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

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...

Just so. It's like the European "discoveries" of the Americas before
Columbus. If it's not provable, and if it led to nothing, then it
might as well not have happened.

Perhaps in the case of Columbus we use the wrong word, and "opening"
is what he did. And in the case of the Wrights, perhaps what we mean
is "they achieved replicable powered flight." But that is a bit long
to go on a postage stamp.

The Wrights were the first to fly. Put as many asterisks after it as
you like, having to do with power / proof / whatever, but they were
the first to fly.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

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...

Certainly untrue? Did YOU witness the flight in 1901? A scientific
reporter did and drew a sketch of the aircraft IN FLIGHT. Furthermore,
that FLIGHT was witnessed by hundreds of people in Connecticut on that
day. Second, regarding the Me-262 and Mach 1 there is absolutely no
way for the 1946 US Flight Manual to mention the Me-262 being able to
break Mach 1 in a critical dive based solely on captured German wind
tunnel data as it took a full 11 years to evaluate all that
information. At the time of printing in 1946 Wright Patterson held
thousands of tons captured aviation documents. Sorry, they got that
info from the Germans directly or someone in the US broke the barrier
in a captured 262.

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.

Yet the aircraft FLEW in 1901. The missing design of his engine does
not in any way discredit the flight. Because YOU can't figure it out
doesn't mean Weisskopf didn't build it and use it.

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.

Perhaps you should investigate the replicas yourself since every
detail available was painstakingly recreated. Remember, the Wrights
claimed the GW NO.21 could NEVER fly based on its design- not the
motor. Again, they were proven wrong. The GW No.21 is pretty close to
the first Taube in basic structure, albeit more primitive... which all
early aviation models were at the time in question.

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...

As stated by Weisskopf himself his real interest was in the
development of motors and would leave the adventures of pioneering
flight to others. To have a successful flight in 1901 is amazing in
itself. But that doesn't naturally mean Weisskopf would excel as an
inventor or aircraft designer. He concentrated on different motors but
failed in the US- returning home to Germany. Sad but true. Sort of
like those with one hit wonders that are never heard of again. Nothing
suspicious about that, happens all the time.

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.

No, there is strong debate going on over those articles and
contradictions; however, the reporter that covered the flight only had
to use a camera to capture the machine in flight and we wouldn't be
having this argument. Sadly, he chose to draw a sketch. That isn't
Weisskopf's fault. And the poor sport Wrights angered over US
disinterest in their designs went to Europe... only to return with an
ironclad "guarantee" of their aviation status based solely on
blackmailing. No "first to fly" no aircraft to be preserved.

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

Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
SR-71. BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2 (aka Peenemunde EMW
A-6). Coincidence? Maybe not...

Rob

"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.


Not true. No historic replica of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
No.21 has ever been built or flown.



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.


There's no reliable evidence that there was an "original flight", the
lookalike aircraft prove only that an aircraft that looks like Whitehead's
can fly. They say absolutely nothing about Whitehead's work.



The fact that the NASM
continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
began is BS.


Not.



It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.


There's no reliable evidence that Whitehead's aircraft flew.



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.


There was no scientific reporter of that "flight".



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.


Lilienthal and Zeppelin made contributions to the science of flight,
Whitehead did not.



But America will never see it no matter what the evidence.


No 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.


Even if his exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew,
it would not prove that Whitehead flew.



When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
latter.


Your messages about Whitehead indicate you have little interest in real
history.

John Carrier wrote:
: Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of programs
: to celebrate the Wright Centennial (Dec 17th) with reenactments of the
: famous flight. The key ingredient to both efforts (are there more?) is a
: reproduction Wright Flyer in 1903 trim. This is trickier than it might seem
: ... the Smithsonian flyer was damaged after the fourth flight and was
: modified several times between 1903 and its presentation to the museum.
: Notes/blueprints are not extensive. It's obviously a challenge to reverse
: engineer the machine to an authentic configuration, right down to the
: engine.

: The Wright Experience is sponsored by Ford, EAA and others. They've got a
: towed glider and a flight simulator for training. Several pilots chosen.
: Scott Crossfield is a consultant (and test pilot for the glider!).

: The Wright Stuff appears to be smaller scale. Never the less, their product
: appears to be of similar quality and authenticity to the other program. The
: apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria) looks
: like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized technique
: compared to conventional aircraft.

: Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?

: R / John

I only saw a small piece of the TV pr9ogram, and read a few snippest
in the paper, but....

Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as
the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind?



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

Gregg Germain wrote:

Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as
the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind?

It could fly w/o sufficient wind, but just didn't have the oomph to
take off by itself due to it's puny 12-hp engine tasked with getting
600 lbs. of airplane into the air.

-Mike Marron

Mike Marron wrote:
:Gregg Germain wrote:

: Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as
: the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind?

: It could fly w/o sufficient wind, but just didn't have the oomph to
: take off by itself due to it's puny 12-hp engine tasked with getting
: 600 lbs. of airplane into the air.

: -Mike Marron

Hi Mike,

Well that's what I meant by "fly" though I didn't use precise
language.

In other words, on a calm day, the Wright Flyer would not take off.



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

Gregg Germain wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

It could fly w/o sufficient wind, but just didn't have the oomph to
take off by itself due to it's puny 12-hp engine tasked with getting
600 lbs. of airplane into the air.

Hi Mike,

Well that's what I meant by "fly" though I didn't use precise
language.

In other words, on a calm day, the Wright Flyer would not take off.

With a long enough runway it could take off in calm air. But since
Kitty Hawk is only about 500 miles from their bicycle shop in Ohio
whereas the Bonneville Salt Flats is more than 1500 miles away,
the 100 ft. dunes and onshore seabreezes at Kitty Hawk worked
out just fine for their purposes.

-Mike Marron

With a long enough runway it could take off in calm air. But since
Kitty Hawk is only about 500 miles from their bicycle shop in Ohio
whereas the Bonneville Salt Flats is more than 1500 miles away,

Given that the first flight was shorter than the wingspan of a modern
jetliner, are you sure about this? Perhaps it would have run out of
gas or fallen apart or the pilot jolted off before becoming airborne?
The temps on the salt flats would have been a hindering factor as
well, both aerodynamically and mechanically.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

In other words, on a calm day, the Wright Flyer would not take off.

Just so.

Note that much the same was true of most carrier aircraft in WWII, at
least as the planes were arranged on deck. (Parked aircraft took up
much of the available space.) The carrier steamed into the wind at
high speed, giving 25 knots or more over the bow. The most famous
example was the launch of the Dootlittle raiders in April 1942, when
you can see a B-25 actually dipping below deck level as it took off
for Japan.

Today, there is seldom any effort to take off from carriers. Jets are
routinely catapulted.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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