Wright Replica FAILS to Fly

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Michael Starke" wrote in message
news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...

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

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily
enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and
controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the
Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

Threre we

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp


No sir , no detailed plans of that aircraft exist, the airframe itself
was
destroyed
without these at best you have a modern aeronautical engineers
interpretation
of what such an aircraft MIGHT have been.

Keith

Far from it Keith, they painstakingly recreated the No.21 using the
Pentegon's photographic analysis methods and even succeeded in
procuring the bamboo ribs from the original company that sold them to
Weisskopf and the Japanese silk used for the wings. The only problem
is with the motor, which of course was what Weisskopf was most
interested in and most unique part of the GW No.21.


No sir what they did was rebuild something that LOOKED like
No. 21. The photos wouldnt show the details of how control
wires and surfaces were rigged for example nor how the fabric and
bamboo were attached to each other.

Most people
mistakenly think the guy wanted to be an aviation pioneer. That simply
is not the truth. He built that plane and others to test his motors,

That can be done adequately on a test bed, an airframe is
not a requirement.

which would have been his personal business if he had succeeded in
that area of development. Aviation, he said, would be left to others.
I have no doubt his motor worked on the original No.21, but even with
modern 10 hp engines the basic layout of the a/c proved sound enough
to fly. The Wrights said that was impossible- and they were WRONG
twice. Two DIFFERENT replicas were built and flown during different
decades with different pilots and they both flew. To me, the GW No.21
is as sound a design as the original Taube (which ironically resembles
the GW No.21).

Rob

The fact that the design was not adopted by other aviators argues
otherwise.

Keith

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

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


Inetersting article. It mentions an Wright replica that fails to fly yet shows
a picture of a "1903" flying according to the caption. The article mentions
other replicas. Failure of one to fly in circumstances other than the Wrights
experienced proves only that that one failed to fly, not that the Wrights
failed to fly.

TLC had a show of a faithful replica being built. They even built their engine
from original drawings using materials that existed in 1903. They found some
cloth of the type the Wrights used, sent it to an expert for evaluation and had
some made.

An interesting aside is the Smithonian's Flyer is apparently made from parts
from more than one airplane. The show made mention of this if I heard them
correctly.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

Rob

Time for you to go in the killfile, Kraut-eater.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message om...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

Rob

Time for you to go in the killfile, Kraut-eater.

Hey Bill, with all your "hot air" maybe you could just stand behind
the Wright Flyer replica and rant on to generate the necessary lift
for the a/c!
As for the kill file statement- go ahead, I don't care. This is a NG
and it exists to debate such topics as "who flew first" or "who broke
Mach 1 first". So you disagree with me. Fine. If you have to killfile
anyone who disagrees with you then you are childish and immature.
My point above is not to take away from the Wright's flight, only to
dispute their claims that the GW No.1 could not fly based solely on
its design. How ironic that the two GW No.21 replicas did fly while
the Flyer replica fails to get off the ground.
The only true problem with all of this is a single photo of the GW
No.21 in flight. That could have been solved in 1901 if the scientific
reporter for the newpaper article had taken photos- he didn't as he
preferred sketches. That is certainly not Gustav Weisskopf's fault...
but it prevents him from proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the GW
No.21 flew BEFORE the Wrights by 2 yrs.
Too bad we can't time travel back to that date in time and view the
event firsthand; yet, for some diehards on this NG it wouldn't matter.
They just want to forever wave the USA-Number-One flag around and
ignore other nations aeronautical achievements (or to a lesser extent
downgrade them).
But I could care less. Germany is firmly in aeronautical history and
deserves proper credit for their contributions in both war and peace.
Fair enough?

Rob

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in
the wright bros. story.

true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
the wrights' achievement.

historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming
before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening]
rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to
have invented agriculture and the context is lost.

it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the
initial premise.

wrote:

it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in
the wright bros. story.

true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
the wrights' achievement.

historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming
before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening]
rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to
have invented agriculture and the context is lost.

it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the
initial premise.

Here's that shipment of capital letters you've been waiting for - We're
back-ordered on the letters "L" and "Y," so I'll ship the rest of those
later.

AAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH
IIIIIIIIIIIIJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKKKKKKKLLL
MMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPP
QQQQQQQQQQQQRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTT
UUUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVVVWWWWWWWWWWWWXXXXXXXXXXXX
YYYY ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Hope these work.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

wrote in message
...

it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in
the wright bros. story.

true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight.
everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon
the wrights' achievement.

historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming
before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening]
rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to
have invented agriculture and the context is lost.

it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the
initial premise.


The fact remains that there is no credible evidence that anyone achieved
powered, sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air flight prior to the Wrights
achievement on December 17, 1903.

The fact remains that there is no credible evidence that anyone achieved
powered, sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air flight prior to the Wrights
achievement on December 17, 1903.

Just so. (You did neglect to mention "landed at more or less the same
altitude.")

The Wright Flyer *flew*. Anyone who investigates the event at
Kittyhawk will agree with that. Only after understanding that the
plane flew are we required to define what we mean by flight--in other
words, the definition follows the event, as in the case of most human
endeavors. To some that may seem arbitrary; to me it's just the way
the human mind works.

Apparently there is some argument that Scott Crossfield? and not Chuck
Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier, though this is
not a debate that interests me very much. But I have read most of the
standard histories of flight, and despite all the interesting
attempts, I just can't see one before the Wright Flyer that I would
define as flight.

Too bad for Mr. Cawley's coachman! Too bad for Augustus Whitehead! I'm
not even sure I spell their names correctly, because they failed to
achieve flight.

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 in message
...

The Wright Flyer *flew*. Anyone who investigates the event at
Kittyhawk will agree with that. Only after understanding that the
plane flew are we required to define what we mean by flight--in other
words, the definition follows the event, as in the case of most human
endeavors. To some that may seem arbitrary; to me it's just the way
the human mind works.


If that were true, wouldn't Clement Ader be credited with the first flight?
He is credited with being first to leave the ground in a powered,
heavier-than-air machine. He wasn't credited with the first flight because
he did not control his machine. It was known at the time, before the
Wrights flew, that true flight required control.



Apparently there is some argument that Scott Crossfield? and not Chuck
Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier, though this is
not a debate that interests me very much.


I believe you mean George Welch, not Scott Crossfield. There are several
claims to supersonic flight before Yeager, the only one with some merit is
George Welch in the XP-86.



Too bad for Mr. Cawley's coachman! Too bad for Augustus Whitehead! I'm
not even sure I spell their names correctly, because they failed to
achieve flight.


That would be George Cayley's coachman, and Gustave Whitehead.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:08:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

If that were true, wouldn't Clement Ader be credited with the first flight?
He is credited with being first to leave the ground in a powered,
heavier-than-air machine. He wasn't credited with the first flight because
he did not control his machine. It was known at the time, before the
Wrights flew, that true flight required control.

Not at all. If I saw a plane "flying" out of control, I would not
define it as flight.

That's assuming that Mr. Ader, whose name unfortunately has never come
to my attention, is indeed credited with this feat. What sort of a
landing did his uncontrolled aircraft make?

Many years ago I saw a film that consisted entirely of unsuccessful
flights--folks jumping off barn roofs with flapping wings, taking off
in crates that collapsed, etc. About half of them left the ground in a
powered heavier-than-air machine, but none of them flew. Perhaps Mr.
Ader was among them?


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