"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,

No they didnt

The first crashed injuring the pilot and the team then spent several years
re-engineering the 'replica' and they rationalised the differences between
the machine they built and the one in contemporary photos by arguing
that the photos must represent an early variant of the machine before
Whitehead made the changes necessary to make it fly !

Talk about circular logic

The flight testing of the second replica lasted may weeks during
which the following problems occurred

Quote

The wings collapsed during initial tow cart testing. The cause
of the difficulties proved to be structural deficiencies in both
the original design and the reproduction.

Whitehead's original design had obviously included too few
ropes for the tensioning of the flexible bamboo structure.
In addition to this fact, the ropes used on the reproduction machine
were constructed partially of elastic material. As a result, the bamboo
spars were distorted by dynamic air pressure, and wing form and tension
lost.

The first practical measurement of lift showed that a speed of 78 kmh
would be required to get the projected take-off mass airborne, which
meant a power requirement far greater than the Whitehead propeller
engine was capable of providing.

The first subject for trouble-shooting was the construction of the
reproduction airframe and engine, which was obviously too heavy,
even based on the technical standards of the turn of the century.

The airframe was therefore modified to such an extent that weight
was reduced by almost 20 kg, or 11%.

A similar percentage weight saving on the engine would have
reduced the take-off mass to 3580 kg, with a corresponding
reduction in take-off speed required, to 75 kmh. This was still
far too high, however, as it meant a power requirement of 20 hp,
with no reserve for propeller efficiency.

All possibilities of weight saving having been exhausted, a
reduction in flying speed was now only possible via
improvement of wing aerodynamic performance.

The camber of the wing profile installed by the Gustav Weißkopf
Historical Research Society was calibrated.

The results revealed the risks inherent in reproductions due to
deficiencies in construction or historical compatibility, for
the wings were found to be completely without camber.
/Quote

This is just a sample , they made literally dozens of changes to
'the replica' during the course of testing in order to make the
thing fly, not least of which was the use of a modern engine and propellors

The team themselves were honest about this stating

Quote
1. The concept of the Gustave Whitehead Flying Machine No 21
had no inherent weakness which would have ruled out its flying capability.

Attention must, however, be drawn to the following points:

a. Several modifications were required, as is the case with all prototypes
in early stages of development. The modifications performed were
of a structural nature, which did not alter the basic design. There is,
however, no doubt that the necessity for and nature of these
modifications would have been identified and performed by Whitehead.

b. The "recreated" flight control as used in reproduction No 21 B has not
been
verified in the historical documentation included in the referenced
literature. I
t cannot be identified in the glass-plate photographs due their lack of
resolution.
However, the flight as described by Richard Howell over a distance of half a
mile,
or 1,000 metres, would be impossible without flight control, in particular
without
longitudinal control. It cannot be completely ruled out on the other hand,
as the
flying machine possessed a considerable degree of inherent stability, that
Whitehead
could have survived a few hops in calm air without too much trouble,
even without active flight control. Attempts at steering by shifting body
weight
did not provide any evidence of practical value.

2. It was possible to repeat the flights of up to 6 ft described by
eyewitnesses,
at a take-off weight of 3335 N. The thrust required at brake release was
1080 N, which dropped to 714 N at a flying speed of 52 kmh. (Annex 15,
diagram)
/Quote

See http://www.setp.org/historicalflying.htm
for the full report

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.

The machine built in the 80's CRASHED, I suppose this was easy
As I have shown the second replica required structural alterations
and a modern engine to be fitted before it would fly and even then
the team admit it was not truly controllable

Keith