How Good a Replica?

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Ashton Archer III" wrote in message
m...

Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

The Wright's designs were by modern standards quite
unstable and had inconvenient controls. The brothers
were probably used to these characteristics, from years
of flying in gliders of their own design. The replica has
flown on several occasions before this, but must require
great alertness to fly it.

In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
of incidence became too high, and was slightly
damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
the next day.

Hmm, I thought when I saw the head on camera shot it
looked like he over rotated. I didn't get that impression
from the side angle.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Ashton Archer III" wrote in message

Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

The replica is perhaps as close as one can get to the real thing. The
original one hanging in the Smithsonian was itself patched up by the
surviving Wright brother (forget which one) many years after the event
from memory and with the thinking the aircraft would only be a display
piece, as opposed to a template for a flying reproduction.

But the bottom line: the Wright flyer is a *very* difficult airplane
to fly!

The Wrights had hours of flying time in similarly behaved gliders
before the actual Flyer flight. These guys had become very good at
handling an aircraft before a powered flight.

Some modern pilots (AF, Navy and Test) have tried their hands at
flying various Flyer reproductions over this and last year and
haven't done too well.

Basically, if you fly a Flyer for very long, you *are* going to
crash, so it's no surprise that someone without equivalent flight
time on the machine would have trouble even getting off the ground,
even with favorable flying conditions for the airplane, that
weren't present for the Dec 17 ceremonial attempt.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


....nothing which appears below. If you're going to trim my words please
trim my name as well.



"Ashton Archer III" wrote in message

Is it also true that the reason it won't fly is that modern flyers
can't mimic the Wright brothers art of handling wing warp as good or
that the conditions for modern flight HAVE to be better than in 1903?

The replica is perhaps as close as one can get to the real thing. The
original one hanging in the Smithsonian was itself patched up by the
surviving Wright brother (forget which one) many years after the event
from memory and with the thinking the aircraft would only be a display
piece, as opposed to a template for a flying reproduction.

But the bottom line: the Wright flyer is a *very* difficult airplane
to fly!

The Wrights had hours of flying time in similarly behaved gliders
before the actual Flyer flight. These guys had become very good at
handling an aircraft before a powered flight.

Some modern pilots (AF, Navy and Test) have tried their hands at
flying various Flyer reproductions over this and last year and
haven't done too well.

Basically, if you fly a Flyer for very long, you *are* going to
crash, so it's no surprise that someone without equivalent flight
time on the machine would have trouble even getting off the ground,
even with favorable flying conditions for the airplane, that
weren't present for the Dec 17 ceremonial attempt.


SMH

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:


In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
of incidence became too high, and was slightly
damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
the next day.

Small nit..I assume you mean 'angle of attack'?...angle of
incidence is something else again of course.
--

-Gord.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings,
etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few
thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me,
Stevie.


One does not require any of those ratings, real or imagined, in order to
explain the difference. It is unlikely you'll be able to understand the
explanation, however, because you're an incredibly stupid person.



Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap
fighting contest against a man with no arms.


Oh, we're not arguing. I'm making simple statements and you're making a
fool of yourself.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?


Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you
to have them.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings,
etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few
thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me,
Stevie.

One does not require any of those ratings, real or imagined, in order to
explain the difference. It is unlikely you'll be able to understand the
explanation, however, because you're an incredibly stupid person.

Go earn your A&P, CFII, UFI with fixed-wing and weightshift ratings,
etc. then build a few airplanes and/or ultralights and log a few
thousand hours then come back and explain the "difference" to me,
Stevie.

Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap
fighting contest against a man with no arms.

Oh, we're not arguing. I'm making simple statements and you're making a
fool of yourself.

Arguing about this stuff with you is like having a slap fighting
contest against a man with no arms.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you
to have them.

Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

N912JT based DOWNTOWN

Mike Marron wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

Because you don't wish to operate it in any airspace that would require you
to have them.

Wrong again, Stevie boy. I don't have a transponder and encoder
yet I can (and do) legally operate my aircraft in ANY airspace that I
wish. Now how do you s'pose I'm able to do that?

N912JT based DOWNTOWN

No electrical power?
--

-Gord.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

As usual, you're talking out your ass again, Stevie. A transponder
is not required on the replica because the replica wasn't certificated
with an engine-driven electrical system.


I just posted a message in which I said you are an incredibly stupid person.
Thank you for proving that point for me, I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me
of name-calling.

Being a replica has nothing to do with the need for a transponder and
encoder. Replica aircraft certificated with engine-driven electrical
systems require transponders and encoders just as non-replica aircraft
certificated with engine-driven electrical systems do. Replica aircraft not
certificated with engine-driven electrical systems have the same exemptions
regarding transponders and encoders that non-replica aircraft not
certificated with engine-driven electrical systems have.

The attempted recreation took place in Class G airspace. No aircraft,
replica or non-replica, engine-driven electrical system or not, is required
to have a transponder and encoder to operate in Class G airspace below
10,000 MSL more than 30 miles from an airport listed appendix D, section 1
of Part 91.

Now, being the "expert" on the FARs that you are, tell me what Part this
replica was certificated under.



In the future, please don't
attempt to read the FARS unless you have a CFI like myself nearby
or some other knowledgable person who can explain this stuff to ya,
OK?


A CFI like yourself, if you are a CFI (doubtful), is not in a position to
explain the FARs to anyone.