A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Wright replica fails to get off the ground"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 18th 03, 05:05 PM
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Wright replica fails to get off the ground"

Wright replica fails to get off the ground
One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
and supercomputers. They flopped badly.
at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0138-3678r.htm
  #2  
Old December 19th 03, 12:02 AM
John A. Weeks III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Mike
wrote:

One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
and supercomputers. They flopped badly.


You can hardly hold them accountable for bad weather. The flyer
needs 16 horsepower and 20 knots of wind, neither of which were
present due to the lack of wind, the addition of trees to the flying
field, and the wet weather (which reduced engine performance).
There is a very, very narrow flight envelope for the 1903 flyer,
and those conditions did not exist yesterday. That doesn't mean
that the flyer cannot fly, or that the program is a flop, it just
means that they need to try again some other day when the right
conditions are present.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications
http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================
  #3  
Old December 19th 03, 06:59 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike" wrote in message
om...
Wright replica fails to get off the ground
One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
and supercomputers. They flopped badly.


I'm not sure what "21st century technology" or super computers they
thought was used. Most of the technology was in figuring out exactly
what the original materials/design/construction was. From there it
was pretty much the same methodology the writes used (except for
things like battery operated drills).

Actually, it was only Wednesday's reenactment that failed, first due to
an engine problem and then to the weather that prevented a second try.
They had flown the craft in Novemenber.


  #4  
Old December 20th 03, 12:40 AM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article , Mike
wrote:


One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
and supercomputers. They flopped badly.



You can hardly hold them accountable for bad weather. The flyer
needs 16 horsepower and 20 knots of wind, neither of which were
present due to the lack of wind, the addition of trees to the flying
field, and the wet weather (which reduced engine performance).
There is a very, very narrow flight envelope for the 1903 flyer,
and those conditions did not exist yesterday. That doesn't mean
that the flyer cannot fly, or that the program is a flop, it just
means that they need to try again some other day when the right
conditions are present.


Actually, the Flyer had 12hp *peak* performance from the engine. But
you're right. The replica didn't have the wind conditions the Wrights
had (which was critical to their getting airborne) and it was soaked by
rain, making it heavier. What the replica attempt showed very nicely, I
think, is just how marginal the Flyer was and how the Wrights were
actually very *lucky* to have got airborne in 1903 - something they
discovered to their horror the following year.

  #5  
Old December 20th 03, 02:27 AM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve" wrote in message
...

Actually, the Flyer had 12hp *peak* performance from the engine. But
you're right.


Actually, from talking to the Hay brothers it is likely that the 03 engine
was producing more than 12 hp on December 17 1903. The power
output is quite variable based on density altitude and how long the engine
has been run, the water temperature, etc...


  #6  
Old December 20th 03, 02:50 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron Natalie wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...


Actually, the Flyer had 12hp *peak* performance from the engine. But
you're right.



Actually, from talking to the Hay brothers it is likely that the 03 engine
was producing more than 12 hp on December 17 1903. The power
output is quite variable based on density altitude and how long the engine
has been run, the water temperature, etc...


Quite possibly - it was nice and cold that day, after all. I guess the
truth is, we'll never know for sure because it was such a crude engine
being used under such variable conditions.

  #7  
Old December 22nd 03, 11:56 PM
gatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve" wrote in message
...

Quite possibly - it was nice and cold that day, after all. I guess the
truth is, we'll never know for sure because it was such a crude engine
being used under such variable conditions.


If it flew the first time, every time, regardless of weather, it would not
be an accurate replica of the Wright Flyer and, as such, one might as well
go to the local airport and watch 737s take off all day.

-c


  #8  
Old December 31st 03, 11:03 PM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike
wrote:

One hundred years to the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright soared
into history on man's first powered flight, modern-day aviators sought
to duplicate the feat, with a little help from 21st-century technology
and supercomputers. They flopped badly.


You can hardly hold them accountable for bad weather. The flyer
needs 16 horsepower and 20 knots of wind, neither of which were
present due to the lack of wind, the addition of trees to the flying
field, and the wet weather (which reduced engine performance).
There is a very, very narrow flight envelope for the 1903 flyer,
and those conditions did not exist yesterday. That doesn't mean
that the flyer cannot fly, or that the program is a flop, it just
means that they need to try again some other day when the right
conditions are present.


Poor airmanship trying to take off when the conditions were not right. Is
that not the first lesson we are taught? Poor judgement, trying to be
clever and looking like complete as*holes.
Well done it was a good laugh.


  #9  
Old January 1st 04, 04:55 PM
John A. Weeks III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Dave
wrote:

Poor airmanship trying to take off when the conditions were not right. Is
that not the first lesson we are taught? Poor judgement, trying to be
clever and looking like complete as*holes.
Well done it was a good laugh.


The hope was to replicate the Wright flight on the day/time/place
of the historic flights from 1903. 40,000 people had traveled great
distances and waited hours in the rain. The flight team wanted to
at least give one flight a shot, despite the problems that they knew
of. I would think that you would congradulate them on taking a
gool old college try at the flight rather making fun of them. It
is easy to sit on the sidelines and take shots at others when you
haven't done anything of any significance yourself.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications
http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================
  #10  
Old January 1st 04, 06:50 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave" wrote in message ...

Poor airmanship trying to take off when the conditions were not right. Is
that not the first lesson we are taught? Poor judgement, trying to be
clever and looking like complete as*holes.
Well done it was a good laugh.

Relatively harmless....the thing even in the best of circumstances wasn't going to
get more than a few feet off the ground and moving at less than 30 MPH.
"Good Airmanship" would tell you not to get in the danged contraption.
Kevin at least, unlike Orville, was wearing a helmet.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Even Wright 1905 Flyer Replica Fails to Fly robert arndt Military Aviation 1 December 24th 03 03:23 PM
Wright Replica Fails to Fly robert arndt Military Aviation 22 December 23rd 03 04:35 AM
Will Wright Replica Fly- Who Knows??? robert arndt Military Aviation 5 December 16th 03 12:36 PM
Wright Replica FAILS to Fly robert arndt Military Aviation 36 October 1st 03 12:51 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.