Wright Flyer.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

--On Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:24 PM -0800 JOddino <JOddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:


> 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.

They knew they needed luck, and said so many, many times.

> Perhaps there is so little margin that if the wind isn't within a very tight
> tolerance it won't fly.

Right.  Strong steady winds work best.  Gusts are bad news.

> But they should have known that.

They did know that.

> It seems to me if it had the proper airspeed and angle of attack it would lift off.

Yes.  But high humidity yesterday robbed them of power,
hence of airspeed.

> 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.

I'm sure they're writing their final assessment.
Stay tuned for books, magazine articles, and
more TV shows.

> Now if you really want to stir things up, what if the
> conclusion is the original didn't fly?

These things argue against that hypothesis:

1. Photographic evidence from Dec. 17.
2. Seven witnesses (I think).
3. Subsequent aircraft developed by the Wrights.
4. The integrity of the brothers themselves.
5. The Wright Experience replica has had flights
	of 90+ feet and 110+ feet under better
	conditions than yesterday's.  It was
	the pressure of the deadline and the
	crowd of 35,000 PAYING CUSTOMERS that
	led them to make an attempt in
	less-than-ideal conditions.

> I wouldn't be surprised if the French are working on proving that right now.

We can't blame the French for our culture's paranoia.
It's homegrown and as hardy as a weed.

					Marty #2874
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#