Wright Flyer.

[JOddino]

I can't believe they wouldn't have a good simulation and therefore know it was going to fly before they spent all the time and effort building it.  Perhaps there is so little margin that if the wind isn't within a very tight tolerance it won't fly.  But they should have known that.
It seems to me if it had the proper airspeed and angle of attack it would lift off.  I'd love to see a failure analysis performed like we used to do if a missile failed.  Each engineer had to prove his component or subsytem was not the cause.  Guilty until proven innocent.
Now if you really want to stir things up, what if the conclusion is the original didn't fly?  I wouldn't be surprised if the French are working on proving that right now.
Jim
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Henderson,Eric 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:48 PM
  Subject: RE: Wright Flyer.


  I don't seem to be provoking the responses that I was looking for. (I have no issue with the achievement or the replication).

  What I am really interested in the ways to get the plane to fly better and if anyone saw it as a CG issue? I thought that the collective knowledge pool in this list might have some ideas on fixing the flyability issue.

  Regards,

  Eric.


  -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Rcmaster199 at aol.com
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:40 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: Wright Flyer.


  In a message dated 12/18/2003 10:00:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, Eric.Henderson at gartner.com writes:



    Subj:Wright Flyer. 
    Date:12/18/2003 10:00:06 AM Eastern Standard Time
    From:Eric.Henderson at gartner.com
    Reply-to:discussion at nsrca.org
    To:discussion at nsrca.org
    Sent from the Internet 



    I have been avidly following the progress of the Wright Flyer replica. It's driving me nuts watching them try to fly it. (Is there an aeronautical engineer on the project? - looks a lot like pilots and carpenters)


    From where I sit, admittedly in my arm chair, the thing looks, acts and flies very TAIL HEAVY! 

    The engines are behind the CG on the wings. There's almost nothing up front to bring the CG to a decent stable point. Am I off base here?

    Also I have meddled with models of the plane a little. Wing warping that goes only goes down induces worse wash-in at the slowest of speeds and is pretty nasty in the model. Instead of lifting the wing it drags it back making the plane turn adversely to the intended input. I know that they were trying to fly an exact replica so they went with everything as true to history as possible, but it is frustrating watching it struggle.

    Any thoughts,

    Regards,

    Eric.




  ALL THE MORE REASON TO MARVEL AT THE ORIGINAL ACCOMPLISHMENT

  mattk 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20031218/a34085e7/attachment.html