This month's issue of NTSB Reporter

I'm sorry, but I have to admit that I had a laugh when reading this month's
NTSB Reporter. In the "Accident Brief" section that flows to the last page
there was a paragraph about a crash of a Wright Flier. Fortunately the
pilot was not hurt.


--
Peter















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter R. wrote:

I'm sorry, but I have to admit that I had a laugh when reading this
month's
NTSB Reporter. In the "Accident Brief" section that flows to the last
page
there was a paragraph about a crash of a Wright Flier. Fortunately the
pilot was not hurt.



Those NTSB fellows are pretty far behind in their workload if they've just
gotten around to a crash of the Flier.

- Andrew

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:05:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Peter R. wrote:

I'm sorry, but I have to admit that I had a laugh when reading this
month's
NTSB Reporter. In the "Accident Brief" section that flows to the last
page
there was a paragraph about a crash of a Wright Flier. Fortunately the
pilot was not hurt.



Those NTSB fellows are pretty far behind in their workload if they've just
gotten around to a crash of the Flier.

- Andrew

There was another one, said to be "Simply what the Wright Bros.
experienced." Happened Tue 25 Nov. Minor damage, about a day's work
of repair. Minor news item, or is it?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11/....ap/index.html


By the way, when is the group going to resolve the unusual fore-aft
design of the flyer? And I don't mean just saying, "Yeah, the
elevator should've been put in the back." But how did it manage to
remain there throughout the life of that one aircraft? (4 short
flights) Did it continue to other aircraft? How many did the
Wright's build? If this has been discussed before (and recently,
given its historical significance) then I apologize for missing it.
If it has not then... well, I don't know what to think.

Mike

Mike Rhodes wrote:

By the way, when is the group going to resolve the unusual fore-aft
design of the flyer? And I don't mean just saying, "Yeah, the
elevator should've been put in the back." But how did it manage to
remain there throughout the life of that one aircraft? (4 short
flights) Did it continue to other aircraft?

It was a common feature of American aircraft for over 10 years. That includes
Wrights, Curtiss, and a few others. Then it sort of died out until Burt Rutan
came along.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:55:50 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Mike Rhodes wrote:

By the way, when is the group going to resolve the unusual fore-aft
design of the flyer? And I don't mean just saying, "Yeah, the
elevator should've been put in the back." But how did it manage to
remain there throughout the life of that one aircraft? (4 short
flights) Did it continue to other aircraft?

It was a common feature of American aircraft for over 10 years. That includes
Wrights, Curtiss, and a few others. Then it sort of died out until Burt Rutan
came along.


Sorry. Though your answer seems to answer, I still think it lacking.
Burt Rutan did not discard the elevator in the back. The canard
and the elevator are not that similar in function, simply because the
canard cannot (and really should not) be adjusted.
The two pictures of the Curtiss'es I just found both have a
horizontal stab in the back. The Curtiss A-1 looks like a Rutan
canard.
I was going to say the Wright Flyer is singular in design, and
unsual. But looking at the other 'aircraft' back then makes the
statement almost laughable. There were some weird things trying to
fly. It could really mess up people's brain just trying to figure out
why they failed.
Nevertheless, it worries me that some refuse to acknowledge a
weakness, and pretend it to be a strength, when that is not what it
was. I think it deceptive, or group hypnosis. In any case, it cannot
be praised.

Mike