Wright Flyer.

[Richard Hallett]

82-97 we ran a Hobby Shop in Maine.  My wife and I always inquired as to the
customers vocation and usually would learn a lot from that question.  Made
life very interesting.

Unfortunately 9 out of 10 engineers were headaches and a tremendous "waste"
of time.  There were a few that weren't.

Fortunately we have a lot of aeronautical engineers because they were first
modelers.

Just to let you know that my wife and I would both cringe when engineering
was named as a vocation.

Rick
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JOddino" <JOddino at socal.rr.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Wright Flyer.


> This is a test.  Who said, "luck is the residue of good engineering"?
> Jim
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski at canisius.edu>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Wright Flyer.
>
>
> > --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.
> > #
> >
>
> =====================================
> # 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.
> #
>
>

=====================================
# 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.
#