Wright aircraft

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...

I've been reading a series of books on the Wright design.

The reason for their choice of a canard is not documented.


That you haven't encountered it in the books you've read does not
necessarily mean it is not documented. It could mean you haven't read all
the documents.

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:20:25 -0500, Margy Natalie
| wrote:
|
| hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at
Kitty Hawk
| didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott
Crossfield
| all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to
disrespect the
| Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).
|
|
| Is this out of politeness to comrades? Or the worship of mystics?

mystical nonsense snipped

I guess he didn't have much to say.

Mike Rhodes wrote:

That was really kind of dumb, wouldn't you say?

The Rutan brothers don't think so.

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".

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:08:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

That you haven't encountered it in the books you've read does not
necessarily mean it is not documented. It could mean you haven't read all
the documents.

That's a true and self-evident principle.

The folks who have worked might and main to dig up all of the
Wright's notes report that they did not leave documentation about
why they chose the canard for their earliest gliders and powered
planes. Once they had experienced a few stalls, they were very
happy that they had done so--that is in the documentation.

Marty

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:20:25 -0500, Margy Natalie
wrote:

hmmm, the first successful flight of the '03 Wright Flyer replica at
Kitty Hawk
didn't end in broken parts (the second did) and according to Scott
Crossfield
all of the flights they make are 119 feet as they don't want to
disrespect the
Wright Brothers. That's the party line and I like it ;-).


Is this out of politeness to comrades? Or the worship of mystics?
This first is understood by all, for most all should know the meaning
of the word 'grace.' The second (if actually taken that far -- and I
think this is much to common), will likely isolate, and recall a bad
connotation onto the word 'comrade.' Even though common (and
therefore 'understood' by even many), I refuse grace at this point.

I know this party line of questioning to be a dangerous one. It is
accusational, and therefore can't help but be disrespectful. But I
don't care about those hurt feelings.
I've learned to have a certain amount of distaste for clubs -- of
any kind. I believe such a group psychology has a negative impact on
everyone. Groups tend to multiply feelings. If good then they heep
them up high. If bad then everyone gets that kind of drunk together.
They don't want that, so, (if they think they can get away with it),
they tend to tell everyone everything is a-okay. Some of us prefer
circumstances to be seen for what they are, not for what they would
have wanted them to be.

All the Wright brothers had to do was observe the arrow, as it flies a
precise flight; and consider what might happen if they changed that
very simple design. And all they had to do was observe the bird in
its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that, and put
part of their tail feathers up front.

Way wrong. Wilbur spent considerable time studying soaring birds. That is
how he came up with wing warping and ultimately controlled flight. He was
also smart enough to figure out the little wings would work on either end
and there is a strong argument that in some cases having them up front is
significantly better.

Just curios, huch much horsepower did the original aircraft have and
how much horsepower does this replica have?

Mike Rhodes writes:

And all they had to do was observe the bird in
its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that,

I'm pretty sure that in fact one or both of the Wrights did spend a
lot of time observing birds in flight, and that is how they invented
wing-warping for direction control.

On 04 Dec 2003 20:54:48 -0800, Bob Fry wrote:

Mike Rhodes writes:

And all they had to do was observe the bird in
its astonishing air-dance. Apparently they did not do that,

I'm pretty sure that in fact one or both of the Wrights did spend a
lot of time observing birds in flight ...

They did, but the records that the left about the value of doing
so disagree. Orville said it did help them. Wilbur said it was
like watching a magician. Only after you already knew what
the trick was could you see it in action. The dates of these
contradictory remarks are from long after 1901, when the
brothers made the fundamental decision to test wing
warping on a 5' glider.

... and that is how they invented
wing-warping for direction control.

The canonical story is that Wilbur was talking with a customer
who had come in to buy a new inner tube. While talking
with the customer, he absentmindedly played with the
cardboard box. He suddenly realized that the box was just
like a biplane glider with the fore-and-aft guy wires removed
and that twisting the wings as he was twisting the box would
present different angles of attack on each side to the
air flow, thus causing one side to gain lift and the other to
lose it.

Watching turkey vultures use their tip feathers to turn may
or may not have helped in reaching this insight. Ideas are
funny things, and they may have a lot more background than
even the discoverer realizes.

Marty

"Victor" wrote in message
om...
Just curios, huch much horsepower did the original aircraft have and
how much horsepower does this replica have?

IIRC...The original had a 12hp engine...sorry, dunno about the replicas
being readied for 12/17/03.

Jay In AZ

Victor,

12 HP. As for replicas, they vary widely. The one flying at Kitty Hawk
now and possibly on the 17th has an exact replica of the original
engine with 12 HP.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)