How Good a Replica?

(Ashton Archer III) wrote:

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?

Doubtful pilot technique with regards to wing warping had anything
to do with it. The weather conditions in the Chicago area on Dec. 17,
2003 weren't the same as the weather conditions in the Kitty Hawk
area on Dec 17, 1903. The Wright brothers would have simply waited
for better weather conditions.

As an aside, if you're interested in flying the Wright flyer on your
PC:

http://www.mywrightexperience.com/

(N329DF) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
were in (see FAR 91.215).

not required as it did not have a electrical system, but it must have had a
waiver from FARS, as it did not have a tach, oil pressure/temp gauge, AS ind,
Altimeter, compass,

Interesting you should mention that. The only instruments that my
first aircraft that I constructed back in 1996 was a tach and an EGT
guage! I flew that airplane for three years without any waivers or
jumping through any legal loopholes whatsoever.


Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

In article ,
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"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.

They intentionally designed for neutral-to-negative stability...

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.

"N329DF" wrote in message
...

not required as it did not have a electrical system,


Not required because it wasn't operating in airspace requiring a transponder
and encoder.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
were in (see FAR 91.215).


If you actually read FAR 91.215 you'll see there is no exception for replica
aircraft.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

Interesting you should mention that. The only instruments that my
first aircraft that I constructed back in 1996 was a tach and an EGT
guage! I flew that airplane for three years without any waivers or
jumping through any legal loopholes whatsoever.


No you didn't, you just don't understand the difference between an
ultralight and an airplane.

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

Interesting you should mention that. The only instruments that my
first aircraft that I constructed back in 1996 was a tach and an EGT
guage! I flew that airplane for three years without any waivers or
jumping through any legal loopholes whatsoever.

No you didn't, you just don't understand the difference between an
ultralight and an airplane.

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.

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

And you're just bein' Stevie. A transponder would not have been
required on the replica REGARDLESS of the type of airspace they
were in (see FAR 91.215).

If you actually read FAR 91.215 you'll see there is no exception for replica
aircraft.

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. 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?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"N329DF" wrote:

not required as it did not have a electrical system,

Not required because it wasn't operating in airspace requiring a transponder
and encoder.

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?

"Ashton Archer III" wrote in message
m...
How close to the original Wright Flyer is the new replica?

Which one?
Some are as close as humanly possible given the level of
knowledge about design, materials and techniques the Wrights
used. I believe this includes the one at Kittyhawk.

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 Wrights chose the day the did to fly because the weather was right.
The day of the attempted recreation at Kittyhawk was a day certain,
"weather *PLEASE cooperate*. Guess what, it didn't.