PDA

View Full Version : The first powered flight



Rajvosa
02-10-2004, 06:12 AM
Well this article http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp definitely burst my bubble! It seems that the Wrights were not the first to accomplish the powered flight with a heavier-than-air craft. What do you think of this?
Germans ARE smart! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

Rajvosa
02-10-2004, 06:12 AM
Well this article http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp definitely burst my bubble! It seems that the Wrights were not the first to accomplish the powered flight with a heavier-than-air craft. What do you think of this?
Germans ARE smart! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

Kampfmeister
02-10-2004, 09:09 PM
Well since no one else will respond to your post Rajvosa, I guess I will http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I thought it was a very interesting article. I vaguely remember seeing a drawing of this machine years ago, but never thought much of it. I must say that I am amazed it could fly at all, but then look at the Wright brothers plane. He may have flown first, but he really didn't seem to bother or care about advertising this fact. The Wright brothers besides being inventers were also shrewd businessmen. They knew they had something that could have great applications in the future, and could capture the imagination of the public. They were in the business of making money and they capitalized on it. I think two statements from the article summarize everything.

In the end, the Wrights can lay clear claim to having developed the first "practical" airplane. But the first "powered flight?" That is debatable!

We cannot definitely say that Whitehead flew in 1901. We can, however, definitely state that an accurate reproduction of his airframe flew (with modern engines) in 1997

SkyChimp
02-10-2004, 09:26 PM
Gee, who was it? The Germans? The French? The Italians? The Brazilians? I think they all claim to have been the first, so everyone else must be liars. So if everyone else are liars, it couldn't have been the Germans.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Korolov
02-10-2004, 09:36 PM
You all are wrong. The Martians made the first powered flight!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Menthol_moose
02-10-2004, 10:32 PM
Did it break the sound barrier first too ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

reverse5
02-10-2004, 10:48 PM
Vidim i svoju zgradu u Lenjinovoj 14 i moju Gimanziju na Obali... dobra slika rajvosa.

Rajvosa
02-11-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reverse5:
Vidim i svoju zgradu u Lenjinovoj 14 i moju Gimanziju na Obali... dobra slika rajvosa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, druze... nema nista ljepse na svijetu!

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

F19_Ob
02-11-2004, 02:58 AM
As I remember, it was still early 1900 and many scientists claimed that "heavier than air flight" was impossible.
Ofcourse they simply forgot the last 400.000.000 years of evolution, beginning with powered flight of insects and all kinds of gliding animals. Then ofcourse there was the pterosaurs and birds and even mammals like bats.
Most ww1 flightmaneuvers were already invented by the birds long before the first human was able to say " Gronk hungry! Eat now!".

It was just recently the Albatross ( big oceangoing avian)was credited with the ability of flight since scientists could not explain how such a heavy bird could stay airborne. Due to their calculations it was 3 kilos too heavy and thus scientificly could not fly. Then one of the more clever researchers stated that they could try to calculate its flight differently, and so at last the albatross is able to fly again.

Science is wonderful.

Zayets
02-11-2004, 03:08 AM
Wright Bros might not be the first one who did the powered flight but everybody said so.So , in my book they are the first one.I can't swim against the flow , more precisely , I don't want. Beside , I'm pretty tired of this debate.

Zayets out
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-iar80pic.jpg

FW190fan
02-11-2004, 03:13 AM
Yeah, who cares about the truth antway?

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Cajun76
02-11-2004, 03:27 AM
The debate is old, dunno why it keeps popping up.

Ok, the Wrights claim is not " the first to have powered flight" it's " the first controlled, powered flight." They were the first to implement control of their gliders on all 3 axis. That, more than anything, is their acheivement. Several people had planes that could generate lift, but nobody had worked out how to exactly control it. Mr. Whitehead was a remarkable man, with a pioneering spirit, but he did not achieve controlled flight in 3 axis. Nobody (that I know of) has said Germans weren't/aren't smart.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif They aren't any smarter or dumber than any other jackball from the US, France, GB, or any other country. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

After all, Mr. Weisskopf was smart enough to move to the US. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kidding, kidding, I've lived in Deutchland on and off for 8 years, total, and I hope to get stationed there during my time in the USAF, maybe my next tour.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

AaronGT
02-11-2004, 03:31 AM
The Wright brothers made the first powered,
controlled flight with sufficient documentation
to make it verifiable. It might be possible
that someone else beat them to it, but
documentation for those other claims is thin
and so the crown goes to the Wright brothers.

It does pain me a bit when people suggest
that the Wright brothers made the first _flight_, as people had been gliding for
years before that.

AaronGT
02-11-2004, 03:35 AM
My other comment is that ascribing the
invention of powered, controlled flight
to a nation is silly. At the time flight
research was largely the endeavour of a
few talented (and brave/foolhardy)
individuals. It is those people that
should be respected.

I would say it is mainly after WW1 that
big labs took over from remarkable
individuals with regards to scientific
invention, apart from things like the
cloth dyeing industry, or the large team
assembled by Edison.

Jambock__01
02-11-2004, 04:32 AM
Santos Dumond made the first controled flight (around Eifel tower), and made the first powered flight with his 14 BIS, turning on the engine, roling and take off, with enough documentation in both flights.

http://www.newtech.fr/mdla/images/14bis02.jpg

You can find pics of those flights with a simple google search.

So, Brazilians made it first http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.gavca.com/~conteudo/imagens/bannerghostskies.gif (http://www.gavca.com)

[This message was edited by Jambock__01 on Wed February 11 2004 at 03:40 AM.]

Zayets
02-11-2004, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jambock__01:
Santos Dumond made the first controled flight (around Eifel tower), and made the first powered flight with his 14 BIS, turning on the engine, roling and take off, with enough documentation in both flights.

http://www.newtech.fr/mdla/images/14bis02.jpg

You can find pics of those flights with a simple google search.

So, Brazilians made it first http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.gavca.com&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.gavca.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

You are totaly wrong. Search for this word on google : "vuia". Your fellow was late by months to achieve "controlled" flight.
Edit: and you can find pics too! Yours to discover!

Zayets out
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-iar80pic.jpg

LeadSpitter_
02-11-2004, 05:00 AM
actually the wright bros are the only ones who documented successful flights on dates with video and photos

They also are the ones who invented control yaw, pitch and elevator, and proved the previous paper on wing lift was wrong.

reguardless it dont matter, I respect all pioneers of flight equally, we would still have blimps only without them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

panther3485
02-11-2004, 07:13 AM
Hi guys!

This discussion comes up time and again, with the same misunderstandings time and again, to an extent that I find amazing on a forum populated by flight enthusiasts!

The criteria for the case is question:

1: The aircraft must be defined as a 'heavier-than-air' machine.

2: The flight must be powered.

3: The flight must be controlled in all three axes.

4: SOLID EVIDENCE! This is crucial, for without it the claim can always be disputed afterwards.

The Wright brothers' flights fulfilled all four criteria, in particular the requirement for evidence. This consisted of certified documentation with PHOTOGRAPHIC/FILM support.

The combined evidence for their claim is sufficient for their achievements to be SUBSTANTIALLY PROVEN historically. Rival claims do exist but so far, the evidence to FULLY back them up has not been found.

Until such evidence is forthcoming, any reasonable authority must give credit to the Wright brothers.

I'll change my mind, and lobby for the re-writing of history books, if anyone can PROVE otherwise.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

mortoma
02-12-2004, 11:13 AM
Well Panther, I wonder if the Wright flyer would have been able to achieve flight without that strong head wind at Kitty Hawk. I doubt it, since if they could have achieved true powered flight in zero or low wind conditions, they would have made their flights near Dayton Ohio in the first place!! So the Wright flyer really didn't lift off totaly under it's own power. It need too much help from high winds I'm afraid.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Sun February 15 2004 at 08:20 PM.]

Cajun76
02-12-2004, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Well Panther, I wonder if the Wright flyer would have been able to achieve flight without that strong head wind at Kitty Hawk. I doubt it, since if they could have achieved true powered flight in zero or low wind conditions, they would have made their flights near Dayton Ohio in the first place!! So the Wright flyer really didn't lift off under it's own power. It need too much help from high winds I'm afraid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

The medium through what an aircraft travels is ...air. This comes into play when talking about ground speed. Say your a/c is traveling at 30mph, into a 30mph headwind. The speed of the a/c is 30mph, the propellers and wings are travelling through the air at 30mph. Ground speed is zero, but airspeed is 30mph. Reverse the direction, and airspeed is still 30mph, but groundspeed is now 60mph. The wind wasn't doing all the work on the Flyer. It was flying. I have trouble understanding your point. Should the Wrights not have made their plane as light as possible? Boeing 777 take off into the wind. Are they not achieving true powered flight? Or are the triple 7's cheating? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Driver609
02-12-2004, 03:37 PM
Sorry everyone, but the first powered (and controlled) flight was made by a man named Richard Pearce, near Opihi in the South Island of New Zealand on the 31st of March, 1902. By 1903 he was making flights of 1000 feet, with controlled turns, and changes in altitude.
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html
But, as someone mentioned, who cares about the thruth.....

Driver609

Cajun76
02-13-2004, 10:13 AM
Your link didn't work for me, this one did.

http://www.news-star.com/stories/042703/TCO_8.html

and this one

http://www.nzine.co.nz/pearse.html

there's a couple of message boards, some 'articles' and other miscellaneous info, but it appears even Mr. Pearse himself gave credit to the Wrights. I'm not trying to be rude, or dismiss Mr. Pearce. He's an aviation pioneer, and I thank you for bringing his acheivements to our attention, but his flights are not documented like the Wrights were. He does deserve great respect as an aviation pioneer, no doubt about it. The earliest, 'reliable' date for Mr. Pearce's first flight is 31 March 1903, not 1902 and he crashed into a hedge. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

mortoma
02-14-2004, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mortoma:
Well Panther, I wonder if the Wright flyer would have been able to achieve flight without that strong head wind at Kitty Hawk. I doubt it, since if they could have achieved true powered flight in zero or low wind conditions, they would have made their flights near Dayton Ohio in the first place!! So the Wright flyer really didn't lift off under it's own power. It need too much help from high winds I'm afraid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

The medium through what an aircraft travels is ...air. This comes into play when talking about ground speed. Say your a/c is traveling at 30mph, into a 30mph headwind. The speed of the a/c is 30mph, the propellers and wings are travelling through the air at 30mph. Ground speed is zero, but airspeed is 30mph. Reverse the direction, and airspeed is still 30mph, but groundspeed is now 60mph. The wind wasn't doing all the work on the Flyer. It was flying. I have trouble understanding your point. Should the Wrights not have made their plane as light as possible? Boeing 777 take off into the wind. Are they not achieving true powered flight? Or are the triple 7's cheating? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

Cajun, if you were a RL pilot, you'd know what you were talking about!! If I leave the 172 I rent on the pad and don't tie it down, forseeably
a strong storm wind could develop that would be stong enough to lift the plane off the ground, with no power at all!!! I mean if the wind was blowing into the front of the aircraft. In that case the plane would be "flying" without any power from the engine. Let's say that I hypothetically reduced the engine H.P. on that 172 from about 150 to only 30 or so. I probably wouldn't get the plane into air on a calm day, even with a super long runway. But if I took the plane to Kitty Hawk and tried it in 30 MPH headwinds, then after a long ground roll, I might acually get it into the air. But was it entirely under it's own power?? I think not. Maybe you should learn to fly a real airplane or just more about aeronautics in general before you post stuff here. Maybe you should take flying lessons??

]

HomeboyWu
02-14-2004, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mortoma:
Well Panther, I wonder if the Wright flyer would have been able to achieve flight without that strong head wind at Kitty Hawk. I doubt it, since if they could have achieved true powered flight in zero or low wind conditions, they would have made their flights near Dayton Ohio in the first place!! So the Wright flyer really didn't lift off under it's own power. It need too much help from high winds I'm afraid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

The medium through what an aircraft travels is ...air. This comes into play when talking about ground speed. Say your a/c is traveling at 30mph, into a 30mph headwind. The speed of the a/c is 30mph, the propellers and wings are travelling through the air at 30mph. Ground speed is zero, but airspeed is 30mph. Reverse the direction, and airspeed is still 30mph, but groundspeed is now 60mph. The wind wasn't doing all the work on the Flyer. It was flying. I have trouble understanding your point. Should the Wrights not have made their plane as light as possible? Boeing 777 take off into the wind. Are they not achieving true powered flight? Or are the triple 7's cheating? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

Cajun, if you were a RL pilot, you'd know what you were talking about!! If I leave the 172 I rent on the pad and don't tie it down, forseeably
a strong storm wind could develop that would be stong enough to lift the plane off the ground, with no power at all!!! I mean if the wind was blowing into the front of the aircraft. In that case the plane would be "flying" without any power from the engine. Let's say that I hypothetically reduced the engine H.P. on that 172 from about 150 to only 30 or so. I probably wouldn't get the plane into air on a calm day, even with a super long runway. But if I took the plane to Kitty Hawk and tried it in 30 MPH headwinds, then after a long ground roll, I might acually get it into the air. But was it entirely under it's own power?? I think not. Maybe you should learn to fly a real airplane or just more about aeronautics in general before you post stuff here. Maybe you should take flying lessons??

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

mortoma, if you can't get your 172 to take off with 30hp on a calm day, you can't take off on any other day, either, strong wind or not. Yes a sudden strong wind may blow your 172 up but it drops eventually. While under a steadier strong wind, it takes just as much power to fly as no wind at all.

Uplifting air current is another thing, though it can't happen too near the ground.

Maybe you should take physics lessons.

Cajun76
02-14-2004, 12:56 PM
Mortoma, I have flown a real a/c, and if you think your going to *sustain* flight with no power in a 172, I hope your not thinking of bringing family or friends with you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Ask your instructor, nonchalantly, about reducing power on that 172 to 30hp, but for the love of life itself, don't attempt it, please. Serious as a heart attack, here.

Ever seen a bird in a strong headwind? Ground speed zero, but it's still flying. If the bird dosen't fly as fast as the wind, then it will appear to fly backward, in relation to the ground. However, the bird is still processing air through it's wings, and is travleing in the air mass at the same rate it would be if there were no wind.

Good luck with your lessons.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

mortoma
02-15-2004, 07:43 AM
I didn't say anything about "sustaining" flight. We are talking about the Wright's first flights, remember? That was the original argument and their first flight was not "sustained" either.
If you remember, they only flew 100 or so feet, didn't they?? Obviously if you did try and fly a 172 like I suggested it would not "sustain" very long either, but it might very well raise into the air, like the Wright flyer did. Obviously though, I'd have a heck of a lot better attempt if I did into a strong headwind, rather than a calm day. I was not trying to suggest you could actually fly it around like that!! Very smart- allecky thing to say about not taking any passengers. I probably meant more like around 50HP anyway, which would be about the same as 1/4 to 1/3 throttle. If you sat in a aircraft cabin on the ground on a windy day and the plane was facing into the wind, your pitot tube will read the speed of the wind on your airspeed guage if it was a strong enough wind. This wind would also help you to take off easier as it helps the wings develop lift. The ground run taking off into a wind is a lot less than it would be taking off downwind. Why do you think it's standard procedure to try and take off facing the wind as directly as possible?? Because that wind gives you more speed over the wings and helps with lift. It's also possible to have a plane that does not have enough power to lift it's a$$ off into the air on a calm day, but get off the ground in a constant head wind.
You're getting extra speed through the wings for nothing. That's exactly what happened in the case of the Wright flyer. Like I said, there was a reason they went to Kitty Hawk and they
even acknowledged it. Why go so far from Dayton if they didn't have to?? After all there is lots of flat open terrian around there.
Oh and no need for "good luck" for my lessons, I learned to fly a long time ago. Although really no pilot ever stops learning, so in a way you are always taking lessons. Even people with 20,000 hours are still learning. You are always a student pilot. Any airline pilot will tell you that if he/she is really honest.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Sun February 15 2004 at 07:13 AM.]

Aaron_GT
02-15-2004, 11:40 AM
Headwinds can help you get off the ground
in the first place, which is why aircraft
carriers point into the wind to allow planes
to take off. If your ground speed is low due
to friction in the ground being high, for example,
as would have been the problem with the KittyHawk,
then to increase your airspeed heading into the
wind helps. Once you are airborne, ground friction
is nill and you can sustain flight, but you
might not get to this point without a headwind.

Cajun76
02-15-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I didn't say anything about "sustaining" flight. We are talking about the Wright's first flights, remember? That was the original argument and their first flight was not "sustained" either.
If you remember, they only flew 100 or so feet, didn't they?? Obviously if you did try and fly a 172 like I suggested it would not "sustain" very long either, but it might very well raise into the air, like the Wright flyer did. Obviously though, I'd have a heck of a lot better attempt if I did into a strong headwind, rather than a calm day. I was not trying to suggest you could actually fly it around like that!! Very smart- allecky thing to say about not taking any passengers. I probably meant more like around 50HP anyway, which would be about the same as 1/4 to 1/3 throttle. If you sat in a aircraft cabin on the ground on a windy day and the plane was facing into the wind, your pitot tube will read the speed of the wind on your airspeed guage if it was a strong enough wind. This wind would also help you to take off easier as it helps the wings develop lift. The ground run taking off into a wind is a lot less than it would be taking off downwind. Why do you think it's standard procedure to try and take off facing the wind as directly as possible?? Because that wind gives you more speed over the wings and helps with lift. It's also possible to have a plane that does not have enough power to lift it's a$$ off into the air on a calm day, but get off the ground in a constant head wind.
You're getting extra speed through the wings for nothing. That's exactly what happened in the case of the Wright flyer. Like I said, there was a reason they went to Kitty Hawk and they
even acknowledged it. Why go so far from Dayton if they didn't have to?? After all there is lots of flat open terrian around there.
Oh and no need for "good luck" for my lessons, I learned to fly a long time ago. Although really no pilot ever stops learning, so in a way you are always taking lessons. Even people with 20,000 hours are still learning. You are always a student pilot. Any airline pilot will tell you that if he/she is really honest.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Sun February 15 2004 at 07:13 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You seem to grasp half of it, your almost there. Stay with me, and read the following with an open mind. Otherwise, the FAA should review your licsense. But first off, I'm not a mindreader. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I probably meant more like around 50HP anyway, which would be about the same as 1/4 to 1/3 throttle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too funny. I, of course, have no idea what you mean, if you don't post what you're thinking. Anyway, you seem quite pissed, relax. Fly friendly. I'm going to use your excellent example, as your absolutely right about a shorter t/o roll.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you sat in a aircraft cabin on the ground on a windy day and the plane was facing into the wind, your pitot tube will read the speed of the wind on your airspeed guage if it was a strong enough wind. This wind would also help you to take off easier as it helps the wings develop lift. The ground run taking off into a wind is a lot less than it would be taking off downwind. Why do you think it's standard procedure to try and take off facing the wind as directly as possible?? Because that wind gives you more speed over the wings and helps with lift.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your absolutely right. This is also why aircraft carriers face into the wind. The wind speed over the planes wings is already +30kts. However, the airspeed needed by the a/c to takeoff is still the same.

For a plane on the ground, sitting in a 30kt headwind, the plane has to overcome the 30kt wind to move forward in relation to the ground. The wings are doing 30kts, but the plane (ie, propeller) must produce more than 30kts of airspeed to move forward, in relation to the ground. If the propeller produces 35kts airspeed, the plane is moving through the air at 35kts, where as the groundspeed is 5 kts. The propeller is producing 35kts, remember. You are not recieving free airspeed. You still must overcome it. What it does, as you know, is reduce groundroll, but the power requirement is the same. Don't confuse groundspeed needed to t/o with airspeed.

An overegsxraterated example would be:

Your 172 sits facing into a steady 50kt headwind. If you release brakes, you'll roll backward. With brakes applied your wings have a 50kt wind flowing around them. To move forward in relation to the ground (remember 50kt airspeed) your propeller will have to process at least 50kt worth of airspeed to maintain position, with brakes off. Think of the 50kt headwind as drag. When thrust = drag, equilibrium exists. To overcome the drag, more power is needed. If we say the take off speed is 75kts, your propeller will need to process 75kts of air to move forward at 25kts groundspeed, but the airspeed of 75kts is suffiecient to take off.


Also, you bring up a good point. We are talking about the Wright's first flights. Dec. 17, 1903. 4 flights, 141ft., 173ft., 200ft., and the last at 853ft. Since they were learning to fly at the same time, sounds pretty sustained to me. Headwinds do nothing but reduce your groundspeed, and therefore distance, to take off. The wind is not some free ride, the amount of power and airspeed required to get off the ground is the same.

Finally, my remark about freinds and family was not "smart-alecky", it was genuine concern for you and yours. I don't want you or anyone else get hurt. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Truly. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

mortoma
02-15-2004, 09:09 PM
You still don't understand. All that talk about airspeed and that other guy talking about speed through the air mass and all that stuff. That is all true but it's irrelevant and you're missing the point. It doesn't matter about airspeed. All I'm talking about, plain and simple, is that the Wright flyer would not have had enough power to get airborne by itself in a calm wind, enough to overcome the ground friction it experienced on the track it took off on. In all the examples in a 172 I talked about hypothetically, my "airspeed" with the added headwind would have been the same as the airspeed I would need to takeoff without the headwind. I mean I would still need about 50 knots going across the wings to get in the air no matter what. In zero wind I would have to get rolling 50 knots down the strip in groundspeed.
With a 10 knot headwind, I'd only need to be rolling 40 knots groundspeed. But my airspeed gauge would still read 50KIAS when I rotated.
But the key in the Wright's case is all that friction from the tracks/skids. They didn't have enough horsies to get her going fast enough with no head wind to take off. But with the added headwind ( and strong one at that ) they got the
extra speed going through those wings to get off the ground. I'm just saying they would not have been able to lift off and fly without the Kitty Hawk headwind.
There you go about the "concern" again!! My C172 examples were hypothetical. I repeat once more I would never try something like that. Unless I was on a salt flat with miles to try. And I would be by myself. And it would not really be dangerous because you could just set her back down as gently as a landing.
The stuff about being "almost there" as you put it is funny dude. Because I must know something, as I got a 100 on my written private pilot way back when. And I got a 98 on my instrument written. My private instructor was a helo and fixed wind pilot in Nam, with 25,000 hours and is a certified FAA examiner that has had hundreds of students since the mid seventies.
I was one of his best students ever and in the top 3 of his earliest soloers ever. Plus, the
ONLY student he ever checked out in 3 different aircraft during training. He told me many times he'd fly with me "in the back seat" anywhere in the world with no worries at all. So I must have
been well above average in his eyes and good in both knowledge and aircraft control.

Cajun76
02-15-2004, 09:58 PM
Mortoma, you're right again. We both agree. But the Flyer did have enough power to overcome the track friction, and they took off into the wind for the same reson a 777 does, to reduce take off roll.

It takes the same power, the same amount of air processed through the wings and propeller to get off the ground. Taking off into the wind merely shortens the time and groundspeed needed.

Flip my earlier example around. A tail wind of 50kts. As far as your wing (lift) goes, you're at -50kts. Let off the brakes, (theorectically) when your groundspeed is 50kts, your airspeed is 0, moving with the wind. Increase groundspeed to 75kts, and you have 25kts airspeed. You still need 50kts more to get airborne, even though you have 125kts groundspeed, your wing is only traveling through the airmass at 75kts.

Using a headwind is not a cheat, or free energy. It requires the same amount of power to takeoff into the wind as to takeoff away from it. What changes is takeoff roll and groundspeed.

Look at your original post to me:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Cajun, if you were a RL pilot, you'd know what you were talking about!! If I leave the 172 I rent on the pad and don't tie it down, forseeably
a strong storm wind could develop that would be stong enough to lift the plane off the ground, with no power at all!!! I mean if the wind was blowing into the front of the aircraft. In that case the plane would be "flying" without any power from the engine. Let's say that I hypothetically reduced the engine H.P. on that 172 from about 150 to only 30 or so. I probably wouldn't get the plane into air on a calm day, even with a super long runway. But if I took the plane to Kitty Hawk and tried it in 30 MPH headwinds, then after a long ground roll, I might acually get it into the air. But was it entirely under it's own power?? I think not. Maybe you should learn to fly a real airplane or just more about aeronautics in general before you post stuff here. Maybe you should take flying lessons??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, and you know you wouldn't get off the ground this way. As a RL pilot you should know better than this. The headwind is NOT free, it takes power to move through the air, regardless. Even your "gust of wind if your plane isn't tied down" dosen't work. The plane would be lifted, yes. As no pwer is being applied, the plane would be moved with the wind. Groundspeed would increase at the expense of airspeed, and the plane would drop. So you might lift up for a moment or two, but it's hardly sustained flying. Theoretically speaking, a constant increase of wind would be needed to fly in this manner. Purely hypothetical, but winds of 15,000kts relative to the ground would not keep you airborne if you're traveling at - 14,999kts groundspeed, as your airspeed is only 1kt.

I don't understand your feelings about the Wright's wanting to takeoff into the wind. Any pilot with sense does it, to reduce takeoff roll and groundspeed. The object, the goal, is to get into the air, and the Wright's did it, controlled their craft in all 3 axis, sustained and documented. If you have a better, documented example, please produce it. Guess what? If they had built a longer rail, much longer, it's concievalbe they could have taken off away from the wind. But just as real pilots do today, they took off into a wind. I have no doubt you have a piece of paper saying you're a private pilot, but you don't seem to grasp the principles flight is based on. Good luck, and don't stop learning.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Cajun76
02-19-2004, 12:44 AM
bump

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

panther3485
02-19-2004, 08:13 AM
Hey guys!

Whoa there!

I take the point about headwind helping with take-off but none of the debate surrounding this changes the fundamental position.

Even if you choose to believe that the Wrights didn't make it at that particular time (which mainstream history credits them), it doesn't make any difference to my final conclusion, which is that NOBODY has a SUBSTANTIALLY PROVEN claim of having managed it BEFORE then.

I we accept somebody's argument that the Wright's achievement wasn't complete because of the headwind, fine - but all that means is that either the Wrights or somebody else achieved it LATER.

And if so, when and whom? (Remember, there cannot have been even the slightest puff of headwind!) I'd be curious about the answer to this!

IMHO, it wouldn't have made any difference to the validity of the claim because, from what I know of the aircraft designs up to 1903, any of the pioneers of that time would have sought at least a slight headwind, to 'help things along' a bit.

My case still stands, because there is NO SUBSTANTIAL PROOF of anyone doing it BEFORE the Wrights. Like I said, produce the proof that anyone did and I'll lobby to have the history books changed!

Best regards to all,
panther3485

BaldieJr
02-19-2004, 11:14 AM
From the article:

A novel flying machine has just been completed by Mr. Gustave Whitehead, of Bridgeport, Conn., and is now ready for the preliminary trials.

Something to think about.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>