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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== ================== |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "John A. Weeks III"
writes: 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- I agree. They always knew that the odds of recreating the flight were hugely against them but I am glad they gave it a try in any case. Anyone who can't see and understand that really doesn't appreciate anything about flying to begin with. Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress.... "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 02:23 PM |
Wright Replica Fails to Fly | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 22 | December 23rd 03 03:35 AM |
Will Wright Replica Fly- Who Knows??? | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 5 | December 16th 03 11:36 AM |
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 |