
My point above is not to take away from the Wright's flight, only to
dispute their claims that the GW No.1 could not fly based solely on
its design. How ironic that the two GW No.21 replicas did fly while
the Flyer replica fails to get off the ground.
The only true problem with all of this is a single photo of the GW
No.21 in flight. That could have been solved in 1901 if the scientific
reporter for the newpaper article had taken photos- he didn't as he
preferred sketches. That is certainly not Gustav Weisskopf's fault...
but it prevents him from proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the GW
No.21 flew BEFORE the Wrights by 2 yrs.
Too bad we can't time travel back to that date in time and view the
event firsthand; yet, for some diehards on this NG it wouldn't matter.
They just want to forever wave the USA-Number-One flag around and
ignore other nations aeronautical achievements (or to a lesser extent
downgrade them).
But I could care less. Germany is firmly in aeronautical history and
deserves proper credit for their contributions in both war and peace.
Fair enough?

Rob