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