Wright Replica Fails to Fly

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off
yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700 pound
original. (ie wet)

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700
pound
original. (ie wet)


John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
in the admiral's band!

Jimmy

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700
pound
original. (ie wet)


John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
in the admiral's band!

You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the
success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved
performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's
an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700
pound
original. (ie wet)


John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
in the admiral's band!

You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?


Absolutely, and it had to make a BIG difference.
Reminds me of the first *water repellant* running suit I bought
back around '82, and it was heavy as hell, dry. Hot as hell inside
within the first mile, too. Can't recall the trade name offhand.
That was '80s technology. The replica, for sure, wasn't waterproof.

JK

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the
success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved
performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though.
It's
an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the
700
pound
original. (ie wet)


John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
in the admiral's band!

You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?


Absolutely, and it had to make a BIG difference.
Reminds me of the first *water repellant* running suit I bought
back around '82, and it was heavy as hell, dry. Hot as hell inside
within the first mile, too. Can't recall the trade name offhand.
That was '80s technology. The replica, for sure, wasn't waterproof.

We had guys on my wrestling team in high school that ran in those rubber
looking suits to lose weight fast.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather
at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the
success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved
performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about
the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though.
It's
an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the
700
pound
original. (ie wet)


John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
in the admiral's band!

You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?


Absolutely, and it had to make a BIG difference.
Reminds me of the first *water repellant* running suit I bought
back around '82, and it was heavy as hell, dry. Hot as hell inside
within the first mile, too. Can't recall the trade name offhand.
That was '80s technology. The replica, for sure, wasn't waterproof.

We had guys on my wrestling team in high school that ran in those rubber
looking suits to lose weight fast.


With a 28" waist and 145 lbs., training for the "Ironman", it was not
so good, but I sure could use it now! :-)
JK

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off
yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.


I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
to explain that.

Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
flown off Lake Erie in January....

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
Mary Shafer wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit
off
yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.


I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
to explain that.

Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
flown off Lake Erie in January....

--

FF

Had they gotten airborne, Fred, would you have been able to see
them on your Raytheon AN/FPS-115 Phased Array Warning
System? Theoretically speaking, that is.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...k/pavepaws.htm

-Ugly Bob

"Ugly Bob" wrote in message ...


I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
to explain that.

Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
flown off Lake Erie in January....

--

FF

Had they gotten airborne, Fred, would you have been able to see
them on your Raytheon AN/FPS-115 Phased Array Warning
System? Theoretically speaking, that is.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...k/pavepaws.htm


In 1904, no.

BTW, shouldn't you be out malletting some spammers?

--

FF