The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience

Your claims are almost certainly untrue. I'm sure you know this, but are
trolling with more and more of your "Wild claims about German Aviation" tour
(like your claim today on Rec. Aviation. Military that the ME-262 was the
first aircraft to break the sound barrier.) That idea has been soundly
thumped there, so I'll take on this one...

Certainly untrue? Did YOU witness the flight in 1901? A scientific
reporter did and drew a sketch of the aircraft IN FLIGHT. Furthermore,
that FLIGHT was witnessed by hundreds of people in Connecticut on that
day. Second, regarding the Me-262 and Mach 1 there is absolutely no
way for the 1946 US Flight Manual to mention the Me-262 being able to
break Mach 1 in a critical dive based solely on captured German wind
tunnel data as it took a full 11 years to evaluate all that
information. At the time of printing in 1946 Wright Patterson held
thousands of tons captured aviation documents. Sorry, they got that
info from the Germans directly or someone in the US broke the barrier
in a captured 262.

Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible, that
the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low HP
engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical if
you want to fly. Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.

Yet the aircraft FLEW in 1901. The missing design of his engine does
not in any way discredit the flight. Because YOU can't figure it out
doesn't mean Weisskopf didn't build it and use it.

I'm sure you will argue that a couple of groups have built and flown
"replicas" of Whitehead's aircraft? Without drawings or an example to use
as a go-by, claiming you've built a replica is a bit far fetched, especially
when you use modern engines and propellers like those re-creators did. With
modern engines and propellors, you can make any shape fly... Just look at
the Facetmobile and a hundred other not-very-efficient designs.

Perhaps you should investigate the replicas yourself since every
detail available was painstakingly recreated. Remember, the Wrights
claimed the GW NO.21 could NEVER fly based on its design- not the
motor. Again, they were proven wrong. The GW No.21 is pretty close to
the first Taube in basic structure, albeit more primitive... which all
early aviation models were at the time in question.

Finally, if Whitehead got his "airplane #21" to fly, why didn't any of his
later creations fly? Certainly he would have improved his design, rather
than starting with a successful design, flying it a time or two, then moving
on to designs that were unable to fly...

As stated by Weisskopf himself his real interest was in the
development of motors and would leave the adventures of pioneering
flight to others. To have a successful flight in 1901 is amazing in
itself. But that doesn't naturally mean Weisskopf would excel as an
inventor or aircraft designer. He concentrated on different motors but
failed in the US- returning home to Germany. Sad but true. Sort of
like those with one hit wonders that are never heard of again. Nothing
suspicious about that, happens all the time.

Another good angle for you to take would be to ask "There were period
articles written about Whitehead's flights. Certainly you're not
questioning the credibility of those reporters?"... I used to believe in the
accuracy of magazine articles (and newspaper articles too), but after about
the 10th glowing article in Popular Science/Mechanics/etc on the Moeller
Skycar, I realized that reporters get a bit carried away in their search to
either: A) Sell more subscriptions, or B) Be the guy who wrote about the
next big thing that hasn't quite happened yet.

No, there is strong debate going on over those articles and
contradictions; however, the reporter that covered the flight only had
to use a camera to capture the machine in flight and we wouldn't be
having this argument. Sadly, he chose to draw a sketch. That isn't
Weisskopf's fault. And the poor sport Wrights angered over US
disinterest in their designs went to Europe... only to return with an
ironclad "guarantee" of their aviation status based solely on
blackmailing. No "first to fly" no aircraft to be preserved.

Now, run along and dig up some WWII German scientist who, on his deathbead,
claimed that he and Werner VonBraun designed and built the first SR-71.
Which was secreted to the US, but wasn't flown until the 1960's. I'm sure
we'll have fun with that one too.

KB

Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
SR-71. BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2 (aka Peenemunde EMW
A-6). Coincidence? Maybe not...

Rob