Slashdot Mirror
Replica Flyer Foiled By Weather
An anonymous reader submits: "A replica of the Wright Brothers' 1903 flyer failed to fly yesterday afternoon at a demonstration in Chicago. Organizers blamed the measly 5 MPH winds. Kitty Hawk had 25 MPH back on December 17, 1903. IIRC, isn't Chicago the 'Windy City?'" Here's an earlier story about the various groups attempting to re-enact the Wright brothers' pioneer flight.
Actually... Chicago is called the windy city because of the politians, not the wind. It's a "hot air" sort of wind :)
But it is usually 'blustery' as well...
-Digital Extremist
... but two Wrights make an airplane.
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
First line of story says "not enough wind."
Anyone saying getting there is half the fun did not fly on modern commercial airlines. -someone's quote I forgot who
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
Should we continue to give the Wrights credit for the first powered flight when they had to rely on 25mph winds? Seems the 1903 Wright flyer was more like a glider.
Chicago doesn't even make this top average wind speed list. Fargo would be a better choice, especially as flat as it is there.
MT. WASHINGTON, NH 35.3
ST. PAUL ISLAND, AK 17.4
COLD BAY,AK 16.9
JOHNSTON ISLAND, PC 15.8
BLUE HILL, MA 15.4
DODGE CITY, KS 14
WAKE ISLAND, PC 13.8
AMARILLO, TX 13.5
KWAJALEIN, MARSHALL IS., PC 13.3
BARTER IS.,AK 13.2
ROCHESTER, MN 13.1
KOTZEBUE, AK 13
CASPER, WY 12.9
CHEYENNE, WY 12.9
BETHEL, AK 12.8
KAHULUI, HI 12.8
GREAT FALLS, MT 12.7
GOODLAND, KS 12.6
BOSTON, MA 12.5
LUBBOCK, TX 12.4
LIHUE, HI 12.3
WICHITA, KS 12.3
FARGO, ND 12.3
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 12.3
CONCORDIA, KS 12.2
NEW YORK (LAGUARDIA AP), NY 12.2
BRIDGEPORT, CT 12
CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 12
The website of the Wright Redux Association, the group mentioned in the article.
Why do I h8 apple?
Why would someone try this? The technology is ancient and there are much better...
Oh wait, wasn't there a story on here a few days ago about how to hook a C64 to your cable modem?
Never mind then.
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
As an american, I say credit where credit is due.
For the first, this indeed goes to the chap from down under.
However, this doesn't diminish the work of the Wright's in the least, because their plane was not a derivitive work copied from down under.
They built their plane themselves, from their own research and work.
The Wrights should not be given credit for being first, they weren't. But they should be given credit for starting the airplane revolution in the U.S., because they did, or at least were a big part.
We have the technology to routinely launch stuff into space. Thousands of commerical flights take place daily...
Yet they can't replicate something that was done 100 years ago.
Should we also then assert that navy jets are not really airplanes because they cannot get off the carrier deck under their own power and without the carrier steaming full blast into the wind?
<:
"at a demonstration in Chicago. Organizers blamed the measly 5 MPH winds. Kitty Hawk had 25 MPH back on December 17, 1903. IIRC, isn't Chicago the 'Windy City?'"
Yeah Chicago Blows.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
I JUST watched a documentary on this last night. It was really interesting. The wright brothers created the first powered airplane on their own while the goverment wasted thousands funding someone else. It was a fascinating story about these two inseperable brothers who ran a bicycle shop and decided to build their own plane. They were very methodical and:
1) Came up with the idea of what we call "Lift"
2) Created the first propeller as we use it today
3) Invented the wind tunnel for testing
All on their own! They also developed the way modern planes "stear"...as in angle and yaw are connected (i believe that's what they are).
The worked very very hard on this plane and left tons of notes...however...we do not have that plane. That's why the "Wright Experience" set out to build a replica based on the brothers notes...to the T! They knew they could make improvements, fixes...but then they wouldn't be building a replica.
Gives these guys a break...it took years to put this thing together as accuratly as possible...from the fabric to even the damn engine !
Thanks for playing
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How is trying to fly a Wright flyer in Chicago of any scientific or historical interest?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
Lyndon LaRouche wants Cheney impeached. Doesn't that make Lyndon LaRouche a better savior than Howard Dean?
A recreation of Columbus' first voyage was scheduled to begin today in Spain, but was called off due to the presence of what the organizers of the event described as "a wave in the ocean."
Now terrorists know how to build their own Wright Flyers. None of us are safe.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
Isn't more strong winds found in east coast duirng a class 2 tropical depression?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I just find this silly. Yeah, they created the wright flyer, yeah, they were influential, but darn, people must really have too much free time to do something redundant like this. Just give the men credit for their accomplishments and move on. Life's about progress, not recreating what was done 100 years hence. Or maybe it's american prdie at its worst, even though they weren't first.
A blog like any other.
Dear anonymous poster, if you had read the article you would realize they blame the wind NOT being strong ENOUGH... Yes Kitty Hawk had 25 MPH winds thats probably why it did fly.
*sigh*
The other condition that most people fail to mention is that the flight occurred off a cliff. The first powered flight, while indeed powered, was more of a glide than a flight. IIRC, they stayed in the air for all of 30 seconds...
Of course data isn't available, but I'd be willing to bet that the only way it stayed in the air was that it was trading forward velocity for lift the whole trip...
Now Brazil had a powered flight the very next year, and based on these facts, are trying to gain recognition for the first "true" flight.
That argument won't "fly" however (excuse the pun), because the Wright brothers were able to improve their design and have a true powered flight within a few months, provably before the first Brazillian powered flight...
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
Gustav Weisskopf
1890.
For some reason it was decided that only the Wright brothers' attempt really counted and was worth teaching in schools, however. Go us, we invented the plane, etc.
Not that this one wasn't overly dependant on weather conditions either, of course (the plane exposed in this museum crashed in 1897 after a flight in bad weather conditions).
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
The first thing that came to mind was the cynical tagline, "100 Years of Air Show Disasters." Unfortunately, given some other crazed wackos before and after the Kitty Hawk, I'm sure that we're already past that milestone. Last week's Air Force Thunderbirds disaster was a sombre reminder of how hard it is to stay in the air even under ideal conditions.
[
Kitty should have met Isabel. But, perhaps not, after all. :)
1. Identification of control as the primary unsolved problem.
2. Realization that an airplane must bank in order to turn, and invention of the first method of doing that.
3. Recognition of the problem of "adverse yaw" and the first control system to deal with that.
4. The first practical wind tunnel experimental program for determining the lifts of various shapes.
5. The first efficient propellors designed from theoretical considerations, and the first usable propellor theory.
I'll add to that the first practical rudder, and the first modern engineering development program consisting of breaking down the problem of flight into component parts, solving each part using prototypes, and then incorporating the solved components into a working design.
We finally see what a shameful wishful thought heavier than air flight is. maybe now we'll stop pouring so much money into this dream of a madman.
Man's First Powered Flight Richard Pearse, Waitohi, New Zealand, March 31, 1902.
HERE
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
I think that Kitty Hawk, North Carolina would have been a much better choice, especially around Thursday morning of this past week. With Isabel and the associated winds, I think that they could have even gotten a mobile home to fly.
"Me fail English, that's unpossible." --Ralphie
It's been suggested in several posts that the Wright's requirement of a 25mph headwind was cheating because this somehow reduced their plane to a noisy glider. This really isn't the case. The reason has to do with drag. Even with a modern paved runway and tires, there is still a noticable amount of rolling drag during a take-off roll. It's not uncommon for a pilot (especially in small planes with limited horsepower) to lift the plane of the runaway a few feet to eliminate the rolling drag and then let the plane gain additional speed from the reduced drag before climbing out. Using a headwind just makes this process easier. Considering that the Wright Bros were using a crude track, wheels, and skids it's amazing they were able to get off the ground at all.
But their biggest contribution was that the Wrights recognized that existing aerodynamic theory was wrong. Using their wind tunnel and full size models, they literally re-wrote the book on aerodynamic theory of the time. Unlike other attempts at flight of the time, the Wright flyer was a product of sound scientific research rather than throw-it-together-and-hope-it-flies which was so common a the time. For that, they deserve to be recognized as the fathers of flight.
When all else fails, run.
But I didn't see any reference at all to "Windy City" in the link you provided. Although interesting, it only once mentioned "brisk lake wind" and did not attribute that to being the source of the moniker. Got anything else?
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Last week's Air Force Thunderbirds disaster was a sombre reminder of how hard it is to stay in the air even under ideal conditions.
It's not that it's so hard to stay in the air these days, but with everything, there are limits to what you can do. It is the nature of stunt teams like the Thunderbirds to push those limits as close to the danger threshold as they can (or are willing).
If you are not trying to push limits, I would not say it is hard to stay in the air.
So that's why I had to take a dart in the neck to get to Disney World. And all this time I thought it was because I was trying to ship myself freight.
-----
jonathan barket
A Duh! would be wings on a car, trying to launch into the wind with acceleration from the wheels. As soon as the wheels leave the ground, the vehicle will slow down to match the thrust of whatever air propulsion you're using. Although it will accelerate vertically if you've driven off a cliff.
Personally, I like this project done by Utah State University. It uses the Wright Brothers design, but it's all composite and uses a Harley Davidson engine.
m l
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/plane-100-03a.ht
-- Remember, we're not happy until you're not happy. -- Local FAA Inspector --
I also know the Thunderbirds work hard to stay well within the operational envelope for safety: they don't want their pilots to die, and they don't want their recruitable and financier spectators to die.
However, I've also seen what a couple of birds sucked into a jet intake will do to the blades of the turbofan, the high-pressure compressor, and all the other stages behind. Jets, by their very nature, push the envelope of known materials science, even when they're flown well within engineered limits and operational envelopes.
Planes stay in the air only because so many people have spent so many years designing and building and piloting machines which can do the nearly impossible.
[
I was there yesterday morning (I live right across the street from the Museum of Science and Industry), and remember a few pieces of information that might provide some insight...
The plane they made was an exact replica of the 1903 Wright Flier, and slightly different to the more famous 1904 version. The replica, including the "pilot" weighs around 830lb, but the 4 cynlinder 12-hp engine which maxes at 1200 rpm only has something like 160lb of thrust.
I only stayed to watch the first failed attempt (they said they would have multiple attempts), but it was an exhilirating sight nonetheless. As it accelerated down the tracks, you could almost see it become light on the skids. Just the uncertainty made it more exciting than watching a modern plane take off (which, I think, is pretty exciting enough).
---
Open Source Shirts
The origin of the term dates back to before the worlds fair (1903?) and to the political bickering and promises made. It was the worlds way of saying the politicians were full of hot air.
My household budget doesn't yet allow me to buy a huge jet engine, even after taking into account the reduction in commute time. And the early hour I'd have to do the drive in order to find little enough traffic on the road.
However, their next airplane, which demonstrated controlled turns, was IMHO the first true airplane.
they didn't have weather back in those days.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The World's Columbian Exposition, celebrating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's landing in America, was actually held in 1893, a year later than had been planned. New York City, Washington, D.C., St.Louis, and Chicago had all vied for the honor of housing the exposition, and it was during this vigorous and often vocal competition that Charles A. Dana, editor of the New York Sun, dubbed Chicago "that windy city." Chicago's lobbyists finally won out and, on April 25, 1890, President Benjamin Harrison signed the act that designated Chicago as the site of the exposition.
find their page at http://www.chicagohs.org/history/expo.html
Given the fact that the aircraft is not completely finished and they plan to do the flight on th 100th anniversary, it's not entirely a surprise!!
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Yep, this was on PBS a few weeks ago and also as the subject of a Paul Harvey "Rest of the story".
k iel.html
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/cannon_eze
There is something i am wondering. Why many people think the wright brothers invented the airplane? The truth is that the first airplane was invented by Clement Ader and flew for the first time on october 1890, 13 years _before_ the Wright brothers!
I think the whole thing illustrates firstly that the obsession with invetors is a fallacy, and that airplanes, like all other technology is more about refinement than outright invention.
It wasn't a mystery that A) Flight was possible B) you needed wings to do it, and C) Engines will no doubt be a great asset. MANY people were trying to do it all over the civilized world. Kids had toy gliders for god's sake!
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I'll take that up. Lief Erickson may have been the first European to hit the North American Continent, but it didn't actually change anything as the information that there's a whole other continent out there didn't travel very far, and was eventually lost to the Europeans. When Columbus reached the New World, the news spread around Europe and expeditions weren't sent off and colonies were made. Columbus's "discovery" was also not influence by Erickson's journey, so the fact vikings may have been the first Europeans in the New World is more of a historical curiosity. It's a similar story with the airplane. A few others may have flown before, but the Wright's airplane was constructed independantly of all knowledge of sucessful flights and they were the ones who introduced it to the world. Invention is a bit like starting a lawmower engine. One pull doesn't necessarily mean you'll get the motor going. Hell, the Greek's invented the steam engine before the Roman Empire even existed, but we credit Thomas Savery (and later, James Watt) for inventing it, not Heron of Alexandria, because Savery made it independantly and James Watt took it and changed the world.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Because, like cold fusion, the Wrights fluked "something" and drew some insane conclusions, such as "heavier than air craft can fly under the own propulsion".
Unlike cold fusion, the scientific world believed them, and thus we are where we are now with aircraft.
I believe the cynicism of today's scientific community is preventing our society of the future from enjoying the benefits of cold fusion and the shaking away of the shackles of the second law of thermodynamics.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Better way of doing it.
Other formats here.
The Wright brother's catapulted 120 foot flight into the wind in 1903 was indeed not recognized as the first motorised and non-buoyed flight by the Avionics society. Neither was Clement Ader's 165 foot flight in 1890 recognized (i.e. a longer flight than the Wright brothers could claim, 13 years earlier).
Others had done similar semi-motor-driven "flights" too, but they did not have the advantage of as much press coverage and American chauvinism, which is probably the main reason why Wright's flight is in the books of history instead of similar attempts by others. The first recognized motor-driven flights without catapults and strong winds, which met the already established criteria for what was to be considered a successful flight, were done in Brazil and France, but that wasn't as interesting to the press and American public.
The Wright brothers might indeed have been the first to perform controlled sustained flight over a period of time longer than a glide, or what we would reasonably call flying, but not until 1905.
Full honour to the Wright brothers -- they were pioneers, even if they (by their own admission) built their avionics on the works of Lilienthal and the flyer more directly on the works of Octave Chanute. Chanute was a sporty chap, and supported the Wright brothers and had no qualms with them building their flyers based on his blueprints and earlier plane attempts -- all that mattered back then was to get someone flying!
All in all, it's hard to say who was "first" in flight -- but Wilbur and Orville Wright deserve their part of the honour, along with Otto Lilienthal, Alberto Dumont, Alexander Moshaisky, Leonardo daVinci, Clement Ader, Octave Chanute, Marquee de Arlandes and others.
Regards,
--
*Art
Yeah.
I'm not neccesarily taking sides in this (I've got better things to argue about), but of course the definitive anti-Weisskopf argument coming from the 'Wright Brothers' first-to-fly website?
Sorta like a definitive argument on Weapons of mass destruction coming from the White House?
It still amazes me how many people get the location wrong.
The Wright brothers did not make their "historic" (and somewhat debated) flight at Kitty Hawk, NC, they made it at Kill Devil Hills, a few miles to the south. This misconception was started because they sent the telegram to their mother from Kitty Hawk, which was the nearest town with a telegram station.
The only museum I've ever seen this info correct is the Wright Brothers National Memorial which is located where the flight occurred. Even the National Air & Space Museum has it wrong.
End of line..
So now illinois trying to claim first in flight status. Well North by God Carolina was first in flight and if you had been here last week for the hurricane you could have flown for miles as a bonus on your vacation package. Youall come back now!
The knowledge of Richard Pearse's flight was never lost, nor is it seriously disputed. Are you suggesting that history should be written by those that "crow the loudest" or have the largest marketing department?
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
mod parent humour-impaired!!!
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
From the article:
"Another Wright Flyer replica is being built by a group in Virginia and is scheduled to fly on Dec. 17 at Kitty Hawk."
Engine-powered, heavier-than-air flight has now been uninvented?
I am anarch of all I survey.
santos-dumont
Not at all, the question is which inventor's accomplishment actually had an impact on the world. Is Pearse's accomplishment a historical milestone or a historical curiosity, like the Aeolipile?
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
But Capitalism works and the Wright Brothers are an excellent example of this.
...
...
Oh, yeah? What about the first space-station? Also an effect of capitalism?
That we achieved in 200 years what Europe was unable to do in 2000 years.
Or the first computer? Or the first car?
Hmm, somehow these backwards people on the other side of the world may have achieved something too
Don't let patriotism blind you!
Just my 2 cents
SPELL PROPERLY!
heresay -> hearsay (remember, "hear" and "say")
New Zelanders -> New Zealander
there design -> their design
refinning -> refining
basicaly -> basically
Capitlism -> capitalism
I mean, your whole argument is laughable anyhow. The US doing in 200 years what Europe failed to do in 2000. Riiight... because in 200 years the US went from the iron age to the industrial age. Wake up.
Besides, it wasn't the "Superior US Capitalist Society" that put it int he powerful position it's in now, it was that whole "avoiding getting decimated in World War 2" trick.
Having trained on a Piper Warrior, taking a glider lesson was a scary experience -- I never did get the hang of rudder/aileron coordination, something you don't need to worry about in the Warrior on account of asymmetrical aileron deflection. Probably the worst preparation for operating the Flyer is experience in light planes because I imagine the Flyer control feel is unlike any other aircraft anyone has trained on.
Do they have simulators of the Flyer so the reenactors can operate the Flyer safely?