Wright Flyer I Model Airplane

On Feb 22, 5:26 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2:09 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample... RemoveThis @address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:61e6341a-79f3-4ad9-9316-ea8bc4d443f7@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Turning without crashing is generally considered really
> > > important.
>
> > Yeah, back when I was learning how to make airplane
> > noises, I was always told it was something to strive
> > for.  Got you extra points for style 'n' all that.  Most
> > of the time, I seemed to do OK...
>
> > I finally hung all that stuff up, though, when I found
> > that I could get more grins per dollar on two wheels.
>
> I've heard that turning without crashing is useful there too.
> Unless of course you have to lay it down to avoid a crash.

Which is fine, as long as you just scratch a turn signal and limit
damage to the bike to less than $30.

Of course.
 >> Stay informed about: Wright Flyer I Model Airplane 

"Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216128.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:61e6341a-79f3-4ad9-9316-ea8bc4d443f7@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
> Turning without crashing is generally considered really
> important.

Yeah, back when I was learning how to make airplane
noises, I was always told it was something to strive
for. Got you extra points for style 'n' all that. Most
of the time, I seemed to do OK...

I finally hung all that stuff up, though, when I found
that I could get more grins per dollar on two wheels.


Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: Wright Flyer I Model Airplane 

"Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216128.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7878399e-9cbf-4deb-a149-77fc96f7fdb3@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> I've heard that turning without crashing is useful there too.
> Unless of course you have to lay it down to avoid a crash.
>

I always figured that was what you did to CAUSE
a crash...

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: Wright Flyer I Model Airplane 

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:44:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:

>Alan Moore wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:28:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Moore wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:55:58 -0800 (PST),
>>>> "aircraftsmodel@gmail.com"
>>>> <aircraftsmodel.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Wright Flyer was also known as the Flyer I and sometimes
>>>>> Kitty
>>>>> Hawk. It was an experimental airplane designed and built by the
>>>>> Wright Brothers. It was the first sustained controlled
>>>>> heavier-than-air powered flight.
>>>>
>>>> Not that it has anything to do with motorcycles, but the Wrights,
>>>> assuming that their 1903 claims are true, were still at least
>>>> eight
>>>> years after the first such flight, which took place in Paris in
>>>> 1895.
>>>> That's a flight leaving level ground under its own power. Powered
>>>> glides, which would fit your description, had been made even
>>>> earlier.
>>>
>>> There were three points to the Wright's flight--sustained,
>>> controlled, and heavier than air.
>>
>> All of those had been achieved many years before.
>
>By who?

Langley, here in the States, Ader in France, A Brazilian whose name
escapes me at the moment, Mozhaiskiy in Russia...
>
>> Another item that
>> the Wrights were trying to accomplish was to lift off of level
>> ground
>> under it's own power. They did not trouble to mention this item to
>> either of the only two witnesses, neither of whom was an expert, and
>> there remains some dispute about whether their launch rail was
>> level,
>> or sloped down.
>
>You're grasping at straws here.

Not according to the historians of the subject.
>
>>> The only record I can find of a flight in Paris
>>> in 1895 was of the Avion III, which supposedly made one and only
>>> one
>>> flight--whether it was a controlled flight or not depends on who
>>> you
>>> believe, some sources say that it crashed.
>>
>> Here's and 1897 photograph of the Avion III in flight, in 1897:
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/AderAvion3%281897%29.jpg
>
>Uh huh. I really like the way that they managed to stop the motion of
>the propellers with that very high speed shutter that did not exist
>then. Hell, I can't stop a propeller that thoroughly with my Leica.
>And who was flying it? The guy hanging out the side would have had
>trouble reaching the controls I would think.
>
>The photo is also rather sharp for an 1897 photo of a flying machine.
>
>And if it flew so well then why didn't the French military continue to
>develop it?

They didn't think it was worth the probable expense. "It would scare
the horses."
>
>>> It never flew again in any case.
>>
>> In fairness to Ader, it should be pointed out that the first Wright
>> flyer never flew again either, having been damaged.
>
>It made four flights, not just the one claimed for Ader.

As I recollect, immediately following the first flight, it was caught
and flipped by a gust of wind, injuring the Coastie who the Wrights
had brought with them.
>
>>> here is a photo of the Wright Flyer airborne at Kitty Hawk in
>>> 1903, ergo there is no question that their claim was true.
>>
>> Experts have examined the photographic evidence, and have not been
>> able to conclude definitely one way or the other.
>
>Which experts are these? Are you saying that the aircraft clearly
>flying at Kitty Hawk was faked somehow?

No, I'm saying you can't tell from the photo whether or not the plane
lifted off of level ground under its own power or not.
>
>> I refer you to
>> Oliver Stewart's _Aviation: The Creative Ideas_. Stewart was himself
>> a
>> test pilot and an historian of aviation. And there is no doubt
>> whatever about Ader's accomplishments, because not only were they
>> photographed, they were conducted in front of a commission of
>> experts
>> appointed by the military for the purpose, rather than in secluded
>> secrecy.
>
>So show me a photograph that is clearly and incontrovertibly of Ader's
>machine in powered flight. I want to see evidence of propellers
>turning and a background that allows the altitude to be judged. The
>one you link appears to be of it on the ground with the background cut
>out.

Sounds as if you didn't look at the photograph. You are clearly
looking up at the under side of the wings. As for the rest, the
testimony of the military commission that observed the test is pretty
good. And it was all recorded back in 1897, so there's no question of
them trying to shoot down the Wright brothers' claim as they didn't
have any claim to shoot down at the time.
>
>>> hey made
>>> more than 105 flights in the next year and in another year were
>>> flying tens of miles. Or are you saying that in 1908 they
>>> magically
>>> appeared in Paris with a fully controllable airplane far more
>>> capable than any other in the world at the time having done
>>> absolutly no prior research and development?
>>
>> No, I'm saying that it isn't clear that they did anything that had
>> not
>> been done by others before.
>>>
>>>> The assumption that their claims were true may be stretching it.
>>>> Although they wanted to sell airplanes to anybody who was buying,
>>>> when
>>>> the Brits came over to evaluate their plane, and ready to place an
>>>> order, they declined to demonstrate it in 1906.
>>>
>>> They did not "decline to demonstrate it", the refused to
>>> demonstrate
>>> it to anybody prior to the signing of a contract. Today they would
>>> probably have simply required a non-disclosure agreement but at the
>>> time such things were unknown. They didn't seem to be all that
>>> interested in _selling_ anyway.
>>
>> According to Stewart, they were trying to interest everybody's
>> militaries in the airplane.
>
>Get a few more sources. If you get your sense of history from only
>one source then you are often misled.

OK, how about Theodor von Karman -- another aviation pioneer, having
been responsible for, among other things, one of the first
helicopters, and JPL. His memoirs also discuss the early development
of aviation in Europe, and he was another expert. Both Karman and
Stewart list their sources, and I believe that the original documents
regarding Aders work as observed by the French military commission
still exist.
>
>> The British representative made it clear
>> to them that purchase was conditional on performance. Their excuse
>> for
>> not demonstrating it was that they felt he was only trying to
>> satisfy
>> his own curiousity. If they were flying as far, and as often as you
>> assert, and doing all of the things they were claiming, there should
>> have been no problem about inviting him to such an event. Unless, of
>> course, they didn't want an expert witness...
>
>Or unless they didn't want him to steal their ideas without
>compensation.

He wasn't asking for blueprints, and it's hard to imagine what he
might have "stolen" from seeing them operate it. The principle
advances claimed for the Wright flyer were an engine with a better
power to weight ratio than anyone else had, and merely seeing it
operate wouldn't give them much of that. If, on the other hand, it
wasn't going to meet the stated requirements of the prospective
purchaser, then there was no reason for them to demonstrate it.

Al Moore
DoD 734
 >> Stay informed about: Wright Flyer I Model Airplane 

Alan Moore wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:44:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Alan Moore wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:28:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Moore wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:55:58 -0800 (PST),
>>>>> "aircraftsmodel@gmail.com"
>>>>> <aircraftsmodel.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Wright Flyer was also known as the Flyer I and sometimes
>>>>>> Kitty
>>>>>> Hawk. It was an experimental airplane designed and built by the
>>>>>> Wright Brothers. It was the first sustained controlled
>>>>>> heavier-than-air powered flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that it has anything to do with motorcycles, but the
>>>>> Wrights,
>>>>> assuming that their 1903 claims are true, were still at least
>>>>> eight
>>>>> years after the first such flight, which took place in Paris in
>>>>> 1895.
>>>>> That's a flight leaving level ground under its own power.
>>>>> Powered
>>>>> glides, which would fit your description, had been made even
>>>>> earlier.
>>>>
>>>> There were three points to the Wright's flight--sustained,
>>>> controlled, and heavier than air.
>>>
>>> All of those had been achieved many years before.
>>
>> By who?
>
> Langley, here in the States, Ader in France, A Brazilian whose name
> escapes me at the moment, Mozhaiskiy in Russia...

Langley? Uh, before the Wrights, all Langley accomplished was to
spend a great deal of government money to crash. Ader we've already
discussed--he might have made some kind of flight but only one and
possibly crashed at the end of it, there is no evidence that his
flight was controlled. "A Brazilian"? That would I presume be
Santos-Dumont, for which there is no claim that he flew a
heavier-than-air craft prior to 1906.

>>> Another item that
>>> the Wrights were trying to accomplish was to lift off of level
>>> ground
>>> under it's own power. They did not trouble to mention this item to
>>> either of the only two witnesses, neither of whom was an expert,
>>> and
>>> there remains some dispute about whether their launch rail was
>>> level,
>>> or sloped down.
>>
>> You're grasping at straws here.
>
> Not according to the historians of the subject.

Find me one credible "historian" of the subject who argues that the
Wrights did not achieve controlled flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903, or
that another did so earler.

>>>> The only record I can find of a flight in Paris
>>>> in 1895 was of the Avion III, which supposedly made one and only
>>>> one
>>>> flight--whether it was a controlled flight or not depends on who
>>>> you
>>>> believe, some sources say that it crashed.
>>>
>>> Here's and 1897 photograph of the Avion III in flight, in 1897:
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/AderAvion3%281897%29.jpg
>>
>> Uh huh. I really like the way that they managed to stop the motion
>> of the propellers with that very high speed shutter that did not
>> exist then. Hell, I can't stop a propeller that thoroughly with my
>> Leica. And who was flying it? The guy hanging out the side would
>> have had trouble reaching the controls I would think.
>>
>> The photo is also rather sharp for an 1897 photo of a flying
>> machine.
>>
>> And if it flew so well then why didn't the French military continue
>> to develop it?
>
> They didn't think it was worth the probable expense. "It would scare
> the horses."

And of course you have a source for that statement from the French
military. No? Perhaps the reason was that they looked at it, saw
that it wasn't in any sense a practical flying machine, and said "come
back to us when you have something that works?"

>>>> It never flew again in any case.
>>>
>>> In fairness to Ader, it should be pointed out that the first
>>> Wright
>>> flyer never flew again either, having been damaged.
>>
>> It made four flights, not just the one claimed for Ader.
>
> As I recollect, immediately following the first flight, it was
> caught
> and flipped by a gust of wind, injuring the Coastie who the Wrights
> had brought with them.

All this time you've been trying to wow us with your expertise and you
aren't even aware of the sequence of events at Kitty Hawk? Four
flights, with the event you describe occurring after the Flyer was on
the ground following the last one.

>>>> here is a photo of the Wright Flyer airborne at Kitty Hawk in
>>>> 1903, ergo there is no question that their claim was true.
>>>
>>> Experts have examined the photographic evidence, and have not been
>>> able to conclude definitely one way or the other.
>>
>> Which experts are these? Are you saying that the aircraft clearly
>> flying at Kitty Hawk was faked somehow?
>
> No, I'm saying you can't tell from the photo whether or not the
> plane
> lifted off of level ground under its own power or not.

And if it didn't what difference does that make? If that's your
criterion then the X-15 didn't fly.

>>> I refer you to
>>> Oliver Stewart's _Aviation: The Creative Ideas_. Stewart was
>>> himself
>>> a
>>> test pilot and an historian of aviation. And there is no doubt
>>> whatever about Ader's accomplishments, because not only were they
>>> photographed, they were conducted in front of a commission of
>>> experts
>>> appointed by the military for the purpose, rather than in secluded
>>> secrecy.
>>
>> So show me a photograph that is clearly and incontrovertibly of
>> Ader's machine in powered flight. I want to see evidence of
>> propellers turning and a background that allows the altitude to be
>> judged. The one you link appears to be of it on the ground with
>> the
>> background cut out.
>
> Sounds as if you didn't look at the photograph.

I looked very carefully at it.

> You are clearly
> looking up at the under side of the wings.

So what? Stand in front of any taildragger parked on the ramp and
take a picture and you get the underside of the wings.

> As for the rest, the
> testimony of the military commission that observed the test is
> pretty
> good. And it was all recorded back in 1897, so there's no question
> of
> them trying to shoot down the Wright brothers' claim as they didn't
> have any claim to shoot down at the time.

You've read that "testimony"? Or just what one guy says about it? In
any case, was it or was it not in controlled flight? Did it or did it
not crash at the end with sufficient damage to be unfliable again that
day? Did it or did it not fly again? If the "testimony" of the
"military commission" is as good as you say then those questions
should be addressed by it.

>>>> hey made
>>>> more than 105 flights in the next year and in another year were
>>>> flying tens of miles. Or are you saying that in 1908 they
>>>> magically
>>>> appeared in Paris with a fully controllable airplane far more
>>>> capable than any other in the world at the time having done
>>>> absolutly no prior research and development?
>>>
>>> No, I'm saying that it isn't clear that they did anything that had
>>> not
>>> been done by others before.
>>>>
>>>>> The assumption that their claims were true may be stretching it.
>>>>> Although they wanted to sell airplanes to anybody who was
>>>>> buying,
>>>>> when
>>>>> the Brits came over to evaluate their plane, and ready to place
>>>>> an
>>>>> order, they declined to demonstrate it in 1906.
>>>>
>>>> They did not "decline to demonstrate it", the refused to
>>>> demonstrate
>>>> it to anybody prior to the signing of a contract. Today they
>>>> would
>>>> probably have simply required a non-disclosure agreement but at
>>>> the
>>>> time such things were unknown. They didn't seem to be all that
>>>> interested in _selling_ anyway.
>>>
>>> According to Stewart, they were trying to interest everybody's
>>> militaries in the airplane.
>>
>> Get a few more sources. If you get your sense of history from only
>> one source then you are often misled.
>
> OK, how about Theodor von Karman -- another aviation pioneer, having
> been responsible for, among other things, one of the first
> helicopters, and JPL. His memoirs also discuss the early development
> of aviation in Europe, and he was another expert. Both Karman and
> Stewart list their sources, and I believe that the original
> documents
> regarding Aders work as observed by the French military commission
> still exist.

So quote us from von Karman to the effect that Ader has a controllable
heavier than air flying machine before the Wrights.

>>> The British representative made it clear
>>> to them that purchase was conditional on performance. Their excuse
>>> for
>>> not demonstrating it was that they felt he was only trying to
>>> satisfy
>>> his own curiousity. If they were flying as far, and as often as
>>> you
>>> assert, and doing all of the things they were claiming, there
>>> should
>>> have been no problem about inviting him to such an event. Unless,
>>> of
>>> course, they didn't want an expert witness...
>>
>> Or unless they didn't want him to steal their ideas without
>> compensation.
>
> He wasn't asking for blueprints, and it's hard to imagine what he
> might have "stolen" from seeing them operate it.

The flight controls.

> The principle
> advances claimed for the Wright flyer were an engine with a better
> power to weight ratio than anyone else had, and merely seeing it
> operate wouldn't give them much of that.

Claimed by who? The patent number is is 821393 and it doesn't say
anything about an improved engine. Looks like your "historians of the
subject" have failed you again.

> If, on the other hand, it
> wasn't going to meet the stated requirements of the prospective
> purchaser, then there was no reason for them to demonstrate it.

So before they had ever seen a working airplane, the British
government nonetheless had "requirements" for what one should be able
to do?

You seem to be hung up on the notion that getting off the ground is
the only requirement for a successful flying machine. It isn't.



--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Wright Flyer I Model Airplane 

P. "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling "thinks":

> And George Bush personally ordered the destruction of
> the WTC.

There's no proof of that, and like most of your other
kook rants, that one is very silly. But expert research
and analysis have established beyond any doubt that the
towers and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.


http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/05/structural-engineers-ques...n-colla

Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center
One of the arguments that government apologists have used in trying to
prop up the official story of why the World Trade Centers came down on
9/11 is that no structural engineers have questioned the government's
version of events. However, that is now changing.

The following structural engineers have now publicly challenged the
government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in
structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (translation
here)

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member,
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil
Engineers

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College

When considered along with the other prominent scientists who question
9/11, it becomes impossible for any thinking person to accept at face
value the government's version of the destruction of the World Trade
Center.

More experts who who have used science and hard evidence to prove
demolition:

http://journalof911studies.com/

Still more engineers and experts who explain why the Bush regime's
magic fire theory is physically impossible.

http://ae911truth.org/

Another one:

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

And quite a few more:

http://911proof.com/10.html

More yet:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

And a couple hundred more:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html




--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html


Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
 >> Stay informed about: Wright Flyer I Model Airplane 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:23:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:

>Alan Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:44:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke.usenet DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Moore wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:28:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>> <jclarke.usenet DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan Moore wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:55:58 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>> "aircraftsmodel@gmail.com"
>>>>>> <aircraftsmodel DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Wright Flyer was also known as the Flyer I and sometimes
>>>>>>> Kitty
>>>>>>> Hawk. It was an experimental airplane designed and built by the
>>>>>>> Wright Brothers. It was the first sustained controlled
>>>>>>> heavier-than-air powered flight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that it has anything to do with motorcycles, but the
>>>>>> Wrights,
>>>>>> assuming that their 1903 claims are true, were still at least
>>>>>> eight
>>>>>> years after the first such flight, which took place in Paris in
>>>>>> 1895.
>>>>>> That's a flight leaving level ground under its own power.
>>>>>> Powered
>>>>>> glides, which would fit your description, had been made even
>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were three points to the Wright's flight--sustained,
>>>>> controlled, and heavier than air.
>>>>
>>>> All of those had been achieved many years before.
>>>
>>> By who?
>>
>> Langley, here in the States, Ader in France, A Brazilian whose name
>> escapes me at the moment, Mozhaiskiy in Russia...
>
>Langley? Uh, before the Wrights, all Langley accomplished was to
>spend a great deal of government money to crash. Ader we've already
>discussed--he might have made some kind of flight but only one and
>possibly crashed at the end of it, there is no evidence that his
>flight was controlled. "A Brazilian"? That would I presume be
>Santos-Dumont, for which there is no claim that he flew a
>heavier-than-air craft prior to 1906.
>
>>>> Another item that
>>>> the Wrights were trying to accomplish was to lift off of level
>>>> ground
>>>> under it's own power. They did not trouble to mention this item to
>>>> either of the only two witnesses, neither of whom was an expert,
>>>> and
>>>> there remains some dispute about whether their launch rail was
>>>> level,
>>>> or sloped down.
>>>
>>> You're grasping at straws here.
>>
>> Not according to the historians of the subject.
>
>Find me one credible "historian" of the subject who argues that the
>Wrights did not achieve controlled flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903, or
>that another did so earler.
>
>>>>> The only record I can find of a flight in Paris
>>>>> in 1895 was of the Avion III, which supposedly made one and only
>>>>> one
>>>>> flight--whether it was a controlled flight or not depends on who
>>>>> you
>>>>> believe, some sources say that it crashed.
>>>>
>>>> Here's and 1897 photograph of the Avion III in flight, in 1897:
>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/AderAvion3%281897%29.jpg
>>>
>>> Uh huh. I really like the way that they managed to stop the motion
>>> of the propellers with that very high speed shutter that did not
>>> exist then. Hell, I can't stop a propeller that thoroughly with my
>>> Leica. And who was flying it? The guy hanging out the side would
>>> have had trouble reaching the controls I would think.
>>>
>>> The photo is also rather sharp for an 1897 photo of a flying
>>> machine.
>>>
>>> And if it flew so well then why didn't the French military continue
>>> to develop it?
>>
>> They didn't think it was worth the probable expense. "It would scare
>> the horses."
>
>And of course you have a source for that statement from the French
>military. No? Perhaps the reason was that they looked at it, saw
>that it wasn't in any sense a practical flying machine, and said "come
>back to us when you have something that works?"
>
>>>>> It never flew again in any case.
>>>>
>>>> In fairness to Ader, it should be pointed out that the first
>>>> Wright
>>>> flyer never flew again either, having been damaged.
>>>
>>> It made four flights, not just the one claimed for Ader.
>>
>> As I recollect, immediately following the first flight, it was
>> caught
>> and flipped by a gust of wind, injuring the Coastie who the Wrights
>> had brought with them.
>
>All this time you've been trying to wow us with your expertise and you
>aren't even aware of the sequence of events at Kitty Hawk? Four
>flights, with the event you describe occurring after the Flyer was on
>the ground following the last one.
>
>>>>> here is a photo of the Wright Flyer airborne at Kitty Hawk in
>>>>> 1903, ergo there is no question that their claim was true.
>>>>
>>>> Experts have examined the photographic evidence, and have not been
>>>> able to conclude definitely one way or the other.
>>>
>>> Which experts are these? Are you saying that the aircraft clearly
>>> flying at Kitty Hawk was faked somehow?
>>
>> No, I'm saying you can't tell from the photo whether or not the
>> plane
>> lifted off of level ground under its own power or not.
>
>And if it didn't what difference does that make? If that's your
>criterion then the X-15 didn't fly.

Not in that sense. If they launched from a downgrade, what they did
was a powered glide. Which had been done previously. The Wrights, and
other would be flyiers studied those efforts carefully. If what the
Wrights did was a powered glide, then the British military wouldn't
have been very interested, as that was nothing new.
>
>>>> I refer you to
>>>> Oliver Stewart's _Aviation: The Creative Ideas_. Stewart was
>>>> himself
>>>> a
>>>> test pilot and an historian of aviation. And there is no doubt
>>>> whatever about Ader's accomplishments, because not only were they
>>>> photographed, they were conducted in front of a commission of
>>>> experts
>>>> appointed by the military for the purpose, rather than in secluded
>>>> secrecy.
>>>
>>> So show me a photograph that is clearly and incontrovertibly of
>>> Ader's machine in powered flight. I want to see evidence of
>>> propellers turning and a background that allows the altitude to be
>>> judged. The one you link appears to be of it on the ground with
>>> the
>>> background cut out.
>>
>> Sounds as if you didn't look at the photograph.
>
>I looked very carefully at it.
>
>> You are clearly
>> looking up at the under side of the wings.
>
>So what? Stand in front of any taildragger parked on the ramp and
>take a picture and you get the underside of the wings.

How about the bottom of the wheels?
>
>> As for the rest, the
>> testimony of the military commission that observed the test is
>> pretty
>> good. And it was all recorded back in 1897, so there's no question
>> of
>> them trying to shoot down the Wright brothers' claim as they didn't
>> have any claim to shoot down at the time.
>
>You've read that "testimony"? Or just what one guy says about it? In
>any case, was it or was it not in controlled flight? Did it or did it
>not crash at the end with sufficient damage to be unfliable again that
>day? Did it or did it not fly again? If the "testimony" of the
>"military commission" is as good as you say then those questions
>should be addressed by it.

That was my point. I haven't seen their report. I'm not an historian
of aviation. Stewart is. Consulting the archives is a part of his line
of work. Mine is figuring out why things break, and consulting
archives has little to do with the things I'm involved with.
>
>>>>> hey made
>>>>> more than 105 flights in the next year and in another year were
>>>>> flying tens of miles. Or are you saying that in 1908 they
>>>>> magically
>>>>> appeared in Paris with a fully controllable airplane far more
>>>>> capable than any other in the world at the time having done
>>>>> absolutly no prior research and development?
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm saying that it isn't clear that they did anything that had
>>>> not
>>>> been done by others before.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The assumption that their claims were true may be stretching it.
>>>>>> Although they wanted to sell airplanes to anybody who was
>>>>>> buying,
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> the Brits came over to evaluate their plane, and ready to place
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> order, they declined to demonstrate it in 1906.
>>>>>
>>>>> They did not "decline to demonstrate it", the refused to
>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>> it to anybody prior to the signing of a contract. Today they
>>>>> would
>>>>> probably have simply required a non-disclosure agreement but at
>>>>> the
>>>>> time such things were unknown. They didn't seem to be all that
>>>>> interested in _selling_ anyway.
>>>>
>>>> According to Stewart, they were trying to interest everybody's
>>>> militaries in the airplane.
>>>
>>> Get a few more sources. If you get your sense of history from only
>>> one source then you are often misled.
>>
>> OK, how about Theodor von Karman -- another aviation pioneer, having
>> been responsible for, among other things, one of the first
>> helicopters, and JPL. His memoirs also discuss the early development
>> of aviation in Europe, and he was another expert. Both Karman and
>> Stewart list their sources, and I believe that the original
>> documents
>> regarding Aders work as observed by the French military commission
>> still exist.
>
>So quote us from von Karman to the effect that Ader has a controllable
>heavier than air flying machine before the Wrights.

Next time I'm at the library, I'll check out his book again. It's been
a while.
>
>>>> The British representative made it clear
>>>> to them that purchase was conditional on performance. Their excuse
>>>> for
>>>> not demonstrating it was that they felt he was only trying to
>>>> satisfy
>>>> his own curiousity. If they were flying as far, and as often as
>>>> you
>>>> assert, and doing all of the things they were claiming, there
>>>> should
>>>> have been no problem about inviting him to such an event. Unless,
>>>> of
>>>> course, they didn't want an expert witness...
>>>
>>> Or unless they didn't want him to steal their ideas without
>>> compensation.
>>
>> He wasn't asking for blueprints, and it's hard to imagine what he
>> might have "stolen" from seeing them operate it.
>
>The flight controls.

The Wing warping techinique used by both Ader and the Wrights was
alsot used by Mozhaiskiy in the 1880s. It appears to have been
original with him.
>
>> The principle
>> advances claimed for the Wright flyer were an engine with a better
>> power to weight ratio than anyone else had, and merely seeing it
>> operate wouldn't give them much of that.
>
>Claimed by who? The patent number is is 821393 and it doesn't say
>anything about an improved engine. Looks like your "historians of the
>subject" have failed you again.
>
>> If, on the other hand, it
>> wasn't going to meet the stated requirements of the prospective
>> purchaser, then there was no reason for them to demonstrate it.
>
>So before they had ever seen a working airplane, the British
>government nonetheless had "requirements" for what one should be able
>to do?

Well, like, Duh! Why would they consider buying something if they
didn't know what it would do? Or whether it would do what they needed?
Ever dealt with military contracts?
>
>You seem to be hung up on the notion that getting off the ground is
>the only requirement for a successful flying machine. It isn't.

On the countrary. Rather, it is you who seem to believe that, back
then, the ability to get off of level ground was not a requirement.
About other requirements, I have said very little.

Al Moore
DoD 734
 >> Stay informed about: Wright Flyer I Model Airplane 

Alan Moore wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:23:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Alan Moore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:44:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Moore wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:28:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>>> <jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan Moore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:55:58 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>> "aircraftsmodel@gmail.com"
>>>>>>> <aircraftsmodel.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Wright Flyer was also known as the Flyer I and sometimes
>>>>>>>> Kitty
>>>>>>>> Hawk. It was an experimental airplane designed and built by
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Wright Brothers. It was the first sustained controlled
>>>>>>>> heavier-than-air powered flight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that it has anything to do with motorcycles, but the
>>>>>>> Wrights,
>>>>>>> assuming that their 1903 claims are true, were still at least
>>>>>>> eight
>>>>>>> years after the first such flight, which took place in Paris
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> 1895.
>>>>>>> That's a flight leaving level ground under its own power.
>>>>>>> Powered
>>>>>>> glides, which would fit your description, had been made even
>>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were three points to the Wright's flight--sustained,
>>>>>> controlled, and heavier than air.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of those had been achieved many years before.
>>>>
>>>> By who?
>>>
>>> Langley, here in the States, Ader in France, A Brazilian whose
>>> name
>>> escapes me at the moment, Mozhaiskiy in Russia...
>>
>> Langley? Uh, before the Wrights, all Langley accomplished was to
>> spend a great deal of government money to crash. Ader we've
>> already
>> discussed--he might have made some kind of flight but only one and
>> possibly crashed at the end of it, there is no evidence that his
>> flight was controlled. "A Brazilian"? That would I presume be
>> Santos-Dumont, for which there is no claim that he flew a
>> heavier-than-air craft prior to 1906.
>>
>>>>> Another item that
>>>>> the Wrights were trying to accomplish was to lift off of level
>>>>> ground
>>>>> under it's own power. They did not trouble to mention this item
>>>>> to
>>>>> either of the only two witnesses, neither of whom was an expert,
>>>>> and
>>>>> there remains some dispute about whether their launch rail was
>>>>> level,
>>>>> or sloped down.
>>>>
>>>> You're grasping at straws here.
>>>
>>> Not according to the historians of the subject.
>>
>> Find me one credible "historian" of the subject who argues that the
>> Wrights did not achieve controlled flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903, or
>> that another did so earler.
>>
>>>>>> The only record I can find of a flight in Paris
>>>>>> in 1895 was of the Avion III, which supposedly made one and
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> flight--whether it was a controlled flight or not depends on
>>>>>> who
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> believe, some sources say that it crashed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's and 1897 photograph of the Avion III in flight, in 1897:
>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/AderAvion3%281897%29.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Uh huh. I really like the way that they managed to stop the
>>>> motion
>>>> of the propellers with that very high speed shutter that did not
>>>> exist then. Hell, I can't stop a propeller that thoroughly with
>>>> my
>>>> Leica. And who was flying it? The guy hanging out the side would
>>>> have had trouble reaching the controls I would think.
>>>>
>>>> The photo is also rather sharp for an 1897 photo of a flying
>>>> machine.
>>>>
>>>> And if it flew so well then why didn't the French military
>>>> continue
>>>> to develop it?
>>>
>>> They didn't think it was worth the probable expense. "It would
>>> scare
>>> the horses."
>>
>> And of course you have a source for that statement from the French
>> military. No? Perhaps the reason was that they looked at it, saw
>> that it wasn't in any sense a practical flying machine, and said
>> "come back to us when you have something that works?"
>>
>>>>>> It never flew again in any case.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fairness to Ader, it should be pointed out that the first
>>>>> Wright
>>>>> flyer never flew again either, having been damaged.
>>>>
>>>> It made four flights, not just the one claimed for Ader.
>>>
>>> As I recollect, immediately following the first flight, it was
>>> caught
>>> and flipped by a gust of wind, injuring the Coastie who the
>>> Wrights
>>> had brought with them.
>>
>> All this time you've been trying to wow us with your expertise and
>> you aren't even aware of the sequence of events at Kitty Hawk?
>> Four
>> flights, with the event you describe occurring after the Flyer was
>> on
>> the ground following the last one.
>>
>>>>>> here is a photo of the Wright Flyer airborne at Kitty Hawk in
>>>>>> 1903, ergo there is no question that their claim was true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Experts have examined the photographic evidence, and have not
>>>>> been
>>>>> able to conclude definitely one way or the other.
>>>>
>>>> Which experts are these? Are you saying that the aircraft
>>>> clearly
>>>> flying at Kitty Hawk was faked somehow?
>>>
>>> No, I'm saying you can't tell from the photo whether or not the
>>> plane
>>> lifted off of level ground under its own power or not.
>>
>> And if it didn't what difference does that make? If that's your
>> criterion then the X-15 didn't fly.
>
> Not in that sense. If they launched from a downgrade, what they did
> was a powered glide.

So every time a bush pilot takes off downhill his subsequent flight is
a "powered glide"?

> Which had been done previously. The Wrights, and
> other would be flyiers studied those efforts carefully. If what the
> Wrights did was a powered glide, then the British military wouldn't
> have been very interested, as that was nothing new.

Takeoff aids don't define whether the events subsequent to takeoff are
"flight".

>>>>> I refer you to
>>>>> Oliver Stewart's _Aviation: The Creative Ideas_. Stewart was
>>>>> himself
>>>>> a
>>>>> test pilot and an historian of aviation. And there is no doubt
>>>>> whatever about Ader's accomplishments, because not only were
>>>>> they
>>>>> photographed, they were conducted in front of a commission of
>>>>> experts
>>>>> appointed by the military for the purpose, rather than in
>>>>> secluded
>>>>> secrecy.
>>>>
>>>> So show me a photograph that is clearly and incontrovertibly of
>>>> Ader's machine in powered flight. I want to see evidence of
>>>> propellers turning and a background that allows the altitude to
>>>> be
>>>> judged. The one you link appears to be of it on the ground with
>>>> the
>>>> background cut out.
>>>
>>> Sounds as if you didn't look at the photograph.
>>
>> I looked very carefully at it.
>>
>>> You are clearly
>>> looking up at the under side of the wings.
>>
>> So what? Stand in front of any taildragger parked on the ramp and
>> take a picture and you get the underside of the wings.
>
> How about the bottom of the wheels?

Looks to me like it's being lowered by a crane with the guy in the
door directing operations.

>>> As for the rest, the
>>> testimony of the military commission that observed the test is
>>> pretty
>>> good. And it was all recorded back in 1897, so there's no question
>>> of
>>> them trying to shoot down the Wright brothers' claim as they
>>> didn't
>>> have any claim to shoot down at the time.
>>
>> You've read that "testimony"? Or just what one guy says about it?
>> In any case, was it or was it not in controlled flight? Did it or
>> did it not crash at the end with sufficient damage to be unfliable
>> again that day? Did it or did it not fly again? If the
>> "testimony"
>> of the "military commission" is as good as you say then those
>> questions should be addressed by it.
>
> That was my point. I haven't seen their report. I'm not an historian
> of aviation. Stewart is. Consulting the archives is a part of his
> line
> of work. Mine is figuring out why things break, and consulting
> archives has little to do with the things I'm involved with.

I see. So you really have no idea what was in "the testimony of the
military commission" or whether it was "pretty good".

You seem big on this one historian who seems to disagree with a lot of
other historians.

>>>>>> hey made
>>>>>> more than 105 flights in the next year and in another year were
>>>>>> flying tens of miles. Or are you saying that in 1908 they
>>>>>> magically
>>>>>> appeared in Paris with a fully controllable airplane far more
>>>>>> capable than any other in the world at the time having done
>>>>>> absolutly no prior research and development?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm saying that it isn't clear that they did anything that
>>>>> had
>>>>> not
>>>>> been done by others before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The assumption that their claims were true may be stretching
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> Although they wanted to sell airplanes to anybody who was
>>>>>>> buying,
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> the Brits came over to evaluate their plane, and ready to
>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> order, they declined to demonstrate it in 1906.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They did not "decline to demonstrate it", the refused to
>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>> it to anybody prior to the signing of a contract. Today they
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> probably have simply required a non-disclosure agreement but at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> time such things were unknown. They didn't seem to be all that
>>>>>> interested in _selling_ anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to Stewart, they were trying to interest everybody's
>>>>> militaries in the airplane.
>>>>
>>>> Get a few more sources. If you get your sense of history from
>>>> only
>>>> one source then you are often misled.
>>>
>>> OK, how about Theodor von Karman -- another aviation pioneer,
>>> having
>>> been responsible for, among other things, one of the first
>>> helicopters, and JPL. His memoirs also discuss the early
>>> development
>>> of aviation in Europe, and he was another expert. Both Karman and
>>> Stewart list their sources, and I believe that the original
>>> documents
>>> regarding Aders work as observed by the French military commission
>>> still exist.
>>
>> So quote us from von Karman to the effect that Ader has a
>> controllable heavier than air flying machine before the Wrights.
>
> Next time I'm at the library, I'll check out his book again. It's
> been
> a while.
>>
>>>>> The British representative made it clear
>>>>> to them that purchase was conditional on performance. Their
>>>>> excuse
>>>>> for
>>>>> not demonstrating it was that they felt he was only trying to
>>>>> satisfy
>>>>> his own curiousity. If they were flying as far, and as often as
>>>>> you
>>>>> assert, and doing all of the things they were claiming, there
>>>>> should
>>>>> have been no problem about inviting him to such an event.
>>>>> Unless,
>>>>> of
>>>>> course, they didn't want an expert witness...
>>>>
>>>> Or unless they didn't want him to steal their ideas without
>>>> compensation.
>>>
>>> He wasn't asking for blueprints, and it's hard to imagine what he
>>> might have "stolen" from seeing them operate it.
>>
>> The flight controls.
>
> The Wing warping techinique used by both Ader and the Wrights was
> alsot used by Mozhaiskiy in the 1880s. It appears to have been
> original with him.

It was? Source please? The Wright patent is online. Where can one
find documented evidence that either Ader or Mozhaisky used it? And
why did their airplanes crash when the Wrights' didnt?

>>> The principle
>>> advances claimed for the Wright flyer were an engine with a better
>>> power to weight ratio than anyone else had, and merely seeing it
>>> operate wouldn't give them much of that.
>>
>> Claimed by who? The patent number is is 821393 and it doesn't say
>> anything about an improved engine. Looks like your "historians of
>> the subject" have failed you again.
>>
>>> If, on the other hand, it
>>> wasn't going to meet the stated requirements of the prospective
>>> purchaser, then there was no reason for them to demonstrate it.
>>
>> So before they had ever seen a working airplane, the British
>> government nonetheless had "requirements" for what one should be
>> able
>> to do?
>
> Well, like, Duh! Why would they consider buying something if they
> didn't know what it would do? Or whether it would do what they
> needed?
> Ever dealt with military contracts?

So they knew what something that did not exist anywhere in the world
except Dayton, Ohio, that they had never seen, would do. There are
such things as "development contracts".

>> You seem to be hung up on the notion that getting off the ground is
>> the only requirement for a successful flying machine. It isn't.
>
> On the countrary. Rather, it is you who seem to believe that, back
> then, the ability to get off of level ground was not a requirement.
> About other requirements, I have said very little.

I don't see why "the ability to get off of level ground" would be a
requirement for demonstrating controlled flight with altitude gain.
That's something that can be fixed with better engines. It's the
control part that's the hard problem.

And perhaps the Flyer _could_ "get off of level ground" if it had 20
miles of paved runway in front of it. It's underpowered, nobody is
denying that. It can't acclerate quickly, nobody is denying that.
But you' seem to think that the ability to accelerate quickly is the
most important characteristic of a flying machine.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Wright Flyer I Model Airplane