Wright Flyer won't fly!

"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message
...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:e%Vib.558417$Oz4.511309@rwcrnsc54...
Where'd you hear this? I'd like to learn more.

mike regish

I heard it on a local radio station, WPTF out of Raleigh NC. I just heard
it
again. This time they said they are packing up and heading home after they
couldn't get it to fly. I'll try to find something on the web....

Here it is:

quote

Wright flyer replica doesn't get off the ground


The Associated Press

DAYTON, Ohio (AP) - A group that built a replica of the Wright brothers'
first airplane is headed home after it was unable to get the plane off the
ground in North Carolina, a spokeswoman said.
The Wright Brothers Aeroplane Co. tried for five days to launch the replica
Wright Flyer, said spokeswoman Marion Schniegenberg. But they were
unsuccessful and were packing up their equipment on Monday.
"Bottom line is, after five days, we did not achieve a successful, sustained
flight," Schniegenberg said.

The group built the flyer in Dayton and trucked it last week to Currituck
County Airport, about 40 miles from Kitty Hawk, where Orville and Wilbur
Wright made the first powered flights in 1903. They invented the airplane in
their hometown of Dayton.

The aeroplane company's director Nick Engler said last week that the flyer
was making short hops of about 10 feet off the ground but that there wasn't
enough wind to keep it airborne.

The Wright brothers made four flights against winds of about 25 mph.

---

On the Net:

Wright Brothers Aeroplane Co.: www.wright-brothers.org

unquote

It would appear that this isn't the only replica, but being the one from the
Wright Brothers Aeroplane Co., it would seem the most "official".

-Trent

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:24:01 GMT, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

A few things, primarily building on the fact that the flyer's abiltiy to fly
was extremely marginal...

1) What was the density altitude of the first flight, and what was it on
the replica's attempt?
2) How accurate is the replica? Could it be heavier or maybe the engine or
props are not quite as efficient?
3) The Flyer also failed to fly on its first attempt, resulting in some
damage. On the 17th they had it repaired AND they had more wind. It flew
that day. How much wind did they have for the replica's flight?

In this recreation, a few percentage points of performance means everything.
There are probably a hundred minor issues which could result in the replica
not flying.

KB

Not only was the original marginal in it's ability to fly, the
conditions on the day it made the attempt had winds at 27 mph. The
current replica is built so accurately that it likely needs that kind
of wind too. Or more power. But with more power, it isn't really
like the original...

Corky Scott

The way I heard it, they will only attempt to fly it if the conditions
are just right. Enough wind, but not too much etc... The likelyhood of that
happening on the exact day is a gamble. I won't be suprised if they don't
even make the attempt.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message
...
I just heard that the Ohio group that has built a Wright Flyer replica
and
took it down to Kitty Hawk couldn't get it to fly. I understand this to
be
practice flights for the December 17th celebration.

I'm curious as to why they didn't try it out in Ohio first. Also, is
this
the official Flyer for the celebration? Coming from Ohio, I would think
that
it is. It would be sad if there wasn't a flying (official) replica for
the
celebration, though there is still time for them to work it out.

Harry (Burns) aren't you taking your Flyer down?

-Trent
PP-ASEL



A few things, primarily building on the fact that the flyer's abiltiy to
fly
was extremely marginal...

1) What was the density altitude of the first flight, and what was it on
the replica's attempt?
2) How accurate is the replica? Could it be heavier or maybe the engine
or
props are not quite as efficient?
3) The Flyer also failed to fly on its first attempt, resulting in some
damage. On the 17th they had it repaired AND they had more wind. It flew
that day. How much wind did they have for the replica's flight?

In this recreation, a few percentage points of performance means
everything.
There are probably a hundred minor issues which could result in the
replica
not flying.

KB

In article , Trent Moorehead
wrote:

I heard it on a local radio station, WPTF out of Raleigh NC. I just heard it
again. This time they said they are packing up and heading home after they
couldn't get it to fly. I'll try to find something on the web....

Oh, that's just more Ohio-bashing by disgruntled North Carolinian's.
They're still upset that Ohio is recognized as the "official"
birthplace of aviation.
Signed, "A Proud Buckeye!"
;-)))))

In article ,
EDR wrote:

In article , Trent Moorehead
wrote:

I heard it on a local radio station, WPTF out of Raleigh NC. I just heard it
again. This time they said they are packing up and heading home after they
couldn't get it to fly. I'll try to find something on the web....

Oh, that's just more Ohio-bashing by disgruntled North Carolinian's.
They're still upset that Ohio is recognized as the "official"
birthplace of aviation.
Signed, "A Proud Buckeye!"
;-)))))

I'm originally from North Carolina. I have never understood why my home
state tries to make a claim for being the birthplace of aviation. At
best, N.C. is ambivalent to general aviation.

"Wallace Berry" wrote in message
...

I'm originally from North Carolina. I have never understood why my home
state tries to make a claim for being the birthplace of aviation.


Perhaps it's because the first powered, controlled, heavier-than-air flight
occurred there.

Only because they had nice soft sand dunes to crash on and high enough winds
to take off in.

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Wallace Berry" wrote in message
...

I'm originally from North Carolina. I have never understood why my home
state tries to make a claim for being the birthplace of aviation.


Perhaps it's because the first powered, controlled, heavier-than-air
flight
occurred there.

"mike regish" wrote in message . net...
Only because they had nice soft sand dunes to crash on and high enough winds
to take off in.

Some Ohioans point out the Ohio had the brains, NC had the wind.

"mike regish" wrote in message
. net...

Only because they had nice soft sand dunes to crash on and high enough
winds
to take off in.


Which is what the Wright's needed and why they went there.

"mike regish" wrote in message
. net...
Only because they had nice soft sand dunes to crash on and high enough
winds
to take off in.

Are you saying that the Wright's presence in Dayton was any less
coincidental?

I don't see that Kitty Hawk's *or* Dayton's involvement were anything more
than an accident of history. But the fact of the matter is that the first
powered, controlled heavier-than-air flight occurred at Kitty Hawk, not
Dayton.

Where do you consider YOUR birthplace? Was it where your mother delivered
you? Or was it where you were conceived? Most people's birthplaces are
hospitals. Yes, that's because that's just due to the coincidental fact
that most babies are delivered by obstetricians, and OBs like to work in
hospitals. But that doesn't change the fact that the birthplace is the
hospital.

Aviation was conceived thousands of years ago, when the first human looked
at a bird and thought for the first time "hey, I wonder if there's a way for
me to do that". The Wright's oversaw the last bit of gestation of aviation
in Dayton (call it the last week of the last trimester if you like), but the
actual birth took place at Kitty Hawk with the culmination of thousands of
years of human progress, represented by that first flight.

Pete