Slashdot Mirror
Re-Building the Wright Flyer
Isaac-Lew writes: "Several teams are trying to build a working replica of the first Wright Brothers' airplane." As the article says, "The catch is: Each team wants its plane to fly more or less as the Wrights' did." The only problem with that is that as Orville Wright put it, their plane was "exceedingly erratic," so the recreators have made some slight concessions to safety.
They're trying to build a version to fly at Kitty Hawk for the centennial celebration of the original flight, December 17th 1903.
What's your damage, Heather?
"The recreators have made some slight concessions to safety." Bah! If you're going to recreate it, recreate it all the way including the "risks" If you're afraid of cracking your head open, wear a helmut!
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Do you Americans still insist the Brothers did the first flyght? What about Santos Dumont?
I'd be much more interested to see them try to recreate Da Vinci's one :)
:)
::evil laugh::
After his first flight, he refused to talk about it again
-- james
I spent some time looking at various web sites about this yesterday - seems the original Flyer would Dutch roll from take-off to landing, and was very unfriendly in ground-effect. This made landing - interesting - until they finally cracked it up. Good thing it went so slowly that it didn't hurt so much when they hit.
By today's standards, the thing's unflyable - horrible control authority, CG all wrong, underpowered... Orville and Wilbur had to be talented in the first place to fly it. Of course, this is the basic device that we started from to derive "today's standards". I hope none of the replica teams crack up... there's enough aviation hysteria these days, without a "reenactment" generating more bad press.
Must be fun, inventing a whole science, and a set of industries.
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
Won't they be in for a surprse when they find out it doesn't fly? Flying is a myth, just like that government-sponsored tale about men walking on the moon.
It says so in my 1962 Soviet Encyclopedia.
The part about discouraging workshop photographs in order to not leak info to the competition is weird. What modern high tech processes are there to protect, if you're trying to do something the same way it was done 100 years ago? I'd have thought most of the interest in a project like this was in being as open and historically accurate as possible.
Don't fly!!!!! You'll get too close to the sun and your wings will melt. (This from another early flight pioneer.)
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
There are two approaches that can be taken when restoring/rebuilding things
a) Make it exactly as it was
b) Make it better
Usually I'd say that you should always make it exactly as it was, but in this case lives would be at stake if you followed that approach - So there's an argument for at least *some* improvement.
The question is - how far should they go in their improvements...
Remember kids! Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people.
They might have tried to reconstitute Clement Ader's Eole but actually it seems the Wright brothers were the first who could prove they had flown.
:-)
Remind me of a movie
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Living near Dayton, OH, we're always hearing about stuff like this. I just helped rebuild this site about the Wright Brothers Flyer and go to Wright State University. Also, I hear Stickman uses one on occasion.
Some folks, mainly from New Zealand, make a strong case that Richard Pearse made the first powered flight. Pearse belives it was in March, 1904, but others claim March, 1903 or even 1902. Even if he wasn't first, his design is surprising modern: " a monoplane configuration, wing flaps and rear elevator, tricycle undercarriage with steerable nosewheel, and a propeller with variable-pitch blades driven by a unique double-acting horizontally opposed petrol engine."
Of course you blokes all know that kiwis were the first to fly, right? :)
Fair go, its true.
they should start working on a way to get it to mars in time for that centennial flight referred to in the future timeline.
The place that I work is working with one of the teams to ensure that manufacture and treatment of the fabric used is as close as possible to the original. "Another area of research...is the determination of the finish used on the fabric. Air proofing the fabric may have been a trade secret of the Wright Brothers. There was mention of a finish in the Wright brother's log book, but never mentioned again."
I'm not using any names because I'm not sure that I'm allowed. I'm just one of the IT guys...
I wonder what distro will be running one it?!?!
Blarf.
I think they are being a bit too cautious. It seems that all the teams, being worried about safety have forgotten a couple things about the airplane that do not apply to any plane they have ever known.
The fact is, that the Wright flyer only flew 12 seconds on that first flight, and I'm sure it didn't do it very quickly, or very high up. I highly doubt that a crash in the flyer would really do that much damage to the pilot. After all, the Wrights themselves seemed to come out of the final crash that first day with no ill effects. I doubt they even had protective pads on!
So if their goal is to crecreate the plane and recreate that first flight--I think folks are fretting just a bit too much about "safety" issues. These guys need to grow some cohones....
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
I've noticed some posts along the line of "Safety first, authenticity later".
I couldn't disagree more. If you're not going to try to duplicate the entire effort, including the not insubstantial risks involved with the dawn of any new era, what is the point? You might as well build an "Almost Scale" RC model and fly it around. It would serve exactly the same purpose with no risk. I'm not saying that all possible safety precautions shouldn't be taken (external to the airplane itself), but build it to origional spec, then decide to fly it or not.
I guess my point here is that I make the concious decision to get on my old BMW motorcycle every morning. I know it's dangerous, but it's also exciting and a throwback to a time, not so long ago, that we took risks in the name of advancement and the simple thrill of being alive. Recreating the Wright Flyer to modern standards is just a symptom of our overly cautious, airbag equipped, warning label on the coffie times.
Of course this will be modded down, my target audiance sits in a cube all day and considers a walk in the park an outing.
Wtf? Why not get a Cessna or something then? That is a 'improved' version. I mean, if they are going to build a replica celebrating the flight of 1903, they should make it excatly (sp) the same. (IMHO, of course)
The first person to make a public flight on a heavier-than-air machine was Santos Dumont. The Wright brothers had as witnesses a bunch of people they were (oh, joy!) paying to do just that - sit there and watch. Now, how reliable is that?
Who was the guy who flew before the wright bros? I remember that there were lots of eye witness accounts. I also remember reading that Germany recognises him as the first flyer. If I recall, his flight was longer than the Wright brothers as well. Just goes to show you how badly American schools have mangled history (more like hystery, the way its taught). Just look at Nicola Tesla, all the things he did that that swindler Thomas Edison gets credit for. I would hate to be a history teacher. The lessons would just stick in my craw.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
The main trouble is - they flew it backwards. If they turned it around a flew it the other way, then they wouldn't have all the instability problems you get with carard configuration aircraft... IMHO.
:)
I wonder whether turning it round counts as a "consession to safety"....
Nick...
> was "exceedingly erratic," so the recreators
> have made some slight concessions to safety.
Are there any real men out there? I mean, what's that stuff with "slight concessions to safety"?
If those guys had the guts, they'd fly the darned thing with nothing but their pyjamas on and for the real daring, there's always the option to use Win XP as a flight controller (which should just get them that "exceedingly erratic" behaviour)!
C. M. Burns
Eole was destroyed, but its immediate successor is displayed in full view in the CNAM museum in Paris. A heck of an impressive sight, I can tell you. :)
:)
The blurb seems to say Eole was built between 1882 and 1889 and first flew in 1890, so if true that puts it slightly ahead of the Wright brothers' Kitty Hawk Flyer, but it's not like it matters much, for what we care.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
There must be something that's a little bit special about this. When I read that one of these efforts is taking place just a few miles down the road from me (in Glen Ellyn, IL), I got excited. So did my kids.
It seems like such an audacious thing to do: and it's audacious times four.
Makes what all those boys were doing around the turn of the 20th century seem that much more amazing. Hats off to all.
Thought I'd do my bit for British Tourism and point out there is a pretty fantastic replica and some other groovy stuff at the science museum - all free to get in and they've also got some groovy robot stuff and a real Cray 1 (looks like a sixties sofa, you'll see what I mean if you go there!).
The first powered flight was conducted by John Stringfellow in 1848, more than 50 years before the Wright Bros. And well before other claimants light Pearse and Adler.
s .h tml
http://www.somerset.zynet.co.uk/attract/char_mu
So there.
I dont see any scientifical point in building somthing 90 years old.
Safety? the pilots are oviously pussies. That aircraft will fly at max 60km/h at maybe 50m height.
And if none of the replicas work, then suddenly we realize the original flight was a fake, and there's no such thing as aviation, and then all the planes that have been flying under the power of make-believe all along fall out of the sky. Or something like that.
Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
What's interesting is that the hotbed of aviation in the 1906-1912 period was NOT the USA. It was France, who made up for lost time very quickly by building a lot of very innovative designs, designs that served as the basis for today's airplanes in terms of aerodynamic and structural design.
In that period, French pioneers like Alberto Santos-Dumont, Louis Blériot and the Duperdussin company were building monoplanes that used modern aerodynamic design. Indeed, the Duperdussin racer of 1912 had extremely sleek aerodynamics for its day thanks to the use of monocoque structural design.
In short, while the Wright brothers built the first successful heavier-than-air airplane, it was the French pioneers that laid the groundwork for designing the modern airplane.
Everytime there is an article about an American invention, some prick replies saying that, "Actually, _______ did it first."
According to the rest of the world, Americans have never invented or accomplished anything original.
Even with things that are clearly American, like the moon landing, you have some foreign prick sponsoring a documentary saying it never happened.
Jesus you people are a pack of sore losers. Deal with it.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
In the mid-Hudson valley there's a place called "The Rhinebeck Aerodrome", where they have a combination ground museum and flight show of old aeroplanes. I took the family there, a few years ago, and saw quite a show.
I'm not enough of a student of history to remember most of the things they flew, but some of them were OLD. One of the newer things was a Sopwith Camel - as in Snoopy, the WWI flying Ace. Some of the planes took off at one end of the runway, flew the length at about 20 ft altitude, and landed at the other end. One really old plain had not conventional control surfaces - it worked by warping the wing surfaces.
The Sopwith Camel was interesting in that (apparently like other planes of its time) it had no throttle. But it did have a new innovation. The engine had nine cylinders, but four could be shut off. To get the same effect as throttling, the pilot ran on nine, five, or no cylinders. It was interesting to hear, when flying.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Sorry, but it's been done before many times. There are at least two functional Wright Flyers on display in my native state of North Cackalacki, and there's one replica here in Mesa at the Champlain Fighter Museum at Falcon Field.
... with an admitted US-centric bent.
The Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton OH. Those of you who are pretty quick will note that Dayton is where the Wright Brothers made their airplane, and the museum is located at the old location of Wright Field, named after the brothers. (The base itself is a combination of Wright and Patterson Fields - thus the name "Wright-Patterson". Wow!)
There is a full-scale replica of the Wright 1909 Military Flyer.
Cheers,
Brian
They could do a Mr. Wright's clone to fly the plane.
Like ostriches and emus. AM I wrong?
Infuriate left and right
If you go to the Wright Brothers Museum in Kitty Hawk, NC, there is a life size replica of the exact machine that the brothers flew. I was there just last month so a bunch of the details are still fresh in my head.
There replica was fully functional (minus the ability to fly). Basically, it had all the wiring hooked up to control the pitch, roll and yaw of the plane. To adjust the pitch, you pulled a lever in from of the pilot. To adjust the roll and yaw, you push the pilot's hips in a direction. To reduce the amount of controls, they had the roll and yaw hooked up to a single control.
While there I learned some pretty neat stuff that I had never realized. In order to get off the ground they needed a really light engine, but at the time engines weighed about 500lbs. So they hired a machinest to build them an aluminum engine (the first ever built). It weighed about 150 lbs and was a perfect counter-balance to whomever was flying the plane (engine on one side, pilot on the other).
The best part of there design was the safety devices they added. All they had was a wood bar in front of the pilot that he could grab onto in case of a crash.
"I've got green eyes, I'm proud to have green eyes, the inventor of the microwave oven also had green eyes."
I just don't see the point.
Nationalistic pride is pride in a shared culture and set of ideals. Green-eyed people don't have a green-eyed culture or a set of green-eyed ideals, so your analogy is faulty.
What most Americans are proud of is a culture where ingenuity and independence and nonconformity have been traditionally valued much more highly than in the rest of the world. It's this culture that Americans believe stimulates athletes and inventors to think and do things they otherwise wouldn't.
Other cultures have different values. They raise certain kinds of people. America seems to be good at raising free-thinkers, and they are rightly proud of it.
They got there first, then hung on to their primary concepts. So they were outpaced by innovative competitors. It happens again and again in new industries.
Da Vinci's machine was only a hang glider, and if you've ever flown one, you'll also understand that the very first flight in one is wonderful, then becomes terrifying, once you realize that you *do* have to land it one way or the other.
In 1960, some U of Washington students built a replica of the 1902 Wright glider. There's a picture hanging on the wall in the Aeronautics/Aerospace building of the group of guys that did it. They're all standing next to their glider on a grassy hill. It's pretty cool.
To those of you asking why anyone would spend their time building a replica of an old airplane or glider, I say this: Designing aircraft is not all engineering and science. There's an art to it and a few people truly find joy in it.
That's Mr. Eradicator to you.
trance-port
A little OT I know, but I saw the episode of Scrapheap Challenge (British TV program where teams compete to build a specified project out of materials found on a scrapheap within 10 hours!) where they have to build a flying machine.
One of the teams built something using a couple of old wings off a crashed plane, an aluminium ladder and some bits of expanded polystyrene (and sh*tloads of gaffa tape). The astounding thing is that they actually managed to get a few seconds flight from it using a tow launch system!
My point (if I have one) is that it seems a little boring if everything gets over analysed before the first test flight. Of course it makes sense to make the machines moderately safe - correct the obvious glitches, build with higher tolerances etc etc. But don't forget that part of the Wright Brothers' pioneering spirit was a "suck it and see" mentality. They must have been both excited and scared on the first test flight. The pilot for the Scrapheap Challenge project *definitely* had the same spirit and it made his flights extremely exciting!
A little planning goes a long way...
Seems like We, the slashdot users get "slow down cowboy", how about having the same with timothy and other stupid moderators that approve things without checking the last 1-2 days of headlines. Ya'd think they read their own paper?
So, who was really the first? Looks like the Wrights came third... I put a poll here, cast your vote!
PGP public key at: http://keskydee.com/gil.asc
"The catch is: Each team wants its plane to fly more or less as the Wrights' did." The only problem with that is that as Orville Wright put it, their plane was "exceedingly erratic," so the recreators have made some slight concessions to safety.
What Orville Wright calls erratic, is what we nowadays call "inherently unstable". You want to fly something that is inherently stable.
There are a couple of ways to make a plane stable. Put a tail on it at the back (or move it back further if you already have one), or you can bend the wings backwards.
Those are changes that people "see" from a distance, and people will say: "But that's not the plane that the Wrights flew in 1908! It's different."
Oh, and you could change the profile of the wings, but then you have to have a plane that is almost stable to begin with, because this effect is so small. If carefully designed, you can build a "wing-only" plane (which was thought impossible because most wings are inherently unstable), like the helios (which as a matter of fact has its center of gravity well below the wing, one more trick to make a plane stable!).
There are advantages to building an unstable aircraft. For the Wrights that was: "Oops never thought of that". Currently the excuse is that you can use computers to make the thing stable, and then you don't have to have the inefficient things like a "tail" on the plane...
Roger.
Well, if you want to get into those sort of technicalities, the first flight in the United States of a balloon-powered aircraft was done by French balloonist Jean Pierre Blanchard on January 9, 1793. The location was Woodbury, NJ, which is now considered Deptford, NJ.
Its a bit hard not to know this fact since the town painted it on its water tower :)
Read about it here.
Brazilian Santos Dumont did. his 14-bis flew around Eifell tower when Wright brother were just planning to make some fly. This is one the biggest mistakes of American history, that only americans do not know the truth ( they dont want to know the truth, due their need of patriotism)
This article failed to mention a pilot from Maine who has already successfully built a replica of multiple Wright Brother's planes, namely the 1910 EX, and have actually flown them across the country in preperation for the anniversary in 1903. My great-uncle, Dana Smith, is involved with this and has already demonstrated the viability of building a replica by methods that don't involve using the original design plans. The original plans purposely did not work because the brothers did not want people to imitate their creation. That, and changes were constantly being made and never kept up with.
c tion=list&p_topdoc=11
There is an article summary here titled: THE WRIGHT STUFF (second one down). Unfortunately, you have to pay to read the whole article. http://nl9.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_a
As a Connecticut native, I can't let this one lie.
r ch .html
Gustave Whitehead (Weiskopf) likely preceeded the Wrights, his planes have been rebuilt, and successfully flown as proof of concept.
http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/Pages/resea
Whitehead worked in Fairfield / Bridgeport Connecticut, but he had no pictures or movies like the Wrights had.
There is plenty of evidence - in the form of printed reports and eyewitness accounts - that Whitehead achieved powered flight before the Wrights. There is however, a good reason why this claim isn't pursued on any official level - in the agreement that was drawn up to finally bring the battered Wright Flyer to the Smithsonian in 1948 you'll find this clause:
"Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, nor any museum or other agency, bureau or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Airplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight."
In other words, say we weren't first, and we take our bat and ball and go home.
If you were SI, you wouldn't touch Whitehead with a ten foot spar - why gamble on a re-creation when you have an original?
OK - a battered original - darn thing BLEW OVER like a kite and wrecked while they were all busy whooping it up after the first three flights, went thru a mud flood, and generally sat around gathering dust for thirty plus years...
Appropos today, a few more things everyone 'knows' and aren't really true - the cherry tree, silver dollar and wooden teeth yarns...
http://www.mountvernon.org/books/myths.asp
Enjoy
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Ummmm....the Soviets had planes in 1962 (and *well* before that), why would it say flying is a myth?
My journal has hot
The only catch is that these "slight concessions" include an array of the latest generation of gryroscopes, a bleeding edge NASA lase-guidance system, wich detects a half inch deviation of the course, and, of course, military grade GPS, airbags, brakes with ABS, fly-by-wire technology, redundant hydraulic system, and so on...
I blame BattleBots and the USPTO and First Post!
Every design, new or old, has to be a stealth thing that emerges fully formed from the shop;
Everything has to be protected, numbered, and stamped "mine", new or not;
Anyone check to see if the teams are made up of denied FP'ers?
;-)
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The design of the Wright brothers' first plane was actually a sophisticated answer to the problem: how could they learn how to fly without killing themselves in the process. The normal "inherently stable" modern aircraft has a major problem for someone who is going to learn, on his own, how to control it, all the while flying at very low altitudes. If the nose momentarily points too high, airflow separates from the wing, the plane "stalls," then the nose drops suddenly and the plane dives. At low altitudes, this can be deadly.
The Wright brothers knew about this kind of accident. The first man to successfully build hang gliders, Otto Lilienthal, had died that way.
The Wright brothers also had a wind tunnel and could make very good measurements of the stall properties of various airfoils. By using a canard airfoil that stalled before the main wing, they designed an aircraft whose nose would remain high during a stall. (There was a Scientific American article years ago that described all this)
The methodical sons of a presbyterian minister, they were no daredevils. They found a very clever way to get some flying experience while limiting the dangers they were exposed to.
As an aside, bear in mind that Scrapheap Challenge (the original UK name and format for Junkyard Wars) has already seen teams build and fly:
Yes, that's right. If you haven't seen it, some poor mad fool got in a canard nosed "glider" that had been bodged up in day, and reached about 20mph and 15 feet before releasing the tow line. The "glider" went in a direction that could charitably be described as "not quite a plummet". He walked away. Then did it again, only faster. And again, reaching about 30mph. This is pretty much comparable with the speeds and energies in the Wright brother's creation.
The remote plane was an interesting one. It actually flew, in a very nearly controlled fashion. OK, it was built with modern scrap, but it was scrap, and it was built in a day.
I'm kind of wondering why the people building the replica airplanes feel the need to have human pilots in them. Remote control or even an expert system might do nicely if safety is a concern.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
From http://www.maria-brazil.org/sdumont.htm:
...
Santos-Dumont continued to work on dirigibles, but finally achieved his dream of flying in a heavier-than-air craft in October of 1906, when his 14 Bis flew a distance of 60 meters at a height of 2 to 3 meters. As far as the world knew, it was the first airplane flight ever and Santos-Dumont became a hero to the world press. The stories about the Wright brothers flights at Kitty Hawk and later near Dayton, Ohio, were not believed even in the US at the time.
Eventually, after much controversy, the Americans and the world - even though it remains a sore spot for Brazilians, to whom Santos-Dumont is known as the Father of Aviation - accepted that they had indeed flown a heavier-than-air craft before Santos-Dumont. Where he beat them, though, was in his idea of adding the first ailerons to the extremities of the wings. Think of it: aileron is the French diminutive for aile, or wing. And, of course, he never used any contraption or catapult or wooden tracks to push the aircraft or to aid in taking off. So, maybe the Brazilians are right...
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Its all Ralph Nader's fault.
OK, I'll bite...Six feet, four inches? Or are these Troy inches? ;)
GTRacer
- must...sleep...now...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
To be fair, the cherry tree, silver dollar, and wooden teeth are indeed merely yarns.
The Wright Flyer is not.
The agreement attached to the Wright Flyer has nothing to do with Whitehead, although it may have some effect any claims to be made in his behalf. For Decades the Smithsonian gave the honor of being first to fly to its own director, Langely. Langley's "plane" had no control surfaces, was launched off of a high platform, and "flew" from the top of the tower into the Potomac, killing its pilot.
It was acrimony over this that made Wilbur refuse to give the Wright Flyer to the museum until they recognized the Wrights flew before Langely.
Indeed, Langley's plane didn't so much as fly as *plummet.*
KFG
I helped set up the replica at the Wilbur Wright birthplace museum near Millville, Indiana USA.
We bought it from a guy in Illinois, name Buford Gross, who had built it to fly, though he chickened out and sold it to a museum, rather than risk damaging it. He built it with a synthetic fiber (dacron, i think) covering instead of cotton, because the FAA wouldn't let him fly it otherwise.
I just checked with a member of the museum board (my dad), and he informs me that Buford had added the 1905 flyer control enhancement (steerable rudder) as well. I'd just assumed that was accurate. No wonder a 1903 flyer is almost uncontrollable!
"The methodical sons of a presbyterian minister"
Wrong. Milton was a minister of the "Church of the United Brethren in Christ", or what is now usually just called the "Church of the Brethren". They kind of remind me of Mennonites.
The branch coming down to me (His father (Dan) was my great-great-great-great grandpa) were mostly Quakers.
I've seen a flying true-to-the-original Wright flyer with my own eyes.
http://www.ohtm.org/wrightfl.html
It's up in Maine at the Owl's Head Transportation Museum.
You can see this for yourself if you buy a dimestore balsa glider. Take the weight off of the front and put it on the back. Then take the vertical tail off of the back and put it where the pilot goes (or tape it to the front). Now fly it backwards.
What you'll find, after some twiddling with the wing position, is a couple of effects. First, notice how it stalls. When a "normal" elevator-in-back plane stalls, it next dives, often straight into the ground. But in the elevator-in-front design, the smaller front wing stalls before the main wing; in losing its lift, it falls first and the main wing may not stall at all. The result, as you can see with your glider, is that when such an aircraft stalls, it does not dive, but instead "floats" downward. That's a safety feature not lost on the Wrights.
Next, notice that you can make your reverse glider just a stable as the original tail dragger design. You'll find that you have to set the wing a little farther back of the CG. (Ie, make the elevator farther forward.) The elevator-in-front design is not inherently unstable!
The Wright's 1903 Flyer wasn't passively stable, but they improved their design. Look at their 1905 and subsequent Flyers and you'll see that the forward elevator was much farther forward. Now you now why.
Finally, the Wright's weren't "wrong" in making their Flyer unstable. What they did was make the pilot part of the stability loop. That is, the pilot had to actively apply control to make the aircraft stable. In the following years, it was not at all clear that passive stability was better; indeed unstable aircraft can react and turn much faster. The debate continued for several years before the advantages of passive stability were understood. But passively unstable designs have some advantages; some modern fighter aircraft are unstable, but use computers to actively stabilize the machine.
Perhaps, with the restoration of the plane, we can someday fly as easily as we can hitch a horse and buggy.
I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
Eh, I had a Richard's Topical Encyclopedia printed in 1966 that said that supersonic flight was impossible. Considering the SR-71 was flying then, I guess they didn't do their homework much.
Not to mention the X-1, which exceeded the speed of sound in the 40's, if I recollect.
Nice to know /. mods still have no sense of humor.
1947 was the year Chuck Yeager broke the speed of sound(october, I believe), but it was not made public for about a year, I believe. It's interesting to note that it is believed that another pilot broke the sound barrier about a week previously, on accident, and that may pilots are believed to have done so, while in steep dives, during the war(WWII). The name of the other pilot was George S. Welch.
Much facinating info about various Medal of Honor winners, including Yeager, found here. General Yeager is still one of my persoanl favorite people, though, for his many other activities, and his attitude towarads life, etc.
Slackware: old school feel, new school gear.
Actually, the previous poster is correct.
The Wrights used a hip cradle between 1903 and 1905 so they could shift their hips to the left or right to accuate warping of the wings. Wing warping works in the same manner as ailerons do today.
But, they only shifted their hips to warp the wings, not to use their body weight to shift the lateral balance of the airplane like Lilienthal, Chanute, Pilcher and others did before them.
I'd have to wonder if the Flyer was more inclined to Pilot Induced Oscillation (PIO) due to the fact that the elevator was WAY too close to the main planes?
I'm planning to build and fly a 1/4 scale RC replica of the 1905 Flyer III just for that reason - the Wrights moved the forward elevator and rudder out to fix that problem.
1902 was the year that Pearse began his flight experiments: - His first aircraft was built over a number of years and flight-tested from 1902
On this page referrence to two letters is made. And there is a large amount of ambiguity about what he acheived in 1902. The letters reveal that he said that the Wright Brothers will get the credit for flying first..... but whether they did or not is another matter. It's a all in the definition.
Pearse's definition of 'flight' was far more rigorous than the Wright brothers'.
By that same definition the Wright brothers never 'flew' in 1903. They never got out of ground effect, and never for more than few seconds. People have long argued that Pearse's definition of flight is more complete than the Wrights' and so when he said that he never flew in 1902 - he meant it.... but by the same definition the Wrights didn't either.
So if flying in ground effect counts as first flight - Pearse's hops and short flights perhaps count too - from 1902.
When people look at the Wright flyer - it looks archaic..... but at the same time Pearse's aircraft was more sophistocated... his first aircraft was a remarkable invention embodying several far-sighted concepts: a monoplane configuration, wing flaps and rear elevator, tricycle undercarriage with steerable nosewheel, and a propeller with variable-pitch blades driven by a unique double-acting horizontally opposed petrol engine.
At the same time that the Wright Brother's were 'flying' in an oversized box kite Pearse was flying a machine that bears a remarkable similarity to modern day ultra-lights.
Whether or not the Wrights or Pearse flew first there is another who was flying around the same time Gustave Whitehead
"In the early morning hours of 14 August 1901, near Bridgeport, Connecticut, a small graceful monoplane took to the air with its inventor and builder, Gustave Whitehead at the controls,carrying him for half a mile before landing undamaged."
So probably the only thing you can claim about the Wright brothers is that they were masters of publicity well before their time let's celebrate that!