Strykaas

What a shame !!!!!!!!

He did not even make it !!!!!!!

Goinstraightup

My Feedback: (26)

I saw the video. Needed a lot more speed or wind. He didn't have either.


Too bad they didn't have a JATO bottle for the Flyer in case there wasn't any wind....

Joe Ortiz

My Feedback: (75)

Was this a $1.2 Million project?, too bad, would have been awsome.[]

ballgunner

My Feedback: (1)

Tough outcome with all that time and money invested and millions of people watching at the time, or in reruns, they deserved a better break. As the old saying goes, Man proposes and God disposes.

stomper

My Feedback: (20)

There Is one thing that has me puzzled about there attempt, and that is the fact that the
Wright Brothers did this on a hill.

These guys were trying on flat land?

On a hill you will have an up draft from the wind and gravity pulling the plane down the slop all assisting in a sucessful flight.

MajorTomski

Actually the brothers only tried the hill on the 14th they moved to the flat land, the spot where the reenactment tried on the 17th, but as stated they also had 17 to 25 mph breezes helping.

scottrc

They were missing the 30 knot headwinds.

Amazing how two guys without a highschool diploma and a working man's budget could get their plane to fly, yet a group of highly educated, trained engineers with 1.2 million dollars couldn't even make it off the rail. Of coarse they had to of known it would not fly without the strong winds. But television prevails over common sense and knowledge.

Of coarse, Orville and Wilbure were not trying to fly on a specific date to please the press, in fact they did everything in secret so there wouldn't be any pressure from the press for a premature flight.

Matt Kirsch

My Feedback: (21)

Actually, the plane DID make two successful flights before December 17.

Also, flying it off flat ground was the whole point back in 1903.

touch and go

My Feedback: (11)

If I remember my history correctly, the Wright Brothers also had a catapult system which helped to get plane airborne. It consisted of a short tower through which they raised a weight attached to a rope or chain the other end of which went around a pully and then was attached to the plane. At takeoff the weight was released and its kenetic energy helped to propel the plane along.

Goinstraightup

My Feedback: (26)

That is correct Treetop, but if I remember correctly, that wasn't implemented until later years when they moved to their "area 51" testing spot by Dayton. They needed it because they didn't have the winds at NC.

DBCherry

My Feedback: (4)

Scott,
The reason the re-enactment group spent that 1.2 milion was; the research that went into exactly reproducing a plane for which there are no plans, only old photographs and notes (they used computer graphics and CAD technology to extrapolate from the photos and film), they used materials that were as close as possible to what the Wrights used, they used only tools available to the Wrights, they also reproduced, by hand, the engine that the Wrights had to develop because no engine was available which was both light and powerful enough.

My guess is, it took many more man hours to reproduce the aircraft, than it took the Wrights to make the original.
Dennis-

scottrc

Being an engineer, I know it is a lot harder, and a lot more costly, to re-engineer a design that could be lost in the mind of the original creator. (I think we RCer's all go through this when buying a plane that has never been flown before and not knowing the builder) I also saw on TV where the Smithsonian asked Orville to rebuild the Flyer, and he couldn't really do it to exact specs because he couldn't remember and did not have the time to reverse engineer it. That was why these teams couldn't use the actual flyer. These guys that built the replica really had some tough constraints.
1. They had to be 100% historically accurate without having any details on the design.
2. They had to fly a design that, by all aeronautical design aspects, was proven to not be able to fly.
3. They had to fly this 100% historically accurate recreation with very limited documentation, designed not fly, airplane to the exact minute to the date 100 years ago. Although the probability of the weather being historically accurate was close to zero. And the wind was the determining factor for success.

If I modeled the probability of success, I'd say they would be in the 1/10000000.00 odds of a successful flight on the 17th.

Knowing the odds of success being very low, I'd give them an atta boy for trying this in front of millions of people.


Great thing about our hobby, we can relate to both the Wrights and the re-creaters eh?

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

Too bad they didn't decided to use the launch system the wrights used back in Ohio.
They would have been able to fly the thing with no wind at all!

Zpat

My Feedback: (2)

Isn't it amazing what you can do with 1.2 million dollars nowadays.
Look what 20 million dollars did for Willy the Whale.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

The guy in charge of it was Ken Hyde, a really nice guy. Check out this link for the project;

http://www.wrightexperience.com/

Mel Francis

When the group try for their next launch off the sands of Kitty hawk, it'll probably be a sunny day, the breeze will be perfect and steady, and hardly anyone else will be around.

They will have re-created EXACTLY the original conditions, and we will all marvel at the accomplishment, once again!

Here's to the NEXT successful flight of the Wright Flyer!

jdwiflyrc

My Feedback: (31)

I watched the the show on TV and thought that a hang glider or an accomplished R/C flier would have been a better choice of pilot than airline pilots.

I know flight is flight but the different style of planes have quite a bit to do with how they fly.

I look forward to seeing the plane fly when it does and think they all did well in getting to that point of accomplishment.

Thanks John

Zpat

My Feedback: (2)

I saw the Wright Flyer succussfully fly on TV.
I thought he was a very good Pilot!

Cactus.

My Feedback: (1)

i just saw the pancake on the news, i thought it was laughable.
ok they recreated the design, but with modern knowledge they could have worked out we need to reach this speed before this thing will fly, but they didn't and that ignorance shows.
even the wings were still sagging as it left the rail, probably because they were wet from rain as well as the lack of speed.
would have been toped off if the guy was ejected and landed face first in the mud to hide his shame.

After watching a program last night on isambard kingdom burnell and his achievement's, it's clear in this day and age we don't push the limits anymore and strive for new endeavor unless the bank manager says ok. The new airbus design maybe big, but by Burnells standards with whats already about it's small fry and outdated before it even flys.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Philly,
It sounds like your still upset that we gave you guys the boot back in 1776.

Mel Francis

What an insufferable know-it-all you are!

Just like most know-it-alls, you chime in with your 'opinion' after the fact, never with anything constructive, beforehand.

There's no shame in the fact that the flight didn't work out, only shame in your mocking reaction!

Cactus.

My Feedback: (1)

lol hell no.
i saw a programme a few months back about the fall of the UK empire, they said infact the UK goverment were glad to get rid of the troublesome nation that had little to offer. And was worth more to us as a seperate nation rather than one under control.


anyways, i said the reinactment was laughable, not the first flight.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Cannonball, chill out dude.

Philly, it sounds like your watching way to much television and what would you expect them to say? "We got our asses kick real good", yea right.

Cactus.

My Feedback: (1)

i always have the TV on when i'm sat here. watching scrapheap challenge right now ( USA vs Belarus vs UK )
School history was rubbish, TV's where i get all my info.



We might have different rulers now, but we still fight as one hey.

still.. heres hoping their next attempt is better.

Cannonball: for two people both wanting the same thing in another thread whilst fighting against the face of stupidity, you sure change your tune quick.


i'll leave you Americans to your sentimental patriotic stuff, but don't forget to crack a smile when things screw up that way. Can't tell me none of you smirked when it fell off the end.

SeenMCrash

No, I'm sure the UK was glad to kick us out. That's why they fought a war that lasted how many years again? And then, when it was over, King Charles breathed a sigh of relief. I'm kidding.

Anyway, the plane did fly before the 17th, as some people have said. And, I must say I had very mixed feelings whether or not the flight should have happened. For the several thousand spectators at Kitty Hawk, I'm sure they all wanted it to fly. The builders/designers also knew that they had the pressure of millions of people watching their TV. Afterwards, however, I'm sure that very many people wished that they had waited.... -Andrew