![]() |
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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11
.... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO, the Wrights lucked out last century with a rail, right wind, and warping experience. The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. The GW No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile- in 1901. The replicas of the GW No.21 flew easily and there is little doubt that a third aircraft with an exact replica of the engine/powered gear mechanism would fly as well... Rob p.s. So much for the Wright's absurd claim that the GW No.21 could NOT fly due to its configuration alone. They were proven wrong TWICE with the replicas that flew in the '80s and '90s. Historically, the early Taube which strongly resembles the GW No.21 also flew easily. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "robert arndt" wrote in message om... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11 ... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO, the Wrights lucked out last century with a rail, right wind, and warping experience. The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. The GW No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile- in 1901. The replicas of the GW No.21 flew easily and there is little doubt that a third aircraft with an exact replica of the engine/powered gear mechanism would fly as well... Rob God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off yesterday compared to what they were in 1903. Are you actually claiming the 1903 flight was some sort of conspiracy theory? Or that the GW flew a controlled, poered flight before the Wright demonstration? You are in need of a few whacks with the loon mallet. Brooks p.s. So much for the Wright's absurd claim that the GW No.21 could NOT fly due to its configuration alone. They were proven wrong TWICE with the replicas that flew in the '80s and '90s. Historically, the early Taube which strongly resembles the GW No.21 also flew easily. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "robert arndt" wrote in message om... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11 ... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO, No they didnt The first crashed injuring the pilot and the team then spent several years re-engineering the 'replica' and they rationalised the differences between the machine they built and the one in contemporary photos by arguing that the photos must represent an early variant of the machine before Whitehead made the changes necessary to make it fly ! Talk about circular logic The flight testing of the second replica lasted may weeks during which the following problems occurred Quote The wings collapsed during initial tow cart testing. The cause of the difficulties proved to be structural deficiencies in both the original design and the reproduction. Whitehead's original design had obviously included too few ropes for the tensioning of the flexible bamboo structure. In addition to this fact, the ropes used on the reproduction machine were constructed partially of elastic material. As a result, the bamboo spars were distorted by dynamic air pressure, and wing form and tension lost. The first practical measurement of lift showed that a speed of 78 kmh would be required to get the projected take-off mass airborne, which meant a power requirement far greater than the Whitehead propeller engine was capable of providing. The first subject for trouble-shooting was the construction of the reproduction airframe and engine, which was obviously too heavy, even based on the technical standards of the turn of the century. The airframe was therefore modified to such an extent that weight was reduced by almost 20 kg, or 11%. A similar percentage weight saving on the engine would have reduced the take-off mass to 3580 kg, with a corresponding reduction in take-off speed required, to 75 kmh. This was still far too high, however, as it meant a power requirement of 20 hp, with no reserve for propeller efficiency. All possibilities of weight saving having been exhausted, a reduction in flying speed was now only possible via improvement of wing aerodynamic performance. The camber of the wing profile installed by the Gustav Weißkopf Historical Research Society was calibrated. The results revealed the risks inherent in reproductions due to deficiencies in construction or historical compatibility, for the wings were found to be completely without camber. /Quote This is just a sample , they made literally dozens of changes to 'the replica' during the course of testing in order to make the thing fly, not least of which was the use of a modern engine and propellors The team themselves were honest about this stating Quote 1. The concept of the Gustave Whitehead Flying Machine No 21 had no inherent weakness which would have ruled out its flying capability. Attention must, however, be drawn to the following points: a. Several modifications were required, as is the case with all prototypes in early stages of development. The modifications performed were of a structural nature, which did not alter the basic design. There is, however, no doubt that the necessity for and nature of these modifications would have been identified and performed by Whitehead. b. The "recreated" flight control as used in reproduction No 21 B has not been verified in the historical documentation included in the referenced literature. I t cannot be identified in the glass-plate photographs due their lack of resolution. However, the flight as described by Richard Howell over a distance of half a mile, or 1,000 metres, would be impossible without flight control, in particular without longitudinal control. It cannot be completely ruled out on the other hand, as the flying machine possessed a considerable degree of inherent stability, that Whitehead could have survived a few hops in calm air without too much trouble, even without active flight control. Attempts at steering by shifting body weight did not provide any evidence of practical value. 2. It was possible to repeat the flights of up to 6 ft described by eyewitnesses, at a take-off weight of 3335 N. The thrust required at brake release was 1080 N, which dropped to 714 N at a flying speed of 52 kmh. (Annex 15, diagram) /Quote See http://www.setp.org/historicalflying.htm for the full report the Wrights lucked out last century with a rail, right wind, and warping experience. The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. The GW No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile- in 1901. The replicas of the GW No.21 flew easily and there is little doubt that a third aircraft with an exact replica of the engine/powered gear mechanism would fly as well... Rob p.s. So much for the Wright's absurd claim that the GW No.21 could NOT fly due to its configuration alone. They were proven wrong TWICE with the replicas that flew in the '80s and '90s. Historically, the early Taube which strongly resembles the GW No.21 also flew easily. The machine built in the 80's CRASHED, I suppose this was easy As I have shown the second replica required structural alterations and a modern engine to be fitted before it would fly and even then the team admit it was not truly controllable Keith |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Marron" wrote in message ... (robert arndt) wrote: The 21st century guys trying to fly that flimsy replica can't replicate the Wright's experience (with their own design) nor the right conditions for the flight(s) in 1903. snip Not unlike frost or ice accumulations on a metal wing, water accumulations on an uncoated fabric wing seriously degrades performance. Water tends to collect in the porous fabric and beads up on the leading edge increasing the takeoff, landing, and stall speeds and also increases the overall weight of the aircraft. The wings were drooping, Mike. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"robert arndt" wrote in message http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11 ... as expected... despite $1.2 mil invested and painstaking attention to detail. At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. IMO, No they didnt The first crashed injuring the pilot and the team then spent several years re-engineering the 'replica' and they rationalised the differences between the machine they built and the one in contemporary photos by arguing that the photos must represent an early variant of the machine before Whitehead made the changes necessary to make it fly ! This sounds a bit like the story of "proving" that Langley's airplane was the real thing before the Wright's. As some may know, Langley's airplane was launched from a platform in the Potomac river, only to do an aeronautical example of a belly flop. Langley claimed the problem wasn't with the airplane, but with the launching gear. A few months later, Wilbur and Orville took off. However, Langley didn't give up. The plane "would have flown" before the Wrights if only the launching gear hadn't broken the airplane. To prove this, the Langley airplane was "flown again" around 10 years later in an effort to keep credit away from the Wrights. Curtis, who had been in continuous litigation with the Wrights (and generally losing), was only too happy to "reconstruct" the Langley aircraft, to prove the "Wrights had no rights", to their airplane patents. The "fixes" included more efficient propellers, more powerful engine, some structural improvements to the wings, and at some point, a pair of pontoons to take off from the water without need of the launching boat. When the "re-test" occurred, Curtis claimed the aircraft did take off and fly for a distance far greater than what the Wrights had achieved. Unfortunately, newspapermen reporting the event from shore reported they couldn't tell if the aircraft left the water or not. If it did, it wasn't very high nor a very long flight. Curtis eventually got the Langley aircraft airborne up towards 3,000 feet on many flights, but it just wasn't the same aircraft as 1903. Of course, Langley was head of the Smithsonian, which accounted for the Wrights getting no credit in that institution until about WWII, when the Wright flyer was returned from England to take up residence in the museum. SMH |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "robert arndt" wrote in message om... At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. No true GW No.21 replica has ever been constructed. The GW No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile- in 1901. No credible evidence of any flight GW No.21 has ever been produced. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message et...
"robert arndt" wrote in message om... At least the two GW No.21 replicas both flew easily. No true GW No.21 replica has ever been constructed. The GW No.21, OTOH, took off under its own power and flew about half a mile- in 1901. No credible evidence of any flight GW No.21 has ever been produced. I think that the final summation of the dilemma is in the fact that although a fair number of pioneers in the 19th century and early 20th managed to make short uncontrolled hops or glides and that some even built aircraft that may have been, given the right conditions, capable of flight - none persevered with their ideas to the point where a viable flying machine resulted. That is one which could ultimately be depended upon to fly nearly every time and which finally evolved beyond a curiosity into a practical tool. Furthermore, like nearly every major invention, the Wrights stood on the shoulders of many of those pioneers, evolving and combining proven technologies to the point where it could all come together in one machine. As for Herr Weisskopf, if he did indeed fly, his publicity department let him down badly. The controversy goes back many, many years - I recall reading something in the mid-sixties where fervent supporters were kicking up a fuss. However, having arranged for his aircraft to be photographed statically, why did he not also arrange for one to be photographed in flight? Strange that. The excuse that he only flew at night is also peculiar. And his witnesses' statements are also slightly less than credible. And finally, having built a flying machine why did he not persist and evolve the thing into a practical machine - and here we really run into some pathetic arguments such as he was not interested in flying, only evolving a motor. If indeed this latter argument was the case he would have done better with a horseless carriage rather than attempting to pioneer two unkowns at once. In the final summation it matters little whether Whitehead did indeed manage sustained, controllable flight prior to the Wrights. He neither exploited it nor documented it beyond reasonable doubt and he certainly did not advance to a point where he could demonstrate his achievement repeatedly. That honour indisputably goes to Orville and Wilbur. Whether the modern replica of their machine flies or not neither proves nor disproves that fact. Eugene Griessel |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: God, you are a sad little cretin. IIRC the wind conditions were a bit off yesterday compared to what they were in 1903. According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance a little. I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an interesting concept, at any rate. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:26:22 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: snip of idiot imnsulting poster According to the guy who owned Learjet for a while, the weather at Kitty Hawk a hundred years ago did make a contribution to the success of the flight. There was high pressure and it was cold, so the pressure altitude was negative. This would have improved performance a little. You mean the guy who invented the 8-track? ![]() I've seen the photos and read the diaries and he's right about the weather generally. I don't know about the barometer, though. It's an interesting concept, at any rate. The flyer probably weighed 1000 lbs, this week; as opposed to the 700 pound original. (ie wet) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Will Wright Replica Fly- Who Knows??? | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 5 | December 16th 03 11:36 AM |
The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience | John Carrier | Military Aviation | 54 | October 12th 03 04:59 AM |
Wright Replica FAILS to Fly | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 36 | October 1st 03 12:51 PM |
Hughes Racer Replica Lost | Wayne Sagar | Home Built | 9 | August 10th 03 01:45 PM |