The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:05 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
right) even unto the engine.

The EAA effort is accompanied by a flight simulator, in which the
public can attempt to fly the thang. Evidently it is hugely difficult,
and experienced pilots climb down from the simulator sweating and
trembling. www.warbirdforum.com/wrightst.htm


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

John Carrier wrote:

We had three (one was a 1907 repro) opn the ramp at Dayton General South
back in 1991. Local retired USAF 0-6 has been flying his for years.
Don't know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay
are not as rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

Less rare now than in 1991 at least.

I think the biggest issue is the engine. There aren't many reproductions
of the Wright Flyer powerplant. Substitute a relatively modern design and
power delivery ceases to be an issue.

Minor mods to the original Flyer design could result in a very flyable
aircraft that looked quite authentic, but because of its improvements
(something the Wrights were incorporating in the design after their initial
success) wouldn't come close to emulating the original. So far I've found
only two efforts where the machine is a genuine attempt to reproduce the
original Flyer, right down to its engine.

What I'm wondering is, are any of the replicators also using a catapult,
as the brothers Wright did for initial takeoff?

If not, I suspect they may have a mite more trouble getting off the
ground. 1903 Flyer did not have wheels, as I recall...

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Cub Driver wrote:
wrote:

know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not
as rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
right) even unto the engine.

Yeah, they're the ones that borrowed the engine jigs from the AF Museum
(the same jigs which are now part of the missing exhibits investigation)
to try to duplicate the power plant as well.

I still want to know if anyone's duplicated the falling-weight catapult
as well.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:05 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
right) even unto the engine.

The EAA effort is accompanied by a flight simulator, in which the
public can attempt to fly the thang. Evidently it is hugely difficult,
and experienced pilots climb down from the simulator sweating and
trembling. www.warbirdforum.com/wrightst.htm


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

Big deal. Historic replicas of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
No.21 have flown in both the '80s and '90s- the latter by a Luftwaffe
pilot. The Wrights dismissed the aircraft as having flown first due to
its design... which they claimed "could never fly". The original
flight and the two replicas proved them wrong. The fact that the NASM
continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
began is BS. It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.
If only the scientific reporter of that flight had used a camera
instead of a sketch of that flight aviation history would be very
different. But of course Weisskopf was a German immigrant and not
intent on pioneering aviation; rather, he was fixated on engine
development which failed in the US. Returning to Germany after never
achieving US citizenship, Weisskof died... and was soon forgotten by
everyone except for those in Germany.
His name deserves to be up there with Lilienthal and Zeppelin. But
America will never see it no matter what the evidence. Even if his
exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew the
Wright myth will continue on just like the Yeager myth of breaking
Mach 1 first.
When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
latter.

Rob

p.s. Wright lovers everywhere, no offense intended. Their achievement
is worthy but you cannot just ignore other people's achievements or
just blindly accept the "official" history of everything. The way GW
is treated historically is shameful to say the least, deceitful at its
worst.

Walt Boyne was a career Air Force pilot with 5,000 flying hours. He
went on to become director of the Smithsonian's National Air and
Space Museum, founder of Air & Space magazine, and he is
widely-recognized as the world's foremost authority on aviation. He
has written thirty-six works of nonfiction and five novels on
aviation, and is one of the few writers to have been on the New York
Times' best seller list for .. both fiction and non-fiction.

He taps into his skills to explore the psychology of the Wright
brothers .. their family .. and their fierce circle of competitors in
the new book (1) : DAWN OVER KITTY HAWK: THE NOVEL
OF THE WRIGHT BROTHERS .

For years it seemed certain that Samuel Langley, Secretary of the
Smithsonian, would be the first to take to the skies in powered
flight. The French, who had flown the first balloon in 1783, were
determined that it would be a Frenchman who would fly first, and they
considered the Wright brothers of Dayton, Ohio to be liars not flyers,
unable to get off the ground with any aircraft of their own design.

Orville and Wilbur had to struggle against more than gravity--they had
to break the bonds of dominance that their father, Bishop Milton
Wright, exercised over them. To him they were just "the boys"
until well into their thirties, and his word was absolute law in the
tightly-knit Wright household. He would have preferred them to be
lawyers or teachers, and the Bishop watched with cynical detachment
as Orville and Wilbur went from kites to powered flight in their
famous Flyer in just four years.

On December 17, 1903, they signaled the dawn of aviation with their
four history making flights at Kitty Hawk, only to find that no one
cared in the least about their great invention. Even though they were
ten years ahead of all competition, they found that they could
not sell their aircraft to the U.S. government even as Alexander
Graham Bell and Louis Blériot, were plundering their ideas.

The Wright Brothers gave the gift of flight to mankind, changing the
world in ways even they never dreamed of. Walt Boyne's new book
tells for the first time ever the human side of the two brothers.

- Stephen Coonts : "A magnificent novel of the dawn of the aviation
age by the world's foremost aviation historian, DAWN OVER KITTY HAWK
dramatically exposes the humanity, conflicts and genius of the men who
gave us wings. This terrific historical novel is as captivating, and
as revealing, as Gore Vidal's Lincoln. You owe yourself this ride."

[From the "FIGHTER PILOT" email list]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:07:00 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

What I'm wondering is, are any of the replicators also using a catapult,
as the brothers Wright did for initial takeoff?

They used the catapult in Ohio, not at Kitty Hawk. I'm not sure how
much the later Flyer resembled the configuration that first flew, so I
don't know how much it mattered, though.

If not, I suspect they may have a mite more trouble getting off the
ground. 1903 Flyer did not have wheels, as I recall...

That;s why they used a track laid on the sand. Presumably they did
the same in Ohio.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...


Big deal. Historic replicas of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
No.21 have flown in both the '80s and '90s- the latter by a Luftwaffe
pilot. The Wrights dismissed the aircraft as having flown first due to
its design... which they claimed "could never fly". The original
flight and the two replicas proved them wrong. The fact that the NASM
continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
began is BS. It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.
If only the scientific reporter of that flight had used a camera
instead of a sketch of that flight aviation history would be very
different. But of course Weisskopf was a German immigrant and not
intent on pioneering aviation; rather, he was fixated on engine
development which failed in the US. Returning to Germany after never
achieving US citizenship, Weisskof died... and was soon forgotten by
everyone except for those in Germany.
His name deserves to be up there with Lilienthal and Zeppelin. But
America will never see it no matter what the evidence. Even if his
exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew the
Wright myth will continue on just like the Yeager myth of breaking
Mach 1 first.
When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
latter.

Rob

Rob,

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

In article ,
"Dave Kearton" writes:
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
programs

Snip

. The
apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria)
looks
like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized
technique
compared to conventional aircraft.

Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?

R / John





Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never been in
a plane before to be the pilot.


...or maybe his brother ...

A couple of points, Dave. The Wrights weren't bicycle repairment,
they were bicycle _manufacturers_, designing and building their own
bikes (The Wright Flyer, as a matter of fact) from the ground up. Not
the same thing at all.

They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
before. When they realized that Lilienthal's data was incorrect, they
derived everything from scratch, using various test rigs adn their own
wind tunnels. By 1903, they knew more about air propeller efficienfy
adn stability and control than anyone. They also took teh same
systematic approach to flying. They began flying gliders at Kitty
Hawk in 1900, and spent 1900, 1901, and 1902 perfecting the control of
their aircraft, and learning to fly. (As an aside, that's one of the
things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
(Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitehead, ahd
that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
swimming improved quite a bit, though) After tje extensive
experiments of 1900-1903, I'd say that by Dec 1903, the Wrights had
more flight time than anyone else.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

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...

Just so. It's like the European "discoveries" of the Americas before
Columbus. If it's not provable, and if it led to nothing, then it
might as well not have happened.

Perhaps in the case of Columbus we use the wrong word, and "opening"
is what he did. And in the case of the Wrights, perhaps what we mean
is "they achieved replicable powered flight." But that is a bit long
to go on a postage stamp.

The Wrights were the first to fly. Put as many asterisks after it as
you like, having to do with power / proof / whatever, but they were
the first to fly.

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

Peter Stickney wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Kearton" writes:
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of
programs

Snip

. The
apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria)
looks
like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized
technique
compared to conventional aircraft.

Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort?

R / John





Would make more sense (maybe) to get a bicycle repairman who's never
been in
a plane before to be the pilot.


...or maybe his brother ...

A couple of points, Dave. The Wrights weren't bicycle repairment,
they were bicycle _manufacturers_, designing and building their own
bikes (The Wright Flyer, as a matter of fact) from the ground up. Not
the same thing at all.

They also took the most systematic and scientific approach to solving
the problem of heavier than air flight than anybody who'd gone
before. When they realized that Lilienthal's data was incorrect, they
derived everything from scratch, using various test rigs adn their own
wind tunnels. By 1903, they knew more about air propeller efficienfy
adn stability and control than anyone. They also took teh same
systematic approach to flying. They began flying gliders at Kitty
Hawk in 1900, and spent 1900, 1901, and 1902 perfecting the control of
their aircraft, and learning to fly. (As an aside, that's one of the
things that amazes me about nearly all of the early experimenters,
(Adler, Langley, Maxim), or would-be experimenters (Whitehead, ahd
that bloke in New Zealand whose name escapes me at the moment) All of
them seemed to be of the idea that all they had to do was build their
machine, jump into it, and fly it. It doesn't work that way,
especially with the poor understanding of stability, and lack of
3-axis control that they had. Manley's (Langley's Test Pilot)
swimming improved quite a bit, though) After tje extensive
experiments of 1900-1903, I'd say that by Dec 1903, the Wrights had
more flight time than anyone else.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Why did they choose a canard....seems to me that all the natural analogs
have a "tail" in the trailing position. All the soaring birds and the like.
Was there something about "seeing" the pitch attitude that gave them
confidence in that approach? Regards Pat