How Good a Replica?

How close to the original Wright Flyer is the new replica?

Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

Will the replica attempt to fly again soon?

Ashton Archer III

"Ashton Archer III" wrote in message
m...

How close to the original Wright Flyer is the new replica?


A very great deal of effort and research was expended to make this replica
as close to the original as possible. Surviving pieces of the actual cloth
covering were examined so it could be reproduced exactly. The sole
surviving propeller was examined so that they could be reproduced exactly,
right down to examinining the tool marks so that the same tools could be
used. Available photographs were enhanced and examined to reproduce parts
accurately.



Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?


No, this replica had been flown a number of times in preparation for the
anniversary celebration. It didn't fly on the 17th because weather
conditions were real crappy.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Ashton Archer III" wrote in message

Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

The replica is perhaps as close as one can get to the real thing. The
original one hanging in the Smithsonian was itself patched up by the
surviving Wright brother (forget which one) many years after the event
from memory and with the thinking the aircraft would only be a display
piece, as opposed to a template for a flying reproduction.

But the bottom line: the Wright flyer is a *very* difficult airplane
to fly!

The Wrights had hours of flying time in similarly behaved gliders
before the actual Flyer flight. These guys had become very good at
handling an aircraft before a powered flight.

Some modern pilots (AF, Navy and Test) have tried their hands at
flying various Flyer reproductions over this and last year and
haven't done too well.

Basically, if you fly a Flyer for very long, you *are* going to
crash, so it's no surprise that someone without equivalent flight
time on the machine would have trouble even getting off the ground,
even with favorable flying conditions for the airplane, that
weren't present for the Dec 17 ceremonial attempt.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


....nothing which appears below. If you're going to trim my words please
trim my name as well.



"Ashton Archer III" wrote in message

Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

The replica is perhaps as close as one can get to the real thing. The
original one hanging in the Smithsonian was itself patched up by the
surviving Wright brother (forget which one) many years after the event
from memory and with the thinking the aircraft would only be a display
piece, as opposed to a template for a flying reproduction.

But the bottom line: the Wright flyer is a *very* difficult airplane
to fly!

The Wrights had hours of flying time in similarly behaved gliders
before the actual Flyer flight. These guys had become very good at
handling an aircraft before a powered flight.

Some modern pilots (AF, Navy and Test) have tried their hands at
flying various Flyer reproductions over this and last year and
haven't done too well.

Basically, if you fly a Flyer for very long, you *are* going to
crash, so it's no surprise that someone without equivalent flight
time on the machine would have trouble even getting off the ground,
even with favorable flying conditions for the airplane, that
weren't present for the Dec 17 ceremonial attempt.


SMH

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

...nothing which appears below. If you're going to trim my words please
trim my name as well.

Indeed yes.

Apologies.


SMH

How close to the original Wright Flyer is the new replica?

As close as humanly possible, if you are referring to the Flyer built
by Ken Hyde in Warrenton VA.

There is one difference: it has a seatbelt, mandated by the FAA.

Any other differences, and no doubt there are some, were brought about
by the lack of information about the original.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

There is one difference: it has a seatbelt, mandated by the FAA.


Seatbelt? The Flyer didn't even have a seat.

Yeah, I heard it had a transponder too, and an altitude encoder, also
mandated by the FAA ;-)!!

John



Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

There is one difference: it has a seatbelt, mandated by the FAA.



Seatbelt? The Flyer didn't even have a seat.

"John Morley" wrote in message
...

Yeah, I heard it had a transponder too, and an altitude encoder, also
mandated by the FAA ;-)!!


You're just bein' silly. They were in Class G airspace, no transponder or
encoder required.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"John Morley" wrote:

Yeah, I heard it had a transponder too, and an altitude encoder, also
mandated by the FAA ;-)!!

You're just bein' silly. They were in Class G airspace, no transponder or
encoder required.

And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
were in (see FAR 91.215).