If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... it should not suprise you that there is a lot of nationalistic b.s. in the wright bros. story. true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight. everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon the wrights' achievement. historical studies are filled with such arbitrary divisions. farming before egypt and sumer is arbitrarily called horticulture [gardening] rather than true agriculture. thus egypt and sumer can be construed to have invented agriculture and the context is lost. it's called circular logic: the conclusion has been snuck into the initial premise. The fact remains that there is no credible evidence that anyone achieved powered, sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air flight prior to the Wrights achievement on December 17, 1903. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
true flight is arbitrarily defined as the wrights' 1903 flight. everything less is not true flight. anything better simply builds upon the wrights' achievement. Except for "arbitrarily", you have nailed it very nicely. Nothing nationalistic in it, as far as I am concerned. In 1903 my mother and father were living in Ireland. all the best -- Dan Ford email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9 see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The fact remains that there is no credible evidence that anyone achieved powered, sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air flight prior to the Wrights achievement on December 17, 1903. Just so. (You did neglect to mention "landed at more or less the same altitude.") The Wright Flyer *flew*. Anyone who investigates the event at Kittyhawk will agree with that. Only after understanding that the plane flew are we required to define what we mean by flight--in other words, the definition follows the event, as in the case of most human endeavors. To some that may seem arbitrary; to me it's just the way the human mind works. Apparently there is some argument that Scott Crossfield? and not Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier, though this is not a debate that interests me very much. But I have read most of the standard histories of flight, and despite all the interesting attempts, I just can't see one before the Wright Flyer that I would define as flight. Too bad for Mr. Cawley's coachman! Too bad for Augustus Whitehead! I'm not even sure I spell their names correctly, because they failed to achieve flight. all the best -- Dan Ford email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9 see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... The Wright Flyer *flew*. Anyone who investigates the event at Kittyhawk will agree with that. Only after understanding that the plane flew are we required to define what we mean by flight--in other words, the definition follows the event, as in the case of most human endeavors. To some that may seem arbitrary; to me it's just the way the human mind works. If that were true, wouldn't Clement Ader be credited with the first flight? He is credited with being first to leave the ground in a powered, heavier-than-air machine. He wasn't credited with the first flight because he did not control his machine. It was known at the time, before the Wrights flew, that true flight required control. Apparently there is some argument that Scott Crossfield? and not Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier, though this is not a debate that interests me very much. I believe you mean George Welch, not Scott Crossfield. There are several claims to supersonic flight before Yeager, the only one with some merit is George Welch in the XP-86. Too bad for Mr. Cawley's coachman! Too bad for Augustus Whitehead! I'm not even sure I spell their names correctly, because they failed to achieve flight. That would be George Cayley's coachman, and Gustave Whitehead. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message om... "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. No sir what they did was rebuild something that LOOKED like No. 21. The photos wouldnt show the details of how control wires and surfaces were rigged for example nor how the fabric and bamboo were attached to each other. 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, That can be done adequately on a test bed, an airframe is not a requirement. 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 The fact that the design was not adopted by other aviators argues otherwise. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bü 181 replica | Heinz Erben | Home Built | 1 | January 1st 04 11:38 PM |
The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience | John Carrier | Military Aviation | 54 | October 12th 03 04:59 AM |
they took me back in time and the nsa or japan wired my head and now they know the idea came from me so if your back in time and wounder what happen they change tim liverance history for good. I work at rts wright industries and it a time travel trap | tim liverance | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 03 12:18 AM |
Hughes Racer Replica Lost | Wayne Sagar | Home Built | 9 | August 10th 03 01:45 PM |