If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "Ashton Archer III" wrote in message m... Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903? The Wright's designs were by modern standards quite unstable and had inconvenient controls. The brothers were probably used to these characteristics, from years of flying in gliders of their own design. The replica has flown on several occasions before this, but must require great alertness to fly it. In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft, with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle of incidence became too high, and was slightly damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on the next day. Hmm, I thought when I saw the head on camera shot it looked like he over rotated. I didn't get that impression from the side angle. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Ashton Archer III" wrote in message Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903? The replica is perhaps as close as one can get to the real thing. The original one hanging in the Smithsonian was itself patched up by the surviving Wright brother (forget which one) many years after the event from memory and with the thinking the aircraft would only be a display piece, as opposed to a template for a flying reproduction. But the bottom line: the Wright flyer is a *very* difficult airplane to fly! The Wrights had hours of flying time in similarly behaved gliders before the actual Flyer flight. These guys had become very good at handling an aircraft before a powered flight. Some modern pilots (AF, Navy and Test) have tried their hands at flying various Flyer reproductions over this and last year and haven't done too well. Basically, if you fly a Flyer for very long, you *are* going to crash, so it's no surprise that someone without equivalent flight time on the machine would have trouble even getting off the ground, even with favorable flying conditions for the airplane, that weren't present for the Dec 17 ceremonial attempt. SMH |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: ....nothing which appears below. If you're going to trim my words please trim my name as well. "Ashton Archer III" wrote in message Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903? The replica is perhaps as close as one can get to the real thing. The original one hanging in the Smithsonian was itself patched up by the surviving Wright brother (forget which one) many years after the event from memory and with the thinking the aircraft would only be a display piece, as opposed to a template for a flying reproduction. But the bottom line: the Wright flyer is a *very* difficult airplane to fly! The Wrights had hours of flying time in similarly behaved gliders before the actual Flyer flight. These guys had become very good at handling an aircraft before a powered flight. Some modern pilots (AF, Navy and Test) have tried their hands at flying various Flyer reproductions over this and last year and haven't done too well. Basically, if you fly a Flyer for very long, you *are* going to crash, so it's no surprise that someone without equivalent flight time on the machine would have trouble even getting off the ground, even with favorable flying conditions for the airplane, that weren't present for the Dec 17 ceremonial attempt. SMH |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:
In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft, with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle of incidence became too high, and was slightly damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on the next day. Small nit..I assume you mean 'angle of attack'?...angle of incidence is something else again of course. -- -Gord. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Marron" wrote in message ... Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings, etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me, Stevie. One does not require any of those ratings, real or imagined, in order to explain the difference. It is unlikely you'll be able to understand the explanation, however, because you're an incredibly stupid person. Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap fighting contest against a man with no arms. Oh, we're not arguing. I'm making simple statements and you're making a fool of yourself. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Marron" wrote in message ... Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that? Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you to have them. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote: Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings, etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me, Stevie. One does not require any of those ratings, real or imagined, in order to explain the difference. It is unlikely you'll be able to understand the explanation, however, because you're an incredibly stupid person. Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings, etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me, Stevie. Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap fighting contest against a man with no arms. Oh, we're not arguing. I'm making simple statements and you're making a fool of yourself. Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap fighting contest against a man with no arms. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote: Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that? Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you to have them. Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that? N912JT based DOWNTOWN |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Mike Marron" wrote: Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that? Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you to have them. Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that? N912JT based DOWNTOWN No electrical power? -- -Gord. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Marron" wrote in message ... As usual, you're talking out your ass again, Stevie. A transponder is not required on the replica because the replica wasn't certificated with an engine-driven electrical system. I just posted a message in which I said you are an incredibly stupid person. Thank you for proving that point for me, I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me of name-calling. Being a replica has nothing to do with the need for a transponder and encoder. Replica aircraft certificated with engine-driven electrical systems require transponders and encoders just as non-replica aircraft certificated with engine-driven electrical systems do. Replica aircraft not certificated with engine-driven electrical systems have the same exemptions regarding transponders and encoders that non-replica aircraft not certificated with engine-driven electrical systems have. The attempted recreation took place in Class G airspace. No aircraft, replica or non-replica, engine-driven electrical system or not, is required to have a transponder and encoder to operate in Class G airspace below 10,000 MSL more than 30 miles from an airport listed appendix D, section 1 of Part 91. Now, being the "expert" on the FARs that you are, tell me what Part this replica was certificated under. In the future, please don't attempt to read the FARS unless you have a CFI like myself nearby or some other knowledgable person who can explain this stuff to ya, OK? A CFI like yourself, if you are a CFI (doubtful), is not in a position to explain the FARs to anyone. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good plans-built Light Sport Aircraft | Rob Schneider | Home Built | 15 | August 19th 04 05:50 PM |
Free Volksplane to good home, located in Chino Hills CA | Bryan Zinn | Home Built | 3 | July 18th 04 02:55 AM |
bulding a kitplane maybe Van's RV9A --- a good idea ????? | Flightdeck | Home Built | 10 | September 9th 03 07:20 PM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |