airmark

There doesn't seem to be much interest (or demand for) an RC model of the famous Wright Flyer. I'd guess that most modellers shy from this famous machine because it'd not be easy to construct, would prob. be difficult to power with our modern engines, and the "wing warping" method the Wright brothers used for steering the plane would be difficult to accurately duplicate - in short, it'd be tough to fly.

I'd appreciate others input as to why their seems to be little incentive to create RC models of this historic machine.

Mark in Missouri [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

ballgunner

My Feedback: (1)

The best information to date on modeling the Wright Flyers is on page 28 of the March 2003 issue of
Quiet Flyer magazine. The author is Pat Trittle and a very competent writer as well as a fine modeler.

Tippie

Wing warp can be done without much problem. I built a kit from Royal Products (no longer made) of a Bleriot and it used wing warping. I didn't fly it. I built the model for a good friend who wrote all of the kit instructions in English for Royal Products at the time and he flew it, said it was great.

Lucky Dog

My Feedback: (1)

Dare make a nice little electric Wright Flyer (24" span I think). No wing warping, but it looks like it'll be fun (in calm air). My Son is finishing up one for a senior project.

Mike

simplex

There are many technical problems with Flyer I 1903. The plane was unstable, underpowered and had propellers that appeared only in 1908, exactly in the same year when the Wright brothers flew for the first time in front of credible witnesses. The brothers simply lied about their flights in 1903-1905. They built their planes in France in 1908 with french engines (Barriquand et Marre), french propellers and using the entire French flight experience of 1908.

see: http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com

pd1

You resurrect an 11 year old thread just so you can disparage the Wright brothers?
I don't know if you are just ignorant, or a troll.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Until Wilber Wright flew figure eights in France, the French didn't know how to make their "airplanes" (air quotes?) turn. The French would drag their airplanes to the downwind side of the field, take off into the wind, and land before running out of empty field. Getting an airplane into the air was the minor part of the problem, controlling it in the air was the important part. The Wrights were very wary of public disclosure because they were working on patent protection for their designs. By the time of the French flights they were doing flights of 30 minutes.

A very close replica was built about 11 or 12 years ago to fly at the 100th year of flight celebration. The very best of reverse engineering, construction, and an experienced pilot were used along with 100 years of knowledge. They failed to fly it on the assigned day, it is very marginal at best and it takes a very light pilot to fly at all. But it did fly a few days later.

Yes, the canard design of the Wrights was very unstable. But it would have required a lot more power to fly a more conventional design with the tail in the rear with longitudinal static stability, since quite a bit more lift has to be developed to offset the down force from the tail.

simplex

The Wright brothers = fraudsters
There is absolutely no serious evidence the Wright brothers really performed powered flights in 1903, 1904, 1905.

1) "the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908", Alpheus W. Drinkwater, telegraph operator

"Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with making their first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine on Dec. 17, 1903. But AIpheus W. Drinkwater, 76 years old, who sent the telegraph message ushering in the air age, said the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day.
Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908, he said." Source: New York Times, Dec. 17, 1951.

2) In May 1904, the Wright brothers just glided in front of journalists according to their own September 1908 account

This is what the Wright brothers themselves declared in 1908 about their witnessed flight attempts in 1904:
"In the spring of 1904 … the new machine was heavier and stronger … When it was ready for its first trial, every newspaper in Dayton was notified, and about a dozen representatives of the press were present. … When preparations had been completed … The machine, after running the length of the track, slid off the end without rising into the air at all. Several of the newspaper men returned the next day, but they were again disappointed. The engine performed badly, and after a glide of only sixty feet, the machine came to the ground. The reporters had now, no doubt, lost confidence in the machine, though their reports, in kindness, concealed it. Later, when they heard that we were making flights of several minutes' duration, knowing that longer flights had been made with air-ships, … they were but little interested."
Source: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, The Century Magazine, Sep. 1908, pag 649, columns 3 and 4, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-5

3) Flyer I 1903 had a propeller placed underneath that revolved horizontally !!!, according to an article signed Wilbur Wright and published in Feb. 1904

"One of the propellers was set to revolve vertically and intended to give a forward motion, while the other underneath the machine and revolving horizontally, was to assist in sustaining it in the air. … After the motor device was completed, two flights were made by my brother and two by myself on December 17th last."
Source, "The Experiments of a Flying Man", author Wilbur Wright, The Independent, Feb. 04, 1904, pag. 246, internet address http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001173/#seq-4
Definitely, the flying machine W. Wright talked about in the article is not the one with two pusher propellers, well known from pictures published for the first time in September 1908 in "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane" that appeared in The Century Magazine (see http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-1 , page 644 ).
In conclusion, two different articles, written by the same Wright brothers and published more than four years and half apart, talk about two distinct airplanes (two different Flyer I) as flying on Dec. 17, 1903. The brothers definitely lied in one of the two texts or in both. There is no way they could have told the truth in both articles.
Also W. Wright protested, claiming the article "The Experiments of a Flying Man" was not writtem by him it is intresting to remark that the Library of Congress does not list the article as a fake (see: http://www.loc.gov/item/wright002977/#about-this-item ).
Flyer I with a propeller beneath appears in numerous publications as late as May 1906, and even latter, (see: http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-58 ). WB do not seem to protest against their airplane being shown in various pictures with a propeller turning in the horizontal plane. The big trouble with these Wright brothers is that nearly each article, either written by them or other people (impostors or not), has problems, contains things impossible or hard to explain. WB and also O. Chanute, in a lesser proportion, fed the publications with lies or misled them and finally put the blame on somebody else.
Another inconsistency, an eye witness talks about flapping propellers. There is a large size article, "Fly Over St. Louis at 50 Miles an Hour.", Sunday Magazine - St. Louis Post Dispatch - April 21 1907, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-65 ", containing (amongst other things) a short witness account in its end (bottom right):
"Like a locomotive
By A. I. Root, Medina, O., Who Witness Several of Wright Brothers' Flights.
It was one of the grandest sights of my life. I stood in front of the machine as it came around a curve. Imagine, if you can, an aluminum locomotive, without wheels, but with 20-foot wings and big, flapping propellers, climbing up into the air right towards you. Such a tremendous flapping and snapping. Everyone was excited except the two Wrights. …".
First of all, none of the known airplanes made by WB resembles an aluminum locomotive and secondly they were not equipped with flapping propellers. A. I. Root (a real person) appear cited as witnessing a flying machine that has never existed. The entire article looks more like an investment scam. Most of the newspaper clippings ( see http://www.loc.gov/item/wright002799/ ) collected by the Wright Brothers, especially those between Dec. 17, 1903 and Aug. 8, 1908, look like unreliable articles one can find in tabloids.

4) Wing Warping was not invented by the Wright brothers

Tom Crouch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_D._Crouch ): "wing torsion … was first applied in practice by Edson F. Gallaudet in his 1897 craft, tested on Long Island Sound and now on public display at the NASM."
Source: http://www.flightjournal.com/blog/20...to-john-brown/

Wikipedia seems to support Crouch:
"Edson Fessenden Gallaudet (April 21, 1871 – July 1, 1945) was a pioneer in the field of aviation, being the first person to experiment with warped wings in 1896."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edson_Fessenden_Gallaudet
Wing-warping as a roll control method was used by Edson Gallaudet in 1898, according to http://www.flyingmachines.org/gallau.html . The Wright brothers simply obtained on May 22, 1906 a patent for something already tested in 1898 by somebody else. ^

5) How could an unqualified man have designed and built an engine in 6 weeks?!

About the engine that powered Flyer I 1903 various authors wrote that:
"The Wrights wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight power-plant. They turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers."

The article about Taylor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie...%28mechanic%29 ) also does not bring more light saying just that Taylor was a mechanic hired by Wright Brothers to repair bicycles and "He designed and built the aluminum water-cooled engine in only six weeks, based partly on rough sketches provided by the Wrights."

It is not uncommon for a mechanic to adapt a ready made engine to a specific purpose, but to design it from scratch and build it in 6 weeks is simply incredible.

6) Pictures from May 1908, The Wrights brothers' plane caught flying low in front of a tall sand dune

The images can be found here, (L'Aerophile, 1 July 1908 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...=wright.langEN ). They still glided down the slope. How can I believe that the two brothers were able to fly about 40 minutes in 1905 in Dayton, Ohio over a flat pasture if they still needed a hill and strong winds to fly in May 1908.
In a letter published in L'Aerophile, in which the two brothers gave technical details about all their claimed flights in May 1908, they also specified the wind speed as being between 4 and 9 m/s. (see L'Aerophile 15 June 1908, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...t%20mai.langEN ).

7) "They carried the machine up on the Hill", John T. Daniels, eye witness

The fact that Flyer I 1903 just glided, aided partly by the engine, was confirmed apparently unwillingly by John T. Daniels, an eye witness, in a letter addressed to a friend:

"Manteo NC, June 30 —- 1933,

Dear friend,

I Don’t know very much to write about the flight. I was there, and it was on Dec the 17, — 1903 about 10 o’clock. They carried the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track, and started the engine … and he went about 100 feet or more, and then Mr. Wilbur taken the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track and he went off across the Beach about a half a mile …
Sincerely,
John T. Daniels, Manteo NC, Box 1W"
Source: http://wrightstories.com/eyewitness-...y-john-daniels

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

Don't feed the Troll!

jeffo

My Feedback: (68)

I've been to Kitty Hawk N.C.,what hill?Look at the historic picture with one of the Wright brothers chasing his brother.The plane just came off the monorail and he's up about 10 ft.The plane is going into a 25 mph head wind(the only help he had),and flew for 57 seconds.If there was some kind of a slope it did not help him that much.There were a hand full of witnesses that saw the flight too.(Coast guard personel I think)
The Wright brothers have logged over a thousand flights with there gliders,they knew how to build and fly a plane.They developed 3 major items-plane,propeller,engine.They came up with the concept that the propeller should be more like an airfoil,there propeller had a 80% effective.They came up with a wind tunnel to experiment with airfoils.The wright brothers are american heroes,and deserve there place in history.-jeffo

simplex

The hill (sand dune) is quite visible!

The claimed first flight, 120 feet, Dec. 17, 1903 (a detail of that "historic picture" that appeared published for the first time in Sep. 1908 not before!).


After the claimed fourth flight, 59 sec, Dec. 17, 1903


The declaration of Alpheus Drinkwater, telegraph operator


The witness John T. Daniels (the one who took the picture) declared, 30 years later, in 1933 (not before, see the letter I cited in my previous message) he had seen the Wright brothers' Flyer I 1903 plane being carried twice up on the hill.

simplex

[h=1]The much celebrated 66% efficiency of the 1903 propellers not confirmed by wind tunnel tests[/h] In a March 6, 1903 claimed note, with calculations regarding the efficiency of their propellers, (see http://www.localhangar.com/cgi-bin/c...age&PAGEID=116 ) the Wright brothers simply applied a known elementary relation:


Efficiency_propeller=Thrust * Plane_speed / Power_available, 66%=90lbf*24mph/8.73HP


They simply needed a 90lbf propeller at 24mph considering a 8.73HP engine was available and they calculated that their propeller should be at least 66% efficient otherwise the required 90lbf thrust to keep the plane aloft would not have been reached. Their calculations show just how great the performance of the propeller should have been not how great it really was.


This efficiency was never obtained by the people from Wright Experience project. The site http://archive.today/0pne0 says that many tests were effectuated and efficiencies between 75% and 82% were obtained which in not 66%. They also say they reconstructed, with the help of computers, the propellers using badly damaged parts of the original. However, in their reconstructions, they made some assumptions that could have alter the efficiency. In conclusion that 66% efficiency is not confirmed. When a team wants to replicate the results or predictions of some inventors the team has to obtain exactly the same results not much better!


In the article "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, O. and W. Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908, pag. 648-649, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-5 ", WB themselves wrote:

"Our first propellers, built entirely from calculations, gave in useful work 66 per cent. of the power expended. This was about one third more than had been secured by Maxim or Langley."

The text is clear, the two brother calculated and then obtained a 66% efficiency. This is their unconfirmed claim.


An advanced high efficiency propeller, made by Lucien Chauviere, can be seen in L'Aerophile from May 15, 1908, pag. 182 (see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...=helice.langEN ). It is above the propellers presented by WB on Aug. 8, 1908 and clearly made before WB's propellers became known. Definitely, Europeans or other inventors did not learn from the Wright Brothers how to make efficient propellers. The opposite seems to be true.

The Wright brothers did not talk about their propellers, did not publish information about them, did not fill for a patent, did not show anything before Aug. 8 1908.
That day they appeared with propellers already built in France in 1907 and claimed they had invented them in 1903!

jeffo

My Feedback: (68)

Simplex-
your about as unamerican as it gets,how pathetic

TomCrump

As Americans, we have the right of free speech. We can express ourselves, no matter how unpopular our thoughts may be.

My problems with Simplex's statements are that they are being made while he hides behind a screen name, and has no information listed in his profile.

All four of his posts are in this thread. We can't research him, to form an opinion of his creditability. I feel that if a person wants to make bold statements such as these, he should man up and become visable to us.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

Why would a 12 year old boy who's screwing with you want to do that?

jeffo

My Feedback: (68)

Tom the reason I said he was unamerican is because he is trying to destroy true aviation heroes,who basically risked there lives trying to prove powered flight was possible.jeffo

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

The link to the "Aerophile" published in Paris is interesting to look though. They devoted a lot of ink to the Wright brothers, including letters from the Wrights, the conditions the Wilber needed to travel to France, and then a lot of photos of their airplane and it's flights in France. Their airplane in 1908 was very refined compared to the 1903 flier, with the pilot sitting on the wing with both hands on controls to do maneuvers. During this period the Europeans were all doing experiments, but none had the ability to control their flights to the extent of the Wrights.

As far as Simplex goes, while I and most others see blue in the sky, a few will still see something else. Just pat them on the head, and say you understand.

simplex

The Wright brothers appeared performing public flights (starting with Aug. 8, 1908) in a time when other aviators had already flown for about 20 minutes.

It is a myth the planes of the two brothers were far superior to other flying machines of the time.

Their planes had essentially a single advantage "they could turn in place".

Disadvantages:
1) They were unstable.
2) They did not have wheels, once landed they were hard to transport.
3) They required a catapult to take off, a huge complication.
4) They were hard to fly. Only to keep such a plane fly straight line the pilot had to steer continuously the tail, wing warping ailerons and the front horizontal rudder!
5) They lack a horizontal tail which made them also unstable in pitch.

Beside this, the 1908 planes, the only about which we know with certitude they flew, had:
1) French engines Bariquand & Marre.
2) Dihedral stability, unlike the alleged Flyer I 1903 and like the french planes.
3) High efficiency propellers, like the french planes.

Just because the Wright brothers established some flight duration records in the autumn of 1908 (due to the high quality french engines they used) it does not mean they invented the airplane.
The theory that (wing warping) ailerons made the flight possible is a pure myth. People flew without ailerons for 20 minutes before the moment the Wright brothers appeared with their ailerons.

pd1

Simplex, This a forum about vintage and antique "model" airplanes, not full scale.
Why don't you post your revisionist history in a forum that has more people into the history of full sized planes not models?

I haven't seen anything you've posted that has been grounded in fact.
I still think you are a troll.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

Of course he's a troll...he keeps dangling the bait and we all just keep snapping at it. I'm sure he's just delighted to have the attention.

Slope Pilot

Whatever you say, you uneducated, useless troll.

simplex

Octave Chanute, their mentor, did not believe the Wright brothers who wrote him a few letters (in the summer and autumn of 1904) reporting their progress. This lack of confidence can be seen from Chanute's ironic answers:

- “I am glad to see that the newspapers have not yet found you out.” (1904-05-26, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I hope that your immunity from premature publicity may continue.” (1904-06-08, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I hope that you will use great caution in your experiments, and will not run into a cow.” (1904-06-25, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I hope you will have good luck, and keep out of the newspapers.” (1904-07-04, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I expect … to receive a letter from you advising me of your final success.” (1904-07-31, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I feel confident that once you get a good start you will make a phenomenal flight.” (1904-08-14, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I … congratulate you on the good progress you have made.” (1904-09-05, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I also enclose a French clipping which lays down the rules for the $10.000 prize for a power flying machine. This prize you can win if you choose to go to France to do so.” (1904-11-19, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I have been thinking it not unlikely that you should be called upon to go to Japan. It could well afford to give you and your brother $100.000 for a few months work in reconnoitring. Santos-Dumont would preferably be called upon by Russia, as that country follows the French lead.” (1904-12-26, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago).

It is evident that O. Chanute highly doubted the two brothers could fly their plane so often without being remarked by the entire press in the United States. The letters are too long to be quoted in full here but, excepting those excerpts which have been already listed a few lines above, O. Chanute appears to simply ignore the impressive progress reports coming from Wilbur, preferring to talk about other things in his replies and looking like somebody who politely answers the letters of a storyteller.

Possibly, the most visible piece of evidence, regarding the lack of faith that Chanute had concerning the, out of the 1904 world, accomplishments claimed by W. Wright, is the fragment of his December 26, 1904, reply where he expressed his thoughts that Wilbur and Orville might be paid $100,000 to do aerial reconnaissance work for Japan, that time in war with Russia which could also benefit of a similar help coming from Santos-Dumont. Honestly, such an ironic answer was absolutely normal after the December 20, 1904, letter of the two brothers which stated they had circled their field 2 1/4 and almost 4 times on November 16 and December 1, 1904, respectively.