Wright aircraft

Mike Rhodes wrote:

That was really kind of dumb, wouldn't you say?

The Rutan brothers don't think so.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:26:56 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Mike Rhodes wrote:

That was really kind of dumb, wouldn't you say?

The Rutan brothers don't think so.


Just tell me the canard was an accident, and I'll be happy. I'm pretty
sure that is what it was, despite the silence I hear. But to tell me
that would then empty the reasoning (I think) from a notable part of
the Wright's design.

For the record... I know the canard assists stall characteristics by
stalling first and allowing the nose of the aircraft to drop and
regain airspeed.
And, by lifting up the heavy nose, it also removes downward loading
from the elevator in the rear. This improves the efficiency of
flight. The rear elevator pushing down increases wing loading and
therefore fuel consuming drag. (Equal to ~twice that of the elevator,
since the wing is also support it's push.) However, the moment arm
of the rear elevator is longer than that of the canard. So it doesn't
require as much drag-inducing push. The canard simply compliments the
wing's work in supporting the plane.

Mike

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:20:25 -0500, Margy Natalie
wrote:

hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at
Kitty Hawk
didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott
Crossfield
all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to
disrespect the
Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).


Is this out of politeness to comrades? Or the worship of mystics?
This first is understood by all, for most all should know the meaning
of the word 'grace.' The second (if actually taken that far -- and I
think this is much to common), will likely isolate, and recall a bad
connotation onto the word 'comrade.' Even though common (and
therefore 'understood' by even many), I refuse grace at this point.

I know this party line of questioning to be a dangerous one. It is
accusational, and therefore can't help but be disrespectful. But I
don't care about those hurt feelings.
I've learned to have a certain amount of distaste for clubs -- of
any kind. I believe such a group psychology has a negative impact on
everyone. Groups tend to multiply feelings. If good then they heep
them up high. If bad then everyone gets that kind of drunk together.
They don't want that, so, (if they think they can get away with it),
they tend to tell everyone everything is a-okay. Some of us prefer
circumstances to be seen for what they are, not for what they would
have wanted them to be.

All the Wright brothers had to do was observe the arrow, as it flies a
precise flight; and consider what might happen if they changed that
very simple design. And all they had to do was observe the bird in
its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that, and put
part of their tail feathers up front.

Way wrong. Wilbur spent considerable time studying soaring birds. That is
how he came up with wing warping and ultimately controlled flight. He was
also smart enough to figure out the little wings would work on either end
and there is a strong argument that in some cases having them up front is
significantly better.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:44:58 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:


Way wrong. Wilbur spent considerable time studying soaring birds. That is
how he came up with wing warping and ultimately controlled flight. He was
also smart enough to figure out the little wings would work on either end
and there is a strong argument that in some cases having them up front is
significantly better.


_Only_ up front? Where?
Other than the immobile canard (that is what you are referring
to?), the only other place I've seen 'little wings' up front are on
anti-aircraft missiles. And those are computer controlled. I think
they are movable. Are they, and the Wright's (and those who copied
the Wrights) the ONLY movable forward control surfaces on record? I
would not be surprised if there were military aircraft with such
devices, but they would likely also be computer controlled.

I feel dissed. Felt that way even before posting on this thread. I
have made the decision not to put up with it, even for the sake of the
Wright's. Of course I realized this might make some people angry. So
I approached this subject in a fighting mood. I would prefer not to
be that way.

Mike

Mike Rhodes writes:

And all they had to do was observe the bird in
its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that,

I'm pretty sure that in fact one or both of the Wrights did spend a
lot of time observing birds in flight, and that is how they invented
wing-warping for direction control.

On 04 Dec 2003 20:54:48 -0800, Bob Fry wrote:

Mike Rhodes writes:

And all they had to do was observe the bird in
its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that,

I'm pretty sure that in fact one or both of the Wrights did spend a
lot of time observing birds in flight ...

They did, but the records that the left about the value of doing
so disagree. Orville said it did help them. Wilbur said it was
like watching a magician. Only after you already knew what
the trick was could you see it in action. The dates of these
contradictory remarks are from long after 1901, when the
brothers made the fundamental decision to test wing
warping on a 5' glider.

... and that is how they invented
wing-warping for direction control.

The canonical story is that Wilbur was talking with a customer
who had come in to buy a new inner tube. While talking
with the customer, he absentmindedly played with the
cardboard box. He suddenly realized that the box was just
like a biplane glider with the fore-and-aft guy wires removed
and that twisting the wings as he was twisting the box would
present different angles of attack on each side to the
air flow, thus causing one side to gain lift and the other to
lose it.

Watching turkey vultures use their tip feathers to turn may
or may not have helped in reaching this insight. Ideas are
funny things, and they may have a lot more background than
even the discoverer realizes.

Marty

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:20:25 -0500, Margy Natalie
wrote:

hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at Kitty Hawk
didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott Crossfield
all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to disrespect the
Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).

Margy


Apologies,

I did not mean to be disrespectful to you in particular. The
subject, and your approach, poked at a difficulty I have. And, though
I tried not to be personal, I think I pushed back a bit too hard.
My replies to the replies were less heavy than that to you. So
that may make some wonder. But when I saw how the thread had expanded
(as if I should've been surprised), I kind of wimped out before I
actually read them, and that showed up in my posts. Though I feel a
certain amount of comfort in discussing the subject of the thread, RAP
is not my domain.

Mike

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:39:48 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

(To Margy)

Apologies

But with regard to the rest of the group I think a misunderstanding
remains. (And this should put us at odds again.)
If I see an obvious gap and point at it, and say, "Hey, that's
missing!" then you can be sure I will not accept a dissing "No, you
look over there!", while ignoring my direct question, which is valid.
What you will do is say, "Yep, its missing. Now, this is why..." or
"Yes, this is why we think why." or "You know, we just don't know
why."
If I see something unusual, and am dissed for it for royalty's
reputation, then what I will really want to do is truck over to Kitty
Hawk, find a witness, and then spit on 'hallowed' grounds.
I have no intention of being put down by pilots just because they
are pilots. You may think you rule the skies, but that's only until
you don't survive the next landing. Given the amount of work required
one might wonder who is a slave to whom. You fly for yourself, for
the feeling of self-accomplishment. Good! You also fly for others,
to insure there is a system available that makes it possible for all.
Fine. One thing flying is not is a singular achievement. So pilots
care about other pilots, even unto their manhood. That's natural, I
suppose. But it's also common elsewhere, and therefore ignorable by
those who do other things. Suit yourself. I will, just haven't quite
made it there yet.
I tried to approach the Wright's design question in this group, and
felt I recieved a _deceptive_ response. But now I think they just
didn't know what to say. Apparently that's because no one wants (or
has the guts) to say the Wright's made a rather glaring error.
This question has troubled me for a while. What I've read hinted
there might be a stability problem with their flyer (of course), but
this by stating someone else's design "was stable", without directly
answering any questions that would bring. This is not a difficult
subject! So what do those who should be in the know say, when pushed?
After I queried, and recieved a canard non-answer; then, for just a
moment, I thought men had sent a woman to do a man's job; which was to
defend the "party line." To protect the Wright's reptutation, if
nothing else. (Surely not the canard. Almost no one actually uses
the thing, with the propeller being in the wrong place. Hell, they
won't even use it on fancy jets. Mach drag? Stick pushers.) Anyway,
I feel deserving of the apology, not the other way around. But I also
think many who are in the know don't really know quite what to say.
Please think about it.
I'm beginning to think the Wright's refused the rear stabilizer so
they wouldn't be copying somebody else. It would be their own unique
design, so it would be their 'protected' manhood. What it is is a
silly gap in an otherwise really nice accomplishment.

Mike

I don't think so. Some other poster (I forget who) quoted Peter Jakobs
book and I spoke to Peter on Sat (I love my job!!!). He said that the
Wrights never really made a clear statement, but made inferences to the
canard as saving them from some bad stalls. The '03 Wright Flyer is not
very stable and the Wrights later went on to make other planes that were
more stable. They seemed to stick with the carnard because they felt it
helped them with the stall characteristics. The Wrights are known for
keeping very detailed but sometimes not very complete details. They
didn't want others to know what they were doing.

Margy

Mike Rhodes wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:39:48 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

(To Margy)

Apologies

But with regard to the rest of the group I think a misunderstanding
remains. (And this should put us at odds again.)
If I see an obvious gap and point at it, and say, "Hey, that's
missing!" then you can be sure I will not accept a dissing "No, you
look over there!", while ignoring my direct question, which is valid.
What you will do is say, "Yep, its missing. Now, this is why..." or
"Yes, this is why we think why." or "You know, we just don't know
why."
If I see something unusual, and am dissed for it for royalty's
reputation, then what I will really want to do is truck over to Kitty
Hawk, find a witness, and then spit on 'hallowed' grounds.
I have no intention of being put down by pilots just because they
are pilots. You may think you rule the skies, but that's only until
you don't survive the next landing. Given the amount of work required
one might wonder who is a slave to whom. You fly for yourself, for
the feeling of self-accomplishment. Good! You also fly for others,
to insure there is a system available that makes it possible for all.
Fine. One thing flying is not is a singular achievement. So pilots
care about other pilots, even unto their manhood. That's natural, I
suppose. But it's also common elsewhere, and therefore ignorable by
those who do other things. Suit yourself. I will, just haven't quite
made it there yet.
I tried to approach the Wright's design question in this group, and
felt I recieved a _deceptive_ response. But now I think they just
didn't know what to say. Apparently that's because no one wants (or
has the guts) to say the Wright's made a rather glaring error.
This question has troubled me for a while. What I've read hinted
there might be a stability problem with their flyer (of course), but
this by stating someone else's design "was stable", without directly
answering any questions that would bring. This is not a difficult
subject! So what do those who should be in the know say, when pushed?
After I queried, and recieved a canard non-answer; then, for just a
moment, I thought men had sent a woman to do a man's job; which was to
defend the "party line." To protect the Wright's reptutation, if
nothing else. (Surely not the canard. Almost no one actually uses
the thing, with the propeller being in the wrong place. Hell, they
won't even use it on fancy jets. Mach drag? Stick pushers.) Anyway,
I feel deserving of the apology, not the other way around. But I also
think many who are in the know don't really know quite what to say.
Please think about it.
I'm beginning to think the Wright's refused the rear stabilizer so
they wouldn't be copying somebody else. It would be their own unique
design, so it would be their 'protected' manhood. What it is is a
silly gap in an otherwise really nice accomplishment.

Mike

On CBS Evening News with Dan Rather

It will be worth watching just to see how he manages to put an
anti-American spin on First Flight.

Lessee ...

"Little did Orville Wright realize that his achievement would lead in
less than half a century to the incinceration of Hiroshima by an
American bomb..."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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