Wright Replica Fails to Fly

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11

.... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention
to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO,
the Wrights lucked out last century with a rail, right wind, and
warping experience. The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy
replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own
design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. The GW
No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile-
in 1901. The replicas of the GW No.21 flew easily and there is little
doubt that a third aircraft with an exact replica of the
engine/powered gear mechanism would fly as well...

Rob

p.s. So much for the Wright's absurd claim that the GW No.21 could NOT
fly due to its configuration alone. They were proven wrong TWICE with
the replicas that flew in the '80s and '90s. Historically, the early
Taube which strongly resembles the GW No.21 also flew easily.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11

... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention
to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO,
the Wrights lucked out last century with a rail, right wind, and
warping experience. The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy
replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own
design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. The GW
No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile-
in 1901. The replicas of the GW No.21 flew easily and there is little
doubt that a third aircraft with an exact replica of the
engine/powered gear mechanism would fly as well...

Rob

God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off
yesterday compared to what they were in 1903. Are you actually claiming the
1903 flight was some sort of conspiracy theory? Or that the GW flew a
controlled, poered flight before the Wright demonstration? You are in need
of a few whacks with the loon mallet.

Brooks


p.s. So much for the Wright's absurd claim that the GW No.21 could NOT
fly due to its configuration alone. They were proven wrong TWICE with
the replicas that flew in the '80s and '90s. Historically, the early
Taube which strongly resembles the GW No.21 also flew easily.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off
yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700 pound
original. (ie wet)

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700
pound
original. (ie wet)


John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
in the admiral's band!

Jimmy

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

snip of idiot imnsulting poster

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

You mean the guy who invented the 8-track?

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.

The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700
pound
original. (ie wet)


John, why are people ignoring the weight of the water? (rain)
It seems so basic to me, and I was just a trombone player
in the admiral's band!

You mean the tree hundred pounds I added for the soaked cloth?

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off
yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.


I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
to explain that.

Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
flown off Lake Erie in January....

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
Mary Shafer wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit
off
yesterday compared to what they were in 1903.

According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at
Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success
of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the
pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance
a little.

I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the
weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an
interesting concept, at any rate.


I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
to explain that.

Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
flown off Lake Erie in January....

--

FF

Had they gotten airborne, Fred, would you have been able to see
them on your Raytheon AN/FPS-115 Phased Array Warning
System? Theoretically speaking, that is.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...k/pavepaws.htm

-Ugly Bob

"Ugly Bob" wrote in message ...


I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
to explain that.

Maybe they should have gone up to Toledo, Sandusky, or Cleveland and
flown off Lake Erie in January....

--

FF

Had they gotten airborne, Fred, would you have been able to see
them on your Raytheon AN/FPS-115 Phased Array Warning
System? Theoretically speaking, that is.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...k/pavepaws.htm


In 1904, no.

BTW, shouldn't you be out malletting some spammers?

--

FF

I've also heard that the Wright brothers attempted to fly again in
Ohio in the spring or summer of 1904 and couldn't get off the ground.
Again the difference in elevation and temperature would be enough
to explain that.

Well, they did get off the ground--I think forty-odd minutes that
summer The problem seemed to be that there was no wind on Huffman
Prairie outside Dayton, as compared to 27 mph at Kitty Hawk on
December 17.

The 1903 Flyer was wrecked. The 1904 was slightly different. Some
historians regard the 1905 Flyer as the first real airplane. It could
take off with insignificant headwind.

What made the Wrights remarkable was that they understood the
principles of flight, including the desirability of a headwind. One of
their competitors crashed when he took off downwind, on the theory
that the wind would blow him into the air.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com