Wright Flyer.

[RC Steve Sterling]

They did have a simulator-- full size, full motion. There is an article in
Flying mag and the reporter spent some time in it.

The "replica" was very true to the original, as best anyone could tell (it
was crashed and trashed for parts by the Wrights). As everyone noticed, the
Wrights put more emphasis on control than stability. Extremely unstable. And
underpowered.

In the redeux, they were trying to reproduce the flight precisely, using a
very close replica aircraft. Take off at the same point, fly the same
length, put it back down at the same spot.

Weather didn't cooperate. In 1903, the Wrights had a 29 mph headwind. In
2003, it was drizzling with little wind that was a tail wind. Makes a real
difference!!! No pilot could have flown the original or the replica
successfully in those conditions. No fault of the engineers or the pilots--
just fate.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of JOddino
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:25 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: Wright Flyer.


  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/b7117a40/attachment.html