Is it any chance to fly 62 lb for each horsepower?

Im just going to refer to the OP as herpes from now on, because he's a disease that won't go away.

What's up herpes simplex 1?
 
simplex1 said:
One thing is sure 100%, the Wright Brothers contributed nothing to the progress of powered flight because no picture or technical drawing of their alleged planes became known before 1908, a year when they appeared in France with an inferior machine to what already existed there at the time.
Click to expand...

Ok, at this point, I have to ask straight out, what is your vested interest in this subject? You have some stake in this topic, either that or you are insane. No rational person without a vested interest in century old irrelevance is as invested as you.

You aren't providing any particularly new information, most all of us heard it, and many consider there may be some potential to the claims, but the reality is, we can't be ****ed to care. You not only care, you are obsessed. So, either you have something to gain, or you are insane, which is it?:dunno:
 
Lindberg said:
Maybe his great grandfather lost out to the Wrights.
Click to expand...

Could be a descendant of Dumont, that's my suspicion if he isn't insane. I'm trying to figure out how he's trying to cash in. This has an episode on the History Channel at best, and typically you have to pay to produce your own cable show. People really just don't care. OTOH, he will likely come across well on a History Channel episode.:rofl:
 
simplex1 said:
A plane flies when:

T=D (Thrust = Drag)

and

L=G (Lift = Weight)

As you see T, D, L and G are physical quantities specific only to the plane and independent of the catapult characteristics.

Assuming the take off speed is 35 mph, if one has a enormously powerful catapult his plane can take off running just 1 m on the ground and reaching 35 mph but once in the air the thrust generated by the catapult disappears and if the thrust, T, of the plane is not enough to overcome drag, D, the airplane will fall.

Regarding the headwind, if its speed is 35 mph the pilot does not need any runway. He just starts the engine, accelerates the propeller and miraculously at one point the plane gets off the ground and hovers.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. How do gliders fly? Once they are launched by some external means, they can fly for hours.
A glider's weight/hp ratio is incredible since there is no HP at all.

Please, give it a rest. The Wright Bros. invented the airplane as we know it today.
 
You guys should know better...shame on you...now off to the chalkboard you go...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 23
Cruiser said:
You are absolutely correct. How do gliders fly? Once they are launched by some external means, they can fly for hours.
A glider's weight/hp ratio is incredible since there is no HP at all.

Please, give it a rest. The Wright Bros. invented the airplane as we know it today.
Click to expand...

Actually, that would be Glenn Curtis, he gave us ailerons rather than wing warping.
 
How many pounds per horsepower are needed to lift off from a moving treadmill with a tail wind?

:D
 
Ran up to king island on sunday. Picked up some of the kids' friends and their parents. The wife had been on a shopping spree at some antique place in town, and I was foolishly tankering around some cheap fuel bought last week. I'll tell you what, when I spooled up the old pratt's it felt like we had 62LB per hp.
 
Henning said:
Ok, at this point, I have to ask straight out, what is your vested interest in this subject? You have some stake in this topic, either that or you are insane. No rational person without a vested interest in century old irrelevance is as invested as you.

You aren't providing any particularly new information, most all of us heard it, and many consider there may be some potential to the claims, but the reality is, we can't be ****ed to care. You not only care, you are obsessed. So, either you have something to gain, or you are insane, which is it?:dunno:
Click to expand...

what-difference-does-it-make.jpg
 
JHW said:
Ran up to king island on sunday. Picked up some of the kids' friends and their parents. The wife had been on a shopping spree at some antique place in town, and I was foolishly tankering around some cheap fuel bought last week. I'll tell you what, when I spooled up the old pratt's it felt like we had 62LB per hp.
Click to expand...

Ooo, King Island cheese... Hey, can I talk you into getting me some Kangaroo Island honey? They have the best I've ever had.
 
Cruiser said:
How do gliders fly? Once they are launched by some external means, they can fly for hours.
A glider's weight/hp ratio is incredible since there is no HP at all.
Click to expand...
My question would be: "Have you finished the high school?"

The explanation to your question is that a glider descends or if it rises it uses ascendant air currents.

For gliders that fly in calm weather (static atmosphere) you find the equations that characterize their flight here:
glidvec.gif

As you see, you can fly without thrust if there is a glide angle. However, with high school not completed it will be difficult if not impossible to understand the equations.
 
Last edited:
Simplex, given your mastery of all things aeronautical, maybe you can help.

Can you side slip a plane side to side while making a low approach over a runway, on a calm, windless day, while maintaining a constant heading and without turning?

Also, what's a heading?
 
simplex1 said:
My question would be: "Have you finished the high school?"

The explanation to your question is that a glider descends or if it rises it uses ascendant air currents.

For gliders that fly in calm weather (static atmosphere) you find the equations that characterize their flight here:
glidvec.gif

As you see, you can fly without thrust if there is a glide angle. However, with high school not completed it will be difficult if not impossible to understand the equations.
Click to expand...

Well ****, I never completed high school, hell I never even made it halfway through high school. I'll just bow out now since clearly I cannot understand any of this.
 
I'm really glad my high school never bothered us with that crackpot law of conservation of energy stuff... if they had brainwashed us with that, none of this would make sense! :rolleyes2:
 
simplex1 said:
My question would be: "Have you finished the high school?"

The explanation to your question is that a glider descends or if it rises it uses ascendant air currents.

For gliders that fly in calm weather (static atmosphere) you find the equations that characterize their flight here:
glidvec.gif

As you see, you can fly without thrust if there is a glide angle. However, with high school not completed it will be difficult if not impossible to understand the equations.
Click to expand...

So, your answer is YES, Is it any chance to fly 62 lb for each horsepower?
 
simplex1 said:
My question would be: "Have you finished the high school?"
Click to expand...

My response would be: "Is the english the language that you can goodly speaking?"

Here in merica (the land that invented the airplane) we don't need no stinkin' trigonometry to know that there is more to "flying" than weight/power ratio otherwise a jet mounted on a piano would be a flying machine. Well I guess it would fly but count me out as a passenger on that one please.
 
simplex1 said:
Both catapults or strong headwinds just shorten the take off distance. They do not help a plane stay aloft, assuming it takes off from a flat terrain and no incline is involved.
It is a myth an airplane can perform sustained flights using a weaker engine if it is launched by a catapult of a strong headwind, parallel to the flat land below the plane, blows.
Click to expand...

Really?
Perhaps you should take some flying lessons...........
 
Cruiser said:
So, your answer is YES, Is it any chance to fly 62 lb for each horsepower?
Click to expand...
glidvec.gif

As you see from the horizontal equation, if the glide angle a = 0 which means level flight, sin(a)=0, cos(a)=1 and drag D = 0 which implies forward speed V = 0 as long as D = k1*V^2, where k1 is a constant that depends of the construction of the glider and can be determined in wind tunnels.

For a = 0 (level flight) the vertical equation will simplify to:

L=k1*V^2=W

As V=0 it results that W=L=0

In conclusion, a glider in calm weather can perform level flight only if its weight is zero which means never!
 
The point is Irrelevent to that of the difference in power required to take off and climb in comparison to maintaining level flight.
 
That is the problem with the Wright brothers, with 62 lb/hp they climbed, made turns and flew for minutes in 1904, according to their claims. Their 1904 plane was far superior to a Farman III 1909 which basically was capable of the same performance (speed and maneuverability) but with a far inferior weight to power ratio that was only 24.26 lb/hp.
See: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1715156&postcount=63
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
That's a false statement.
Click to expand...
If you prove the equations written by "The Glenn Research Center (NASA)" are wrong then maybe you can perform level flight with a glider in calm weather and go and pick up your Nobel Prize for demonstrating a Perpetuum Mobile can exist!
 
simplex1 said:
If you prove the equations written by "The Glenn Research Center (NASA)" are wrong then maybe you can perform level flight with a glider in calm weather and go and pick up your Nobel Prize for demonstrating a Perpetuum Mobile can exist!
Click to expand...

Not hard to perform level flight in a glider without thermals provided you're willing to trade airspeed. Of course it's not indefinite but it can be done for as long as you have the energy.
 
simplex1 said:
That is the problem with the Wright brothers, with 62 lb/hp they climbed, made turns and flew for minutes in 1904, according to their claims. Their 1904 plane was far superior to a Farman III 1909 which basically was capable of the same performance (speed and maneuverability) but with a far inferior weight to power ratio that was only 24.26 lb/hp.
See: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1715156&postcount=63
Click to expand...

What is objective of this mission you are on?
 
jesse said:
That is the question. Do you think he'd be pleased and go away if we all just suddenly agreed with him?
Click to expand...

:dunno: it's worth a try,

Yes, the Wright Brothers were a fraud. It was all a government conspiracy to gain world domination through the claim of "First in powered flight."

For all I know, that could be right, I just don't care. There are airplanes for me to fly at the airport, nothing else has any relevance besides curiosity.
 
simplex1 said:
If you prove the equations written by "The Glenn Research Center (NASA)" are wrong then maybe you can perform level flight with a glider in calm weather and go and pick up your Nobel Prize for demonstrating a Perpetuum Mobile can exist!
Click to expand...

Nope. You just have to account for all the inputs and assumptions. You didn't.

And even if you were right on this point, it's totally irrelevant to your obsession about the Wrights. They most certainly did not fly their first flight in calm air. Nor is it even close to correct to say that the power to maintain level flight is equal to the power to launch.

Let the crackpot arguments go. They are what Pauli used to call "not even wrong."
 
MAKG1 said:
Nor is it even close to correct to say that the power to maintain level flight is equal to the power to launch.
Click to expand...
I will prove mathematically that the minimum take off power is the same as the power required to maintain level flight and that the faster you want to rise from the ground the more power you need above level flight power.

Assuming we have a plane with mass m that require the minimum power P to fly parallel to the ground then the necessary power to rise this airplane at a height h from the ground in the time t will be:

Take off Power = P + mgh/t

where g=9.81 m/s^2

As you see if t -> infinity (you can afford a long take off time) then mgh/t vanishes and Take off Power = P

As an example, we take the case of the alleged Flyer II 1904 which had the mass m= 925 lb (419.57 kg).
For rising at 1 m/s (vertical speed) Flyer II would have needed:

Take off Power = P + 5.6 HP

For rising at only 5 cm/s same Flyer would have required just:

Take off Power = P + 0.28 HP =~ P (the level flight power)

So, one uses supplemental power (it can be delivered by a catapult) at take off just to get up quickly in the air at a comfortable height. You can take off with that minimum level flight power P assuming you can afford to rise at a few cm/s.
 
One major difference between the Wrights and their competitors, propellor efficiency. Their propellers were an order of magnitude more advanced.
 
JOhnH said:
Lots of power in a "swallow".
Do you know the difference between love and lust?
Click to expand...

A thump in the throat before she spits?

Oh yeah, Dumont was the greatest pilot ever lived. Any Frenchman could out fly Bob Hoover.
 
simplex1 said:
I will prove mathematically that the minimum take off power is the same as the power required to maintain level flight and that the faster you want to rise from the ground the more power you need above level flight power.

Assuming we have a plane with mass m that require the minimum power P to fly parallel to the ground then the necessary power to rise this airplane at a height h from the ground in the time t will be:

Take off Power = P + mgh/t

where g=9.81 m/s^2

As you see if t -> infinity (you can afford a long take off time) then mgh/t vanishes and Take off Power = P

As an example, we take the case of the alleged Flyer II 1904 which had the mass m= 925 lb (419.57 kg).
For rising at 1 m/s (vertical speed) Flyer II would have needed:

Take off Power = P + 5.6 HP

For rising at only 5 cm/s same Flyer would have required just:

Take off Power = P + 0.28 HP =~ P (the level flight power)

So, one uses supplemental power (it can be delivered by a catapult) at take off just to get up quickly in the air at a comfortable height. You can take off with that minimum level flight power P assuming you can afford to rise at a few cm/s.
Click to expand...
Ok, I've been thinking about this all day, and I've read your posts again. You convinced me. The Wrights never got that thing flying. Thank you for correcting history.

Now what happens?
 
jesse said:
Ok, I've been thinking about this all day, and I've read your posts again. You convinced me. The Wrights never got that thing flying. Thank you for correcting history.

Now what happens?
Click to expand...
I just came to the same conclusion. I think Herpes was one of my engineering professors at Ga. Tech.
 
Henning said:
One major difference between the Wrights and their competitors, propellor efficiency. Their propellers were an order of magnitude more advanced.
Click to expand...
The Wright brothers used just ordinary propellers of the time which had nothing special. 66% efficient propellers is just a claim. The Wright Brothers built many planes after 1908, they had a factory. Where are those miraculous propellers? None has survived to be tested in a wind tunnel?!
 
simplex1 said:
The Wright brothers used just ordinary propellers of the time which had nothing special. 66% efficient propellers is just a claim. The Wright Brothers built many planes after 1908, they had a factory. Where are those miraculous propellers? None has survived to be tested in a wind tunnel?!
Click to expand...
Boy, those Wright Boys sure were a couple of lyin cusses, weren't they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top