The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience

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

"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?

I watched the same show and was impressed by their efforts to
duplicate the Wright Flyer -- esp. the engine as you said (the engine
was built from scratch in Germany). However, I was diappointed when
they said to tune in (next month?) for the next episode as they kinda
left ya dangling...

-Mike Marron

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
programs

Snip

. 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





Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never been in
a plane before to be the pilot.


....or maybe his brother ...



CHeers

Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" wrote:

Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman
who's never been in a plane before to be the pilot.

...or maybe his brother ...

Good point, but unfortunately they're both dead. But as an
avid aficionado of flexwing flight, throw ME in that briar patch!

BTW, when it comes to the '03 Wright Flyer, personally I wouldn't
be so much concerned with the wing warping method of control
as I would the methods of pitch and yaw. Not to mention being
propelled by an engine that has external combustion chambers(?!)

-Mike Marron
CFII, A&P, UFI (fixed-wing, weightshift land & sea)

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Dave Kearton" wrote:

Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman
who's never been in a plane before to be the pilot.

...or maybe his brother ...

Good point, but unfortunately they're both dead. But as an
avid aficionado of flexwing flight, throw ME in that briar patch!


Hmmm, I'd guessed that the originals weren't available. The last of
them died in '48 (Orville ??)

A replica will do.


shifting the thread by a couple of degrees ...

Anybody know the truth in the story about the returning Apollo 11 crew
being congratulated by a very ancient Wright Bros mechanic ?




Cheers



Dave Kearton

Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never been in
a plane before to be the pilot.

The pilot of the Warrenton VA reproduction will be the woman airline
pilot.

(You read it here first!)



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 article ,
"Dave Kearton" writes:
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
programs

Snip

. 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





Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never been in
a plane before to be the pilot.


...or maybe his brother ...

A couple of points, Dave. The Wrights weren't bicycle repairment,
they were bicycle _manufacturers_, designing and building their own
bikes (The Wright Flyer, as a matter of fact) from the ground up. Not
the same thing at all.

They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
before. When they realized that Lilienthal's data was incorrect, they
derived everything from scratch, using various test rigs adn their own
wind tunnels. By 1903, they knew more about air propeller efficienfy
adn stability and control than anyone. They also took teh same
systematic approach to flying. They began flying gliders at Kitty
Hawk in 1900, and spent 1900, 1901, and 1902 perfecting the control of
their aircraft, and learning to fly. (As an aside, that's one of the
things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
(Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitehead, ahd
that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
swimming improved quite a bit, though) After tje extensive
experiments of 1900-1903, I'd say that by Dec 1903, the Wrights had
more flight time than anyone else.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Kearton" writes:
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
programs

Snip

. 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





Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never
been in
a plane before to be the pilot.


...or maybe his brother ...

A couple of points, Dave. The Wrights weren't bicycle repairment,
they were bicycle _manufacturers_, designing and building their own
bikes (The Wright Flyer, as a matter of fact) from the ground up. Not
the same thing at all.

They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
before. When they realized that Lilienthal's data was incorrect, they
derived everything from scratch, using various test rigs adn their own
wind tunnels. By 1903, they knew more about air propeller efficienfy
adn stability and control than anyone. They also took teh same
systematic approach to flying. They began flying gliders at Kitty
Hawk in 1900, and spent 1900, 1901, and 1902 perfecting the control of
their aircraft, and learning to fly. (As an aside, that's one of the
things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
(Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitehead, ahd
that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
swimming improved quite a bit, though) After tje extensive
experiments of 1900-1903, I'd say that by Dec 1903, the Wrights had
more flight time than anyone else.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Why did they choose a canard....seems to me that all the natural analogs
have a "tail" in the trailing position. All the soaring birds and the like.
Was there something about "seeing" the pitch attitude that gave them
confidence in that approach? Regards Pat

In article ,
"patrick mitchel" writes:

Sorry for taking so long for the reply, but there's only so many hours
in the week, and I've had a lot to do at my Day Job.

Peter Stickney wrote in message
They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
before. When they realized that Lilienthal's data was incorrect, they
derived everything from scratch, using various test rigs adn their own
wind tunnels. By 1903, they knew more about air propeller efficienfy
adn stability and control than anyone. They also took the same
systematic approach to flying. They began flying gliders at Kitty
Hawk in 1900, and spent 1900, 1901, and 1902 perfecting the control of
their aircraft, and learning to fly. (As an aside, that's one of the
things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
(Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitheead, ahd
that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
swimming improved quite a bit, though) After tje extensive
experiments of 1900-1903, I'd say that by Dec 1903, the Wrights had
more flight time than anyone else.

Why did they choose a canard....seems to me that all the natural analogs
have a "tail" in the trailing position. All the soaring birds and the like.
Was there something about "seeing" the pitch attitude that gave them
confidence in that approach? Regards Pat

Well, birds with canards, (With the possible exception of the
semi-mythical Woose Grock (Wrongwayus invertibuttacus) or Inverted
Grouse of the North Woods, whose backward flight causes hunters to
pull lead in the wrong direction, and is mostly known by its taunting
call of EEOOOMISSSSDMEE, EEOOOMISSSSEDMEE) have a hard time eating.

Seriously, though, I think they did it for reasons of efficiency. A
fixed wing all by itseld, wants to pivot in a "nose down" direction.

The conventional tail of an airplane or bird balances this by
generatnig lift in the direction opposite that of the wing. So,
although it balances the pitching moment of the wing, it increases the
amount of work that the wing must do. A canard (Forward Stabilizer)
can achieve the same goal while generating lift in the same direction
as the wing. therehy helping out with the lift. The drawbacks are
that the canard can disturb the airflow over the wing in some
configurations, (Or help teh airflow in others), and it adds to the
length of the airplane, since it has to be stuck out far enough ahead
of the wing to get a proper amount of leverage. After 1909, the
Wrights wnet to a more conventional layout, with the stabilizer in
back, with the rudder.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

...(As an aside, that's one of the
things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
(Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitehead, ahd
that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
swimming improved quite a bit, though)...

Manley also designed and built Langley's gasoline engine, and it
was about as good as they got at the time. IIRC, a 5-cylinder
radial putting out 52hp. Wonder what the Wright's could have
done with that engine.