PDA

View Full Version : Wright Crasher



Cmte. Carvalho
12-18-2003, 06:03 PM
http://www.angelfire.com/blog/guilherme/WrightFail.jpg

Yeah... When the man don't make justice, God, soon or later, will make it.

Cmte. Carvalho
12-18-2003, 06:03 PM
http://www.angelfire.com/blog/guilherme/WrightFail.jpg

Yeah... When the man don't make justice, God, soon or later, will make it.

georgeo76
12-18-2003, 06:07 PM
Just goes to show what an accomplishment it really was, when, 100yrs later, we're having difficulty repeating it

http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/alex.jpg
"Oh bliss, bliss and heaven. Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh. It was like a bird of rarest spun heaven metal, or like silvery wine flowing in a space ship, gravity all nonsense now. As I slooshied I knew such lovely pictures."
Fiend's Wings (http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend)

vanelvis
12-18-2003, 06:10 PM
looks like a hard plane to fly. I mean with all those guages and hydrolic systems. Dont even get me started on trying to shift the super charger.

necrobaron
12-18-2003, 06:11 PM
The failure of the new Flyer had nothing to do with the design of the machine itself. The wind conditions were wrong and the humidity caused one of the engines to lose RPM. The overall weather conditions just weren't conducive for it to fly yesterday. I was pretty disappointed.....

Fennec_P
12-18-2003, 06:18 PM
Maybe if they used a lawnmower engine it would fly.

Cmte. Carvalho
12-18-2003, 06:20 PM
Ahaha... What kind of plane is that? The 14-bis of Santos Dumont doesn't need of winds and even a catapult to take of...

<img border="0" src="http://sites.uol.com.br/disco_virtual/cmte_carvalho/compartilhada/Forgotten_Battles/Assinatura_IV.gif" width="308" height="530"></p>

adlabs6
12-18-2003, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The wind conditions were wrong and the humidity caused one of the engines to lose RPM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I though the Wright Flyer only had one engine?

And your right the conditions were rotton. Still, these are super primative machines. If the world had been gliding for a century before then engines were strong/light enough, the designs that were use would've been very much better. Kind of like mounting an engine to a already well designed horse drawn buggy, or to the first sheep drawn cart ever built.

Well, something like that.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB page (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/)| IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com/) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/)

VonKlugermon
12-18-2003, 08:55 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cmte_carvalho:
Ahaha... What kind of plane is that? The 14-bis of Santos Dumont doesn't need of winds and even a catapult to take of...

Check your source: Santos Dumont's 14-bis didn''t fly until 1906 and it's first flight was 197 feet. Wright Flyer flew 852 feet in 1903 (last of four flights) and did NOT use a catapult.

Willy

necrobaron
12-18-2003, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by adlabs6:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The wind conditions were wrong and the humidity caused one of the engines to lose RPM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I though the Wright Flyer only had one engine?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For some reason I was thinking each prop was driven by a separate engine. That is wrong of course. Anyway,the Flyer didn't use a catapult. It had a rail system to keep it steady for take-off(it had no landing gear). There are other Flyer replicas that vary in accuracy,and one does have what amounts to a lawn-mower engine. The particular one we're talking about (allegedly) is virtually identical to the real Flyer. Even the primitive engine(s?) were replicated. What's a shame is that this Flyer can(and has) flown before in practice sessions,but when the eyes of the world were watching it on the 100th Anniversary,the weather fecks it all up....

Zayets
12-19-2003, 01:00 AM
Dunno if there are any OFFICIAL records about Santos Dumont plane or the figures you advance.I have found none.
It is acceepted now that Flyer DID took off and flew.Even if they had good meteo conditions.They proved that the man can fly,and this is enough.At least to me.So,they are the first.If you want to argue who was first theen you can say that credit should go as well to da Vinci. Let's be serious!

FYI: do a search on google with this word : "vuia" and come back.

Zayets out

http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/iar81c.JPG

tomcat1974
12-19-2003, 01:41 AM
Sorry to say but not Santos Dumont was the first to fly by its own power.
Like Zayets said..it was Vuia.
some links
http://www.flight100.org/history/rom.html
this is american institute of aeronautics and astronautics.

http://www.earlyaviators.com/evuia.htm
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/vuia.html
just some of many links.Vuia airplane can be see at Bourge Air Museum with all the explinations and story.

Cpt-Madcowz
12-19-2003, 06:23 AM
For goodness sake, it should be obvious to all of you.

That plane was seriously undermodelled, if Oleg knew what he was doing and wasn't biased towards bicycle repair men then it would have flown and flown for miles, blah blah rant spurtle waffle spraff blah sh*te

"when the hunter comes, the tiger runs with the dear"

Cmte. Carvalho
12-19-2003, 06:31 AM
Man... The Wright "Crasher" don't have even wheels... 14-bis doesn't need of wind, catapult and one of the most important things: everybody in France was able to go at Bagatelle Camp to watch it's flight... If the Wright made a so important conquer, why they just didn't show to everybody his flight at 1903? Just one picture and some people can't prove they flew at that date.

&lt;img border="0" src="http://sites.uol.com.br/disco_virtual/cmte_carvalho/compartilhada/Forgotten_Battles/Assinatura_IV.gif"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

Zayets
12-19-2003, 06:47 AM
You still don't get it , do you?
Was not Santos the first one who took off using by own power.That was Vuia. And yes , there was also load of people there.To make a short resume for you. Vuia flown in March and Santos in November.You do the math.
As for Wright Flyer everybody agree that was not the airplane invention but the START of it.They started this race and you can't deny this.And btw , Flyer DID had a catapult.Checck your sources.

Zayets out

http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/iar81c.JPG

VonKlugermon
12-19-2003, 07:13 AM
Many people (and other things) "flew" before the Wright brothers. Birds, insects, balloons, gliders, powered machines, etc. The Wright's were the first humans to fly a powered, heavier-than-air craft with control over all three axis of flight: roll, pitch and yaw. Vuia was obviously had the knowledge, but why he waited until 1906 to do any actual flying is beyond me (maybe economics). Wright's first 1903 model, no catapult! However, they did begin utilizing a catapult on subsequent models.

Willy

Zayets
12-19-2003, 07:29 AM
Why?
We're not a what is called a "big nation". As you can see we had to do these stuffs outside our borders.The ideas are maybe thought in Romania , but we had nor the tools , nor the place to test our ideas. Take Coanda foor example . He did it also on Paris , like Vuia. He had well the knowledge but he didn't had to many possibilities to achieve his dream. Wrightt brothers had a bicycle comp ,Vuia had only a diploma http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
Is simple economics if you want.

Zayets out

http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/iar81c.JPG

VonKlugermon
12-19-2003, 07:47 AM
Not bad for a couple of high-school dropouts, eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Willy

Zayets
12-19-2003, 07:56 AM
What can I say?
I'm not one of those person trying to deny the place Wright brothers made in aviation history.I can argue till the end of the world about this bu I don't think it will make any good. A great deal of smart/educated people agreed that Wright Flyer was the first airplane.Who am I to judge that?That doesn't mean I don't have my ideas and my oppinions.But here's a better question : who invented the automobile?

Zayets out

http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/iar81c.JPG

Zayets
12-19-2003, 07:58 AM
Oh,and I forgot: Wright Flyer DID had a catapult.Again , check your sources! I'm serious!

Zayets out

http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/iar81c.JPG

MiloMorai
12-19-2003, 08:09 AM
On that historic day in 1903 the wind was blowing at 35mph. What was the wind blowing at 100 years later? Even the Wrights had accidents, doing the same abrupt climb that caused a crash in one of the gliders.

The Discovery Channel had a 2 hour special on the 'new' Wright Flier. Well worth the watching. The brothers that built the engine had it dyno tested. The Wrights figured they needed 8hp but this exact replica engine put out 16hp. Some other trivia was that the props were 80% efficient as measured in a modern wind tunnel. They also matched almost exactly the original prop.

Zayets
12-19-2003, 08:16 AM
So,they glided instead of taking off?
Is that what are you suggesting? Watched the doc on Discovery. They insist too much on the privacy brothers needed to test their plane.There's also a series called "The Wright stuff" ,where they plan to build an EXACT replica of this plane.Don't know how this turned since I missed the final.Still didn't had an answer to my question: who invented the automobile?Any takers?

Zayets out

http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/iar81c.JPG

VonKlugermon
12-19-2003, 12:09 PM
Who invented the automobile?Any takers?

Zayets out


Gottlieb Daimler? Nicolaus Otto? Hero? Neanderthal Man?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Willy

necrobaron
12-19-2003, 12:47 PM
Someone show me evidence that the Wrights used a catapult for the 03 Flyer. NOTHING I've seen supports this claim. And yes the Flyer DID fly in 1903. There were about 10-15 people who saw it and multiple pictures taken of the 4 flights that day. The Wrights were terrified someone would steal their design which is why few saw the initial flight and why there aren't many(if any) original blueprints of the Flyer. It's ludicrous to suggest they somehow "faked" the whole thing.