Wright Replica FAILS to Fly

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

The picture with the article clearly shows an aircraft that is not a replica
of the 1903 Kitty Hawk flyer. This replica had seats for two upright, and
appears to be closer to the Wright's military aircraft of 1905?

Les

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

"Les Matheson" wrote in message
news:4NYcb.18248$a16.4996@lakeread01...

The picture with the article clearly shows an aircraft that is not a
replica
of the 1903 Kitty Hawk flyer. This replica had seats for two upright,
and
appears to be closer to the Wright's military aircraft of 1905?


I believe the first Wright airplane for the military was built in 1908,
which was also their first two-seat airplane and the first that didn't have
the pilot lying prone. But this airplane isn't even a faithful replica of
that one. This airplane has wheels, the Wrights' were still launching from
a track and landing on skids in 1908. This airfoil also looks much thicker
than anything the Wrights' used. T

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

Threre we

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03

"Michael Starke" wrote in message
news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...

Threre we


There weren't. Sufficient data to create replicas of Whiteheads aircraft
simply does not exist. Craft have been built, with the benefit of some 80
years of aeroengineering knowledge, that resemble Whitehead's aircraft, but
that is all.

"Michael Starke" wrote in message
news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

Threre we

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp


No sir , no detailed plans of that aircraft exist, the airframe itself was
destroyed
without these at best you have a modern aeronautical engineers
interpretation
of what such an aircraft MIGHT have been.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Starke" wrote in message
news:gf%cb.434068$Oz4.239319@rwcrnsc54...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep20.html

Awww, too bad. The two Gustav Weisskopf replicas flew easily enough,
proving that the Wrights were dead wrong when they claimed the GW
No.21 CANNOT FLY... just look at the design.
Time to admit the real first to fly sustained powered and controlled
flight was in 1901 with the GW No.21 and NOT in 1903 with the Wrights.


There were no Gustave Weiskopf replicas.

Threre we

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp


No sir , no detailed plans of that aircraft exist, the airframe itself was
destroyed
without these at best you have a modern aeronautical engineers
interpretation
of what such an aircraft MIGHT have been.

Keith

Far from it Keith, they painstakingly recreated the No.21 using the
Pentegon's photographic analysis methods and even succeeded in
procuring the bamboo ribs from the original company that sold them to
Weisskopf and the Japanese silk used for the wings. The only problem
is with the motor, which of course was what Weisskopf was most
interested in and most unique part of the GW No.21. Most people
mistakenly think the guy wanted to be an aviation pioneer. That simply
is not the truth. He built that plane and others to test his motors,
which would have been his personal business if he had succeeded in
that area of development. Aviation, he said, would be left to others.
I have no doubt his motor worked on the original No.21, but even with
modern 10 hp engines the basic layout of the a/c proved sound enough
to fly. The Wrights said that was impossible- and they were WRONG
twice. Two DIFFERENT replicas were built and flown during different
decades with different pilots and they both flew. To me, the GW No.21
is as sound a design as the original Taube (which ironically resembles
the GW No.21).

Rob

I see that Rob the NAZI is back spreading his unbelievable lies again...first
it was that the Nazi's design a bigger aircraft thatr the Hughes Flying
Boat...but gee, they never built it...now it;s the Wright flyer and the first
supersonic flight.....Hey Nazi Rob, will your buddies be the first on the moon
next?..maybe built the world's fastest aircraft...well, maybe, at least, they
designed it????

Hey, they won WWII also...well, at least they, you, planned it...so that too
make you Nazis right, again...well, at least in you and your nazi friend's
eyes. Any chance you are one of those boys from Brazil?????

Keep on dreamin' Rob....it's really entertaining how warped your mind is...but
even better that you actually put your dillusions in print.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...

Far from it Keith, they painstakingly recreated the No.21 using the
Pentegon's photographic analysis methods and even succeeded in
procuring the bamboo ribs from the original company that sold them to
Weisskopf and the Japanese silk used for the wings. The only problem
is with the motor, which of course was what Weisskopf was most
interested in and most unique part of the GW No.21. Most people
mistakenly think the guy wanted to be an aviation pioneer. That simply
is not the truth. He built that plane and others to test his motors,
which would have been his personal business if he had succeeded in
that area of development. Aviation, he said, would be left to others.
I have no doubt his motor worked on the original No.21, but even with
modern 10 hp engines the basic layout of the a/c proved sound enough
to fly. The Wrights said that was impossible- and they were WRONG
twice. Two DIFFERENT replicas were built and flown during different
decades with different pilots and they both flew. To me, the GW No.21
is as sound a design as the original Taube (which ironically resembles
the GW No.21).


No. Didn't happen. No true replica of Whiteheads aircraft has ever been
built or flown. Aircraft that resemble Whiteheads but with far more
powerful engines, efficient propellers, and control systems completely
different from Whiteheads have been flown.