The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...


Big deal. Historic replicas of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
No.21 have flown in both the '80s and '90s- the latter by a Luftwaffe
pilot. The Wrights dismissed the aircraft as having flown first due to
its design... which they claimed "could never fly". The original
flight and the two replicas proved them wrong. The fact that the NASM
continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
began is BS. It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.
If only the scientific reporter of that flight had used a camera
instead of a sketch of that flight aviation history would be very
different. But of course Weisskopf was a German immigrant and not
intent on pioneering aviation; rather, he was fixated on engine
development which failed in the US. Returning to Germany after never
achieving US citizenship, Weisskof died... and was soon forgotten by
everyone except for those in Germany.
His name deserves to be up there with Lilienthal and Zeppelin. But
America will never see it no matter what the evidence. Even if his
exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew the
Wright myth will continue on just like the Yeager myth of breaking
Mach 1 first.
When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
latter.

Rob

Rob,

Your claims are almost certainly untrue. I'm sure you know this, but are
trolling with more and more of your "Wild claims about German Aviation" tour
(like your claim today on Rec. Aviation. Military that the ME-262 was the
first aircraft to break the sound barrier.) That idea has been soundly
thumped there, so I'll take on this one...

Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible, that
the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low HP
engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical if
you want to fly. Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.

I'm sure you will argue that a couple of groups have built and flown
"replicas" of Whitehead's aircraft? Without drawings or an example to use
as a go-by, claiming you've built a replica is a bit far fetched, especially
when you use modern engines and propellers like those re-creators did. With
modern engines and propellors, you can make any shape fly... Just look at
the Facetmobile and a hundred other not-very-efficient designs.

Finally, if Whitehead got his "airplane #21" to fly, why didn't any of his
later creations fly? Certainly he would have improved his design, rather
than starting with a successful design, flying it a time or two, then moving
on to designs that were unable to fly...

Another good angle for you to take would be to ask "There were period
articles written about Whitehead's flights. Certainly you're not
questioning the credibility of those reporters?"... I used to believe in the
accuracy of magazine articles (and newspaper articles too), but after about
the 10th glowing article in Popular Science/Mechanics/etc on the Moeller
Skycar, I realized that reporters get a bit carried away in their search to
either: A) Sell more subscriptions, or B) Be the guy who wrote about the
next big thing that hasn't quite happened yet.

Now, run along and dig up some WWII German scientist who, on his deathbead,
claimed that he and Werner VonBraun designed and built the first SR-71.
Which was secreted to the US, but wasn't flown until the 1960's. I'm sure
we'll have fun with that one too.

KB