The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience

The key ingredient to both efforts (are there more?)

There are three, but I think the third one is a reproduction of a
1907? Flyer.



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

We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General South
back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for years. Don't
know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

Less rare now than in 1991 at least.

Steve Swartz


"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
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

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message

We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General
South back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for
years. Don't know about the most recently publicized repros, but
methinks thay are not as rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

Less rare now than in 1991 at least.

The issue is the degree of authenticity. There are quite a few
reproductions, but they tend to be modernized (either later models like the
1905 Flyer, or using modern materials, or both.) The goal here has been to
get as close a possible to the exact configuration the Wrights flew in
December 1903.

BTW: There is recent news on the Chicago attempts -- the could not get it to
fly, reportedly due to lack of wind.

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

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General South
back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for years.
Don't
know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not
as
rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

Less rare now than in 1991 at least.

I think the biggest issue is the engine. There aren't many reproductions of
the Wright Flyer powerplant. Substitute a relatively modern design and
power delivery ceases to be an issue.

Minor mods to the original Flyer design could result in a very flyable
aircraft that looked quite authentic, but because of its improvements
(something the Wrights were incorporating in the design after their initial
success) wouldn't come close to emulating the original. So far I've found
only two efforts where the machine is a genuine attempt to reproduce the
original Flyer, right down to its engine.

R / John

John Carrier wrote:

We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General South
back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for years.
Don't know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay
are not as rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

Less rare now than in 1991 at least.

I think the biggest issue is the engine. There aren't many reproductions
of the Wright Flyer powerplant. Substitute a relatively modern design and
power delivery ceases to be an issue.

Minor mods to the original Flyer design could result in a very flyable
aircraft that looked quite authentic, but because of its improvements
(something the Wrights were incorporating in the design after their initial
success) wouldn't come close to emulating the original. So far I've found
only two efforts where the machine is a genuine attempt to reproduce the
original Flyer, right down to its engine.

What I'm wondering is, are any of the replicators also using a catapult,
as the brothers Wright did for initial takeoff?

If not, I suspect they may have a mite more trouble getting off the
ground. 1903 Flyer did not have wheels, as I recall...

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:07:00 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

What I'm wondering is, are any of the replicators also using a catapult,
as the brothers Wright did for initial takeoff?

They used the catapult in Ohio, not at Kitty Hawk. I'm not sure how
much the later Flyer resembled the configuration that first flew, so I
don't know how much it mattered, though.

If not, I suspect they may have a mite more trouble getting off the
ground. 1903 Flyer did not have wheels, as I recall...

That;s why they used a track laid on the sand. Presumably they did
the same in Ohio.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:05 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
right) even unto the engine.

The EAA effort is accompanied by a flight simulator, in which the
public can attempt to fly the thang. Evidently it is hugely difficult,
and experienced pilots climb down from the simulator sweating and
trembling. www.warbirdforum.com/wrightst.htm


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

Cub Driver wrote:
wrote:

know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not
as rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
right) even unto the engine.

Yeah, they're the ones that borrowed the engine jigs from the AF Museum
(the same jigs which are now part of the missing exhibits investigation)
to try to duplicate the power plant as well.

I still want to know if anyone's duplicated the falling-weight catapult
as well.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:05 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
right) even unto the engine.

The EAA effort is accompanied by a flight simulator, in which the
public can attempt to fly the thang. Evidently it is hugely difficult,
and experienced pilots climb down from the simulator sweating and
trembling. www.warbirdforum.com/wrightst.htm


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

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

p.s. Wright lovers everywhere, no offense intended. Their achievement
is worthy but you cannot just ignore other people's achievements or
just blindly accept the "official" history of everything. The way GW
is treated historically is shameful to say the least, deceitful at its
worst.

Walt Boyne was a career Air Force pilot with 5,000 flying hours. He
went on to become director of the Smithsonian's National Air and
Space Museum, founder of Air & Space magazine, and he is
widely-recognized as the world's foremost authority on aviation. He
has written thirty-six works of nonfiction and five novels on
aviation, and is one of the few writers to have been on the New York
Times' best seller list for .. both fiction and non-fiction.

He taps into his skills to explore the psychology of the Wright
brothers .. their family .. and their fierce circle of competitors in
the new book (1) : DAWN OVER KITTY HAWK: THE NOVEL
OF THE WRIGHT BROTHERS .

For years it seemed certain that Samuel Langley, Secretary of the
Smithsonian, would be the first to take to the skies in powered
flight. The French, who had flown the first balloon in 1783, were
determined that it would be a Frenchman who would fly first, and they
considered the Wright brothers of Dayton, Ohio to be liars not flyers,
unable to get off the ground with any aircraft of their own design.

Orville and Wilbur had to struggle against more than gravity--they had
to break the bonds of dominance that their father, Bishop Milton
Wright, exercised over them. To him they were just "the boys"
until well into their thirties, and his word was absolute law in the
tightly-knit Wright household. He would have preferred them to be
lawyers or teachers, and the Bishop watched with cynical detachment
as Orville and Wilbur went from kites to powered flight in their
famous Flyer in just four years.

On December 17, 1903, they signaled the dawn of aviation with their
four history making flights at Kitty Hawk, only to find that no one
cared in the least about their great invention. Even though they were
ten years ahead of all competition, they found that they could
not sell their aircraft to the U.S. government even as Alexander
Graham Bell and Louis Blériot, were plundering their ideas.

The Wright Brothers gave the gift of flight to mankind, changing the
world in ways even they never dreamed of. Walt Boyne's new book
tells for the first time ever the human side of the two brothers.

- Stephen Coonts : "A magnificent novel of the dawn of the aviation
age by the world's foremost aviation historian, DAWN OVER KITTY HAWK
dramatically exposes the humanity, conflicts and genius of the men who
gave us wings. This terrific historical novel is as captivating, and
as revealing, as Gore Vidal's Lincoln. You owe yourself this ride."

[From the "FIGHTER PILOT" email list]