Wright Replica FAILS to Fly

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.

"Michael Starke" wrote in message
news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...

Threre we


There weren't. Sufficient data to create replicas of Whiteheads aircraft
simply does not exist. Craft have been built, with the benefit of some 80
years of aeroengineering knowledge, that resemble Whitehead's aircraft, but
that is all.

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

Except for "arbitrarily", you have nailed it very nicely.

Nothing nationalistic in it, as far as I am concerned. In 1903 my
mother and father were living in Ireland.

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

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

"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

"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. 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,
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

I see that Rob the NAZI is back spreading his unbelievable lies again...first
it was that the Nazi's design a bigger aircraft thatr the Hughes Flying
Boat...but gee, they never built it...now it;s the Wright flyer and the first
supersonic flight.....Hey Nazi Rob, will your buddies be the first on the moon
next?..maybe built the world's fastest aircraft...well, maybe, at least, they
designed it????

Hey, they won WWII also...well, at least they, you, planned it...so that too
make you Nazis right, again...well, at least in you and your nazi friend's
eyes. Any chance you are one of those boys from Brazil?????

Keep on dreamin' Rob....it's really entertaining how warped your mind is...but
even better that you actually put your dillusions in print.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...

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. 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,
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).


No. Didn't happen. No true replica of Whiteheads aircraft has ever been
built or flown. Aircraft that resemble Whiteheads but with far more
powerful engines, efficient propellers, and control systems completely
different from Whiteheads have been flown.

"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.

"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