Kitty Hawk Flyer in San Francisco

[farri]

Anyone for one of these?

 

 

Frank.

 

 

[winsor68]

It's getting a bit tedious. Someone needs to bring one of these to market...and quickly. Anyone can build one in their backyard these days.

 

 

 

[Birdseye]

Anyone for one of these?

 

Unlike its namesake, at least this one flew under its own power.

 

 

[farri]

Anyone can build one in their backyard these days.

Really! Can they?...Little true story: Years ago, a couple of guys turned up at my place, wanting to use the strip to test fly this powered parachute they`d put together, I`d never heard of such a thing so I was interested to see this thing and how it would fly.

 

They laid the parachute out, one of the guys strapped the engine to his back, started it up and applied power, took a few steps forward and the Sh!t hit the fan, literally...They`d used a plastic mesh as a guard around the prop and it simply got sucked into the wooden prop, destroying it...They packed it up, went home and I`ve never seen them since.

 

Moral of the story: What appears to be totally obvious to some may not be obvious at all, to others.

 

I wouldn`t say, " Anyone can build one in their backyard, these days!"

 

Frank.

 

 

[kasper]

Unlike its namesake, at least this one flew under its own power.

So you do not think that the Wright flyer flew under its own power in 1903?

I know the replica did not in 2003 as I was there as it did a graceful flop into a puddle off the end of the take off rail - but that's different.

 

 

[Birdseye]

So you do not think that the Wright flyer flew under its own power in 1903? I know the replica did not in 2003 as I was there as it did a graceful flop into a puddle off the end of the take off rail - but that's different.

No, it required a counterweight to start it off.

 

 

[kasper]

No, it required a counterweight to start it off.

No it did not. The 1903 flyer at dirty hawk flew off a rail from a standing start.

The catapult/weight drop system was developed the following year when they flew the second aircraft at Dayton Ohio. It was the standard system for all their non-wheeled aircraft through to 1909.

 

None of these aircraft where incapable of taking off under their own power the system was just used to shorten the take off rail.

 

 

[kasper]

Extract from wright-brothers.org

 

“During 23 May to 1 Dec 1904, the Wrights attempted to fly or flew a total of 105 times at Huffman Prairie, eight miles east of Dayton, OH. Without the high winds of Kitty Hawk, the Wrights had great difficulty launching the Flyer, although they were able to make a few flights that covered up to 1432 feet (436 meters). Beginning 7 Sep 1904, Wrights used catapult to launch plane in calm wind. This "catapult" was actually a wooden derrick, 20 feet (6 meters) high, which dropped a 1200-1400 pound (544-726 kg) weight.“

 

 

[facthunter]

The original "flyer" engine was lucky to make 16 HP and suffered from overheating That sort of power is not likely to enable a rapid climb rate for sure. Nev

 

 

[Birdseye]

No it did not. The 1903 flyer at dirty hawk flew off a rail from a standing start.

By deduction, its unlikely that an aircraft that subsequently needed assistance, actually took off under its own power in the first place. Even the Smithsonian is guarded in its description of this first flight.

 

 

[Marty_d]

While all these person-carrying drones are fantastic, I can't help thinking that it's a waste of power pointing the engines straight up. Couldn't they incorporate wings which pivot on the main spar so they start off vertically, then when you want forward momentum you tilt the LE down? At least that way when you get a fair bit of speed up, your lift is coming from the aerofoil and your engines can be backed off or used to get more speed.

 

 

[kasper]

By deduction, its unlikely that an aircraft that subsequently needed assistance, actually took off under its own power in the first place. Even the Smithsonian is guarded in its description of this first flight.

Last post on this because I do not think your mind can be changed by facts.

fact - the 1903 airframe did not use any power to accelerate from a standing start other than the engine on board and the propellers attached.

 

fact - it sat on a launch trolley with bicycle hubs as wheel that ran down a rail - lower friction than skids on sand - same as wheels on grass lower friction

 

fact - the aircraft did leave the launch trolley and rise into the air so it did fly

 

fact - their were independent witnesses to the flights and the sole photo of the first flight was taken by an independent person

 

Was it fully controlled in all axis and demonstrated in flight in 1903? No.

 

Was it capable of control in all axis in 1903? Yes

 

Was it a fully functional practical aircraft in 1903? No. But that is not the point really.

 

So the 1903 wright flyer did accelerate under its own power to a flight speed and it did fly. All flights were straight and short in length but the longest duration in the air reported was nearly a minute - that's not a simple acceleration to over flight speed and powered hop.

 

Having actually built a replica of the 1903 from the original Smithsonian drawings AND flown the AAIA wright flyer flight simulator with all stability augmentation switched OFF I have great respect not just for the manual skills of the Wrights and Charlie their engine builder in getting to the machine they did BUT for both of the Wrights as pilots - its a bloody hard aircraft to fly and they did it in up to 30mph winds.

 

Frankly if you had a go at controlling the original 1903 and managed to get it into the air and stay there for between 12-59 seconds in still air I'd be nominating you for pilot awards.

 

In 1904 the catapult was not required to get it into the air - just get it into the air in under 60ft of take off rail - it was being flown in still air and the ground run to accelerate became longer than the rails they were willing to use given they had to lay them into whatever wind did exist.

 

On your logic I would be then able to say ANY and ALL aircraft that take off from aircraft carriers are not valid aircraft because they used an external system to accelerate to take off speed in a shorter distance than they could without it.

 

Completely illogical in my opinion to say that use of a take off shortening system in year 2 for flights in different circumstances means that the year 1 aircraft and flights are suspect as being false.

 

How about a bit MORE respect for them for rapidly working out a way of dealing with the lack of winds and the increased take off acceleration? Personally I'd love even more if they had added wheels to the airframe BUT their diaries of the wrights make clear their concern was weight and a skid system on a launch dolly was the lightest they could think of ... and remember they were working with very low power - don't forget the flyer was 275kg empty and had around 16hp for a short time falling to under 12 as it heated up ...

 

 

[facthunter]

With meagre assistance to get airborne it's probably has to be self sustaining in less than 20 seconds. After that it's all on the credit side for the aircraft. The aircraft has no keel surfaces and sideslips as a result unless you control it carefully .The forward elevator is incredibly sensitive. They had to teach them selves to fly as they went. Other aircraft of the time had no positive control in roll. It was further effect of rudder like the flying flea in the 30's the turn is done on rudder alone. The Wright's plane had wing warping. Nev

 

 

[Birdseye]

My view (i.e. my opinion based on readings over many years) is that there was a flaw in their claim. I don't seek to change anyone's opinion, nor do I expect anyone to feel they have the right to change mine. The facts you claim are merely hearsay when reported by a third party, it is up to the person viewing those reports to determine their efficacy.