Wright aircraft

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 10:07:53 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:


It's [the canard] one major ingredient. It seems to have kept them
alive in crashes from altitudes that had killed other pilots.
Other ingredients:

Design of airfoils with the high point closer to
the leading edge. Lilienthal and others had
used circular arcs.


Wow. I wondered where that first originated. The pictures I have of
the Wright's airplanes do not show that aspect of their wing design.
It looks like they kept the wing trim and slim, to reduce drag. But
if they had broadened it a bit it would've reduced the stall problem
even more.

Mike

--------------------

I have an opinion, a 'belief', on the Wright's First Flights. Since
I'm serious about it then some will think it silly. I know that I
have not studied the matter as much as others, but I still think it is
valid. With regard to the aforementioned silliness, my opinion has to
do with mysticism.
The Wright's unusual road to success causes me to wonder _why_ it
happened the way it did. I said it is unusual, but there is only one
part that is, and it is the canard. Everything else they did is,
well, 'logical.' Excepting pure horsepower, I believe it was the
canard that really got flight going.
It would've been logical to put the control surfaces behind the
aircraft, not in front. And to stick with that design. I've read in
this thread where they had engineering reasons, of the mechanical
type. And I've read that there is no known explanation of why they
began with their design. But there are too many aeronautical
examples, having simple reasons, for _not_ putting them where they
did. Just why did they it do that way! I think the question deserves
an exclamation mark.
They seem blinded to the need of stability from the rear. But it
was this blindness that put the canard in place, and actually
_safetened_ the attempt at flight enough so that success could be had.
What I believe is that it was God who blinded the Wright's so they
would do it the way they did. If it was their own intelligence that
solved the launch into the air then I think they would have no problem
seeing a need for the stabilizer in the back, and it would have been
there. The lack of it points strongly at an unusual occurrence. It
points at something they should have seen but incredibly did not. I
believe the lack of that tail feather, as they continued their
flights, was God's mark on that event. Flight, though dangerous (it
can surely kill!), was actually a Gift from God.

Be careful,
Mike

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:39:48 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

(To Margy)

Apologies

But with regard to the rest of the group I think a misunderstanding
remains. (And this should put us at odds again.)
If I see an obvious gap and point at it, and say, "Hey, that's
missing!" then you can be sure I will not accept a dissing "No, you
look over there!", while ignoring my direct question, which is valid.
What you will do is say, "Yep, its missing. Now, this is why..." or
"Yes, this is why we think why." or "You know, we just don't know
why."
If I see something unusual, and am dissed for it for royalty's
reputation, then what I will really want to do is truck over to Kitty
Hawk, find a witness, and then spit on 'hallowed' grounds.
I have no intention of being put down by pilots just because they
are pilots. You may think you rule the skies, but that's only until
you don't survive the next landing. Given the amount of work required
one might wonder who is a slave to whom. You fly for yourself, for
the feeling of self-accomplishment. Good! You also fly for others,
to insure there is a system available that makes it possible for all.
Fine. One thing flying is not is a singular achievement. So pilots
care about other pilots, even unto their manhood. That's natural, I
suppose. But it's also common elsewhere, and therefore ignorable by
those who do other things. Suit yourself. I will, just haven't quite
made it there yet.
I tried to approach the Wright's design question in this group, and
felt I recieved a _deceptive_ response. But now I think they just
didn't know what to say. Apparently that's because no one wants (or
has the guts) to say the Wright's made a rather glaring error.
This question has troubled me for a while. What I've read hinted
there might be a stability problem with their flyer (of course), but
this by stating someone else's design "was stable", without directly
answering any questions that would bring. This is not a difficult
subject! So what do those who should be in the know say, when pushed?
After I queried, and recieved a canard non-answer; then, for just a
moment, I thought men had sent a woman to do a man's job; which was to
defend the "party line." To protect the Wright's reptutation, if
nothing else. (Surely not the canard. Almost no one actually uses
the thing, with the propeller being in the wrong place. Hell, they
won't even use it on fancy jets. Mach drag? Stick pushers.) Anyway,
I feel deserving of the apology, not the other way around. But I also
think many who are in the know don't really know quite what to say.
Please think about it.
I'm beginning to think the Wright's refused the rear stabilizer so
they wouldn't be copying somebody else. It would be their own unique
design, so it would be their 'protected' manhood. What it is is a
silly gap in an otherwise really nice accomplishment.

Mike

I don't think so. Some other poster (I forget who) quoted Peter Jakobs
book and I spoke to Peter on Sat (I love my job!!!). He said that the
Wrights never really made a clear statement, but made inferences to the
canard as saving them from some bad stalls. The '03 Wright Flyer is not
very stable and the Wrights later went on to make other planes that were
more stable. They seemed to stick with the carnard because they felt it
helped them with the stall characteristics. The Wrights are known for
keeping very detailed but sometimes not very complete details. They
didn't want others to know what they were doing.

Margy

Mike Rhodes wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:39:48 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

(To Margy)

Apologies

But with regard to the rest of the group I think a misunderstanding
remains. (And this should put us at odds again.)
If I see an obvious gap and point at it, and say, "Hey, that's
missing!" then you can be sure I will not accept a dissing "No, you
look over there!", while ignoring my direct question, which is valid.
What you will do is say, "Yep, its missing. Now, this is why..." or
"Yes, this is why we think why." or "You know, we just don't know
why."
If I see something unusual, and am dissed for it for royalty's
reputation, then what I will really want to do is truck over to Kitty
Hawk, find a witness, and then spit on 'hallowed' grounds.
I have no intention of being put down by pilots just because they
are pilots. You may think you rule the skies, but that's only until
you don't survive the next landing. Given the amount of work required
one might wonder who is a slave to whom. You fly for yourself, for
the feeling of self-accomplishment. Good! You also fly for others,
to insure there is a system available that makes it possible for all.
Fine. One thing flying is not is a singular achievement. So pilots
care about other pilots, even unto their manhood. That's natural, I
suppose. But it's also common elsewhere, and therefore ignorable by
those who do other things. Suit yourself. I will, just haven't quite
made it there yet.
I tried to approach the Wright's design question in this group, and
felt I recieved a _deceptive_ response. But now I think they just
didn't know what to say. Apparently that's because no one wants (or
has the guts) to say the Wright's made a rather glaring error.
This question has troubled me for a while. What I've read hinted
there might be a stability problem with their flyer (of course), but
this by stating someone else's design "was stable", without directly
answering any questions that would bring. This is not a difficult
subject! So what do those who should be in the know say, when pushed?
After I queried, and recieved a canard non-answer; then, for just a
moment, I thought men had sent a woman to do a man's job; which was to
defend the "party line." To protect the Wright's reptutation, if
nothing else. (Surely not the canard. Almost no one actually uses
the thing, with the propeller being in the wrong place. Hell, they
won't even use it on fancy jets. Mach drag? Stick pushers.) Anyway,
I feel deserving of the apology, not the other way around. But I also
think many who are in the know don't really know quite what to say.
Please think about it.
I'm beginning to think the Wright's refused the rear stabilizer so
they wouldn't be copying somebody else. It would be their own unique
design, so it would be their 'protected' manhood. What it is is a
silly gap in an otherwise really nice accomplishment.

Mike

Margy Natalie wrote:

They didn't want others to know what they were doing.

Later in life, they also didn't want people to know if they got an idea from
someone else. They felt that evidence of that would hamper their patent suits.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".