Wright Brothers Faked it

[kittynh]

OK Listening to the local radio station, and some nutball comes on. He has contended for years that the Wright brothers were not the first to fly and faked their pictures. Some foreign guy did it first. He said the recent failure of the "new" flyer shows it would have been impossible to fly. Only later modified versions were able to fly. The pictures were of a glider, with some retouching. Only after they stole some refinements from this other guy.....blahblahbla...

The odd part is that the radio interviewer didn't just clunk him on the head with the mic and say, "good off my show crazy man"

But, that's a new one!

[Ed]

Originally posted by kittynh
OK Listening to the local radio station, and some nutball comes on. He has contended for years that the Wright brothers were not the first to fly and faked their pictures. Some foreign guy did it first. He said the recent failure of the "new" flyer shows it would have been impossible to fly. Only later modified versions were able to fly. The pictures were of a glider, with some retouching. Only after they stole some refinements from this other guy.....blahblahbla...

The odd part is that the radio interviewer didn't just clunk him on the head with the mic and say, "good off my show crazy man"

But, that's a new one!

The whole thing was done in Area 57. Sorry M'am, I can't say more, might have said too much already.

[CFLarsen]

....watches, as Ed is whisked off by Men In Black (Pyrrho I & II), never to be heard of again.

Except when channeled by Shirley MacLaine...or Sylvia Browne...or Brian Hurst....

[Soapy Sam]

Isn't heavier than air flight a classic example of a technology whose time had come? Maybe someone with less access to publicity made it a little earlier. There were dozens, possibly hundreds of people trying, all over the world, in the decade before the first Kittyhawk flight. For sure it would have been done in the next year or so even if Orville & Wilbur had failed.
Does it really matter who got there first, so long as someone did?

There's the tale of Euan McTeagle who glided from Shetland to Aberdeen in 1847 when his kilt caught the wind in Lerwick...and the terrible business with the bramble patch where he landed...

[shemp]

Actually, the very notion that a heavier-than-air machine can fly is ludicrous! All of these alleged flights are merely a huge and well-orchestrated hoax!

If you think you have flown on an airplane, think again! When you are put aboard one of these fraudulent "aircraft," you are surreptitiously drugged, then put into an underground train which speeds along through a worldwide system of tunnels at over 600 mph, and revived at your destination! Any memories of "flight" are implanted by hypnosis!

"But," you say, "I have seen these aircraft in the sky!" Wrong again! These conspirators simply fly airplane-shaped balloons through the skies to make us all think that there are aircraft overhead! These balloons are actually quite small and closer to the ground than you think, but they create the magnificent illusion of powered flight!

Also, there is no such thing as "airplane food." Merely another hoax. Nobody could possible stomach such crude comestibles!

Well, I must be off now to put more of my money into train, horseless carriage and stagecoach stocks!

[Zep]

Wake up Shep! You were having a nightmare!

[kittynh]

Shemp, it's scarey how good you are at this spin stuff?

wait! You work for the presidential wanna bes dont you?

You got Clinton through that Jennifer Flowers thing!

[El Greco]

Originally posted by shemp
If you think you have flown on an airplane, think again! When you are put aboard one of these fraudulent "aircraft," you are surreptitiously drugged, then put into an underground train which speeds along through a worldwide system of tunnels at over 600 mph, and revived at your destination! Any memories of "flight" are implanted by hypnosis!

So, airplane crashes are actually train crashes ?

I'll never get on a train (or airplane) again.

I'm also starting to think about the ridiculous idea that heavier-than-water ships can float...

[AlienX]

Horizon made a program RE this :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/percypilcher.shtml

AX

[Dragonrock]

My father used to teach aviation history and he has always contended that the first Wright bros. plane was not really capable of flight and the only reason it got off the ground was the extremely strong headwind which is why they chose that location for their test flight.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Originally posted by kittynh
...and faked their pictures.

Duh! I think it's obvious that the Wrigth Bros Photoshopped all of the those pix.

[Cloudbase]

The original Wright Flyer *did* need the 20+ knot headwind to get airborne at Kittyhawk. The engine was not powerful enough to achieve sufficient airspeed velocity plus overcome the drag caused by the skids. A strong headwind minimized the groundspeed required to get airborne. Later at Dayton the Wrights had to incorporate a catapult assist to get airborne due to the lack of wind. Once in the air the Flyer *did* fly under its own power in a controlled manner. The third flight at Kittyhawk was nearly a minute long. The next guy to fly was a Brazilian, a guy named Dumont, three years later. His aircraft launched on wheels under it’s own power. However by that time the Wrights were already flying laps, 25 miles or so, until they ran out of gas – still catapult launching, I believe. It wasn’t until a year or two after Dumont that the Wrights finally adopted that fantastic invention – the wheel.

Some people (mostly Brazilians) consider the Wright’s first flights to be invalid because of the wind.

Dumont was the first heavier-than-air aircraft that could launch under it’s own power with no wind assist and fly under it’s own power in a controlled manner.

The Wrights, you know the guys doing laps before Dumont even got his aircraft to perform a short hop, neglected the ‘launch under its own power’ bit.

It's kinda hard not to say they were the first when they're buzzing overhead...
:p

[kittynh]

well, as they team was building the 'New" old plane they almost seemed puzzled at times, that this thing really flew...

I kept hearing what geniuses they were, but it took something pretty old like the wheel to make it practrical. Some planes do take off with the old catpult method now.

[Ove]

However by that time the Wrights were already flying laps, 25 miles or so, until they ran out of gas – still catapult launching, I believe.

Well there was another reason for catapult launch, they saved weight. Wheels weigh far more than a simple skid but at the time of Santos Dumont the Wright brothers had been using wheels, they stuck to the catapult thought for a while as i said to save weight.

I allways find it strange that some Americans seem to question/disregard the things they REALLY should be proud of (f.inst. the moon landing ;) ) and then elect a smu*k like Curious George for president.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

The problem with all early flights were engine power. The Wright Flyer is a perfectly sound construction, but it is pretty big and all those wires and struts create a LOT of drag. The original engine only had 12hp, which is just barely enough to keep the flyer above stall speed.

If you have Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, you can actually have a virtual try at the Wright Flyer. It is just able to lift off. However being an incorrigible tinkerer, I tried to fix it a bit and increased the power to 24hp. Then it flew nicely! ...Of course that does not mean that the same thing would have happened to the real thing.

About first flyers: The first to fly in Europe was a Dane, Ellehammer, but he was not recognized. Fair enough, since it was really only a tethered flight, his plane was just a powered kite, and not really steerable. In one way, he was a true pioneer, though: He used a radial engine, and is probably the real inventor of the radial engine. :D

Hans

[Ove]

If you have Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, you can actually have a virtual try at the Wright Flyer. It is just able to lift off. However being an incorrigible tinkerer, I tried to fix it a bit and increased the power to 24hp. Then it flew nicely! ...Of course that does not mean that the same thing would have happened to the real thing.

Yep i also saw a programme about some of the guys that claimed that Langley flew first. To prove it they had build a replica and flew it sucessfully. Only trouble was IMHO that they used two chainsaw engines (Rotax) to power it. Langley NEVER had anything with that power to weight ratio. They had also made some assumptions regarding control surfaces that was absolutely un-documented.
About first flyers: The first to fly in Europe was a Dane, Ellehammer, but he was not recognized. Fair enough, since it was really only a tethered flight, his plane was just a powered kite, and not really steerable. In one way, he was a true pioneer, though: He used a radial engine, and is probably the real inventor of the radial engine.

Yes, he also made one of the first working helicopters but as you say, he really flew a powered kite and had no ailerons which makes the plane difficult to control. Still you can find some scientific records that claims that Ellehammer was the first to fly in Europe. I don't think so but his engine was a marvel regarding Power to weight ratio.;) The movie about him is very funny though (Nu stiger den):D

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
....watches, as Ed is whisked off by Men In Black (Pyrrho I & II), never to be heard of again.

Except when channeled by Shirley MacLaine...or Sylvia Browne...or Brian Hurst....
We don't whisk deities. Those other three came from Alkabarb 6. Forget I said that.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Ove
Yep i also saw a programme about some of the guys that claimed that Langley flew first. To prove it they had build a replica and flew it sucessfully. Only trouble was IMHO that they used two chainsaw engines (Rotax) to power it. Langley NEVER had anything with that power to weight ratio. They had also made some assumptions regarding control surfaces that was absolutely un-documented.
I heard something about this too. Langley was the head of the Smithsonian at one point and the Smithsonian museum gave him credit for being the first to fly. It wasn't until the 1940's that some new people came in and gave the Wright brother's credit. That's all I really remember but the whole thing struck me as pretty slimy on his part. Well heck. let's see if I can find a link...

here's one that's pretty good:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105513,00.html

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Did they also get those convenient headaches?

and faked their pictures?

Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?

[jimmygun]

First of all...Area 51 was known as Area 24 back in 1903. The Wright Bros never flew their so-called airplane. What looked like a plane flying over a field was actually the ground being lowered and dragged under the plane which was hanging from a wire not visible in the grainy pictures.

As far as boats go, the ones made of steel are heavier than water and do not float. They are suspended by magnetic repulsion from the iron at the bottom of the water.

And another thing...why are there so many ancient ship wrecks strewn about the waters of the earth? When a wooden ship breaks apart it will still float because wood is lighter than water. No way the wrecks are authentic. They were planted there by the gubmint!

[patnray]

Although several people produced craft that could have flown, flying any of these creations was neither easy nor intuitive: no one had practice in the coordinated moves needed to control an aircraft. The Wrights were able to make a controlled flight because they practiced flying first. How does one practice flying before one has a plane to fly? The Wrights spent several years making huge kites big enough to lift a man. They went aloft in these, still tethered, and perfected the moves and mechanisms needed to control flight.

They had a well developed design, a windy location to assist the take off, and thorough preparation.

I wonder how much practice the pilot of the replica had before attempting to actually fly it?

[Ove]

I wonder how much practice the pilot of the replica had before attempting to actually fly it?

He probably had lots of experience but NOT ON THIS TYPE. Unfortunately a lot of very experienced pilots have made a mess of themselves flying old aeroplaned that behaves radically different from modern types AND the Wright Flyers was notoriously unstable. In fact, the first fatal accident involving a powered aeroplane happened in a Wright (a type "D" i believe).

[MRC_Hans]

As for using the failure of a replica as evidence for failure of the original Wright Flyer: This is ridiculous; the original was hand-built from wood and canvas, and not extensively documented. Even the most meticulously made replica is bound to be different from the original in some ways. As the construction was absolutely marginal, even small discrepancies, a little more weight, a little more drag, or a slightly diffeerent plane profile, might make the difference between flying or not. Why even a different weather might do it, especially air pressure and temperature.

Hans

[tracer]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Isn't heavier than air flight a classic example of a technology whose time had come?
Pffff, oh yeah, right. And I'll bet you believe the Apollo astronauts actually landed on the moon, too. :p

[IPFreeley]

One reason they did not use wheels was because they were doing testing at the outer banks which means wheels would not work anyway. Bicycle hubs rolling on a wooden track worked perfectly fine, so I'm sure they continued using what they found worked best.
The engine was rated at 12hp, but as it heated up, would lose power because of its rudimentary design and it had limited cooling ability, if any at all.
As far as the wind goes, every aircraft takes off into the wind, and the Wright flyer was no exception. The outer banks with its steady wind was a perfect place for them to test their gliders.
I have read that the Flyer is a rather difficult plane to fly because the control surfaces were pretty large and it seems there's no easy way to move those flying surfaces in small adjustments to maintain a steady level flight. Also, the wings used warping rather than ailerons to turn. I'm sure the pilot's flying position was not the best either.