cliff wright wrote:

wright1902glider wrote:

On Oct 15, 9:13 am, MikeMl wrote:

cliff wright wrote:

Good day all!
There were several projects that I know of to fly a reproduction of the
Wright's 1903 "Flyer" back in the centenary year.
However all those that I know of failed to leave the ground....



Cliff,

Assuming you are refferring to acurate reproduction 1903 Wright
machines, built to the Smithsonian blueprints with corrections added
from the historical record in McFarland (yes, I know about the rear
spar issue in the blueprints), then I believe the answer is three. To
my knowledge, Wright Redux (Chicago Museum of Science & Industry) was
first in 2003, followed by The Wright Experience / Ken Hyde (Ford
Motor Co, et al), and The Wright Brothers Airplane Company / Nick
Engler (private, Dayton OH). I've seen photos and/or video of all
three flying under control. Granted, the 1903 machine is quite
possibly the worst-flying, most ill-handling airplane ever conceived.
But it can be flown with control for sustained periods (around a
minute) and it can turn although not very well.

The Pearse question comes up every few years and I ask the same
questions each time without answer. If Pearse was first, please direct
me to a photo of his machine in the air and provide evidence as to the
date of the event. Please also provide evidence that Pearse has a
functioning system of control that can be replicated and demonstrated.
Its not that I doubt that Pearse flew, I've just never seen
satisfactory proof that he was first.

With the Wrights, proof is easy. There are over 300 photos of thier
flying machines in the air. I can think of 5 of the 1903 machine
alone. The remainder are of the gliders which all flew. And in the
case of the 1902 glider, flew a lot better than the 1903 but without
power. I've got a 1902 in my garage and yes, it does fly. The Wright
flights were also witnessed by several people which were photographed
on Dec. 17 with the plane. One witness, John Daniels, is responsible
for the famous photo. Another, Johnny Moore, delivered the news to the
local paper.

More importantly though, the Wrights had two things that no one else
can prove they had at the time. First is a scientific knowledge of
aerodynamics. The first accurate wind tunnel tests of airfoils were
conducted in a home-built wind tunnel by Wilbur Wright in 1901. The
balance aparatii still exsist and many working models have been built
that return the same scientific results. (I've got a repro.of the 1901
bicycle test that works too.) Second, the Wrights had a functional
system of control which is the direct ancestor of modern 3-axis
control. There was an elevator. There was wing-warping (later replaced
with Curtiss's alerions since they could be scaled to larger
aircraft). And, starting in 1902 there was a rudder. And if there are
any doubts about how well that system worked in 1902, I would
recommend looking at the flights of the reproduction 1902 gliders.
I've seen all but one of the flying examples and each is historically
accurate. All demonstrate the same flying characteristics. I can
personally testify that elevator authority is much too good while roll
and yaw authority are marginal and slow. But they are there.

As for the horsepower issue, several machines made more than the
1903-4 Wright. Langley's Manly 5 cyl radial made 24 HP. Pearse's
(claimed to make) 35 HP. And the King of them all, Sir Hiriam Maxim's
1893 machine made 360 HP. Yea, three hundred and sixty horsepower from
two 180 HP STEAM engines! And Maxim did get off the ground, but didn't
have control and crashed into a tree.

So Kiwi's, get on it. Go dig up that photo. Go find those blueprints
and notes. Go build an acurate reproduction of Pearse's machine. Go
see if it flies. Go see if their is enough science in it to
demonstrate that Pearse built improved versions that flew well. Then
shoot me an email with the results so I can add them to my airshow
exhibit.

And remember, the standard applied to the Wright "whopper flying
machine" (thier actual name for it) is a manned, sustained,
controlled, powered flight, using engine power alone, and landing at a
point no lower than the starting point. Photos, witnesses, and
repeatable results will greatly help your cause.

Scott D. "Harry" Frey
Wright Brothers Enterprises

Wright 1902 glider, airframe #8
Wright 1899 kite
Wright 1878 bat
Wright 1901 bicycle aparatus

ps: To maintain positive family relations during this process, do not
build your wings in the living room.



Well Scott we hardly disagree at all in fact. I don't maintain that
Pearse's crude monoplane made a controlled flight in 1903 at all.
However his quite powerful and light engine did drag the contraption
into the air for up to 200 metres on one occasion somewhere around june
1903. There were several witnesses to that hop, but as you say no cameras.
I've visited the site of Pearse's "Flight" and IMO he did at least as
well as Santos Dumont in the 14bis in 1906. They were both clumsy hops.
He just didn't get the idea of a tail. and his airfoils were courtesy of
Sir George Caley but nearly 35 Hp of light engine made up for a lot.
However "if" he had thought of a cruciform tail history might well have
been different. My models I made years ago and research at Auckland
University back in the 1970's seemed to show that Pearse with a tail
would have had a crude but flyable machine back in 1903. What influence
this would have had is another matter as he was very isolated down in
Timaru and almost as secretive as the Wright's became later.

As you rightly (hi) say the Wright's were technically infinitely
superior and did enough research to show just where the current
"knowledge" was wrong, for themselves.
Their main problem was their engine with the 1903 machine. It was just
too heavy for the power it generated. From memory the Balzer/Manly
radial from Langley's "Aerodrome" and Pearse's little double acting
opposed twin both had a superior power/weight ratio of several times,
It has always seemed to me that the engine was almost an afterthought
despite the tremendous effort their mechanic put into hand building it.
From my reading the "tip drag" phenomenom of the 1904 machine can be
traced to lack of power and flying speed as much as anything.
That's why my thesis is that the 1905 machine as flown at the Huffman
prairie near Dayton is the world's first fully controllable and
effective airplane in history.

And with its inadequate engine the 1903 "Flyer" was still in only a
slightly superior situation. However it was much better in overall
design and capable of being developed into a practical airplane.

BTW how does the 1902 glider perform? It has always looked like a very
attractive machine.
One last question- Have you got any web sites for the flyers which flew?
I ask this because one I was pointed to used Carbon Fibre and foam in
the construction!!! A bit like Glenn Curtis and the "improved" Aerodrome
in 1914, I reckon.
My only effert in home built aircraft was a little 17 foot span canard
monoplane glider I built for my son 30 years ago. We lived by the sea
then with a big expanse of sand at low tide and flying it as a kite he
got several feet off the ground to his great delight (He was 9 at the
time). Since it was, apart from the main spar built of old TV antennas
and covered with Indian cailico it wasn't to bad and a lot of fun.
Best Regards Cliff Wright Helensville New Zealand.

PS. Just reread your posting and I seemed to remember that according to
the Smithsonian "Annals of Flight" the Balzer/Manly actually reached
over 50 HP. Of course the Smithsonian do have a slightly "dodgy"
reputation vis-a-vis the Brothers.