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

The man who changed the history of aviation with over 130,000 edits on Wikipedia!

Binksternet_suggesting_editors_be_logged_in.jpg

Michael "Bink" Knowles (public person), known as Binksternet on Wikipedia
see: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79105

The history of aviation written by the guy in the picture has accumulated more readers than all books about airplanes, balloons and rockets together. With such an author it can be explained why many people believe the Wright Brothers where the first to fly.
 
Last edited:
So why aren't you making new Wikis to challenge his Wikis? Or better yet, you should sue Wikipedia.
 
Why of course!
Wikipedia is the ONLY source for historical information. I should have known that. :yikes: :mad2:
 
I have no clue where you are going with this.
Are you trying to sell books?

Or you want to learn how to edit wikipedia?

You are the Jackson Pollock of text. A smattering here, a bit there.
In the end everyone is left going "WTF is it?"

What is your goal?
 
mkosmo said:
A ha! That's it! The Wright brothers managed to get airborne by using a treadmill to assist in the speed required for flight! Eureka!
Click to expand...

Well, not many people know they had 5 hamsters in a squirrel cage on the engine augmenting the horsepower.
 
simplex1 said:
The man who changed the history of aviation with over 130,000 edits on Wikipedia!

Binksternet_suggesting_editors_be_logged_in.jpg

Michael "Bink" Knowles (public person), known as Binksternet on Wikipedia
see: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79105

The history of aviation written by the guy in the picture has accumulated more readers than all books about airplanes, balloons and rockets together. With such an author it can be explained why many people believe the Wright Brothers where the first to fly.
Click to expand...

That's an ad hominem and is a poor way to make an argument.
 
Henning said:
Well, not many people know they had 5 hamsters in a squirrel cage on the engine augmenting the horsepower.
Click to expand...

That explains that thing in the photo that isn't a thing but must be a thing because things are things!

 
"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-account-of-first-flight-by-john-daniels

Daniels twice wrote he had seen the machine being carried up the hill before each of the two flights he remembered. This information corroborates well with two pictures, allegedly taken on December 17, 1903:

Dec-17-1903-Flyer1TakingOffFirstFlight120Feet.jpg

(1) The first flight on December 17, 1903. Flyer I taking off and just about to go down a slope

Dec-17-1903-Flyer1LandedAfterLast59SecFlight-Small.jpg

(2) The forth flight and the last, December 17, 1903. Flyer I after it had landed in front of a large sand dune

Also, it should be noted that the article "The flying machine of the Wright brothers" published in L'Aérophile, Jan. 1904, pag. 16-18 has a comment close to its end reading: "Mr. Orville Wright does not tell us the difference in height between the departure and the landing point."
The letter of John T. Daniels and the two pictures (1) and (2), allegedly made on Dec. 17, 1903, come to confirm what L'Aérophile had already suspected in Jan. 1904. The plane landed many meters below the takeoff altitude which disqualifies the flights of that day as true powered flights.
 
simplex1 said:
Lots of moronic babbling here.
Click to expand...


You are a complete moron. If I depart Leadville, Colorado and land anywhere else in the United States, I am not (powered) flying?

Seriously? Go walk into a propeller before you procreate and pass your stupid on to your kids.
 
The 2003 flying replica of Flyer I 1903 couldn't fly more than 115 feet (35 m)

The 2003 accurate replica of the Wright brothers' plane, allegedly tested on December 17, 1903, was not able to do more than short flights. None of its takeoffs came close to the claimed 59 seconds flight performed on December 17, 1903. What the 2003 experiment really showed was that the plane from 1903 could have been theoretically able to take off and fly chaotically for 100 - 115 feet, no more. Flyer I was uncontrollable and not capable to execute a sustained flight. The tests from 2003 demonstrated that the Wright brothers had exaggerated, at best, the performances of their claimed 1903, 59 seconds flight.

Nov-20-2003-Flyer1Replica-100FeetFlight.jpg

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU
1) "On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15-18 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet."

Dec-3-2003-Flyer1Replica-115FeetFlight.jpg

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0
2) "December 3, 2003 test flight of the Wright Experience 1903 Wright Flyer Replica. Dr. Kevin Kochersberger was at the controls and piloted the Flyer for a distance of 115 feet. Slight cross wind after initial rotation which is compensated with slight wing warp."

The instability of Flyer I had been already predicted by prof. Fred Culick who tested in the wind tunnel another replica, different from the one that flew in 2003:

""They built it and then drew as they went along," said Fred Culick, professor of aerodynamics at the California Institute of Technology and chief engineer on Cherne's team. …" Cherne's group, working mainly on weekends in a warehouse donated by a rocket company in El Segundo, finished what they considered an exact replica. Then in 1998 they tested it at NASA's Ames Research Center near Sunnyvale, Calif. Three weeks of wind-tunnel tests of their Wright Flyer replica "clearly showed how unstable it was and how it can't be flown safely," said Culick."
Source: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20031008&slug=wright08
 
Two witnesses, John T. Daniels and Alpheus W. Drinkwater at different times declared the Wright brothers just glided on Dec. 17. 1903 which explains well why Dr. Kevin Kochersberger could not replicate the alleged 59 seconds flight.

See:
- "the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908", Alpheus W. Drinkwater, telegraph operator (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1716597&postcount=153)
- "They carried the machine up on the Hill", John T. Daniels, eye witness (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1717193&postcount=173)

No matter where you try to find confirmation the Wright Brothers really flew a powered plane on Dec. 17, 1903 the evidence you discover is leading exactly in the opposite direction.

The two american inventors could not even glided 59 with Flyer I because the plane was extremely unstable.
 
What's your point? What could possibly have you so wrapped up in this? Do you have a stake in this?
 
One more time in case you missed it before,

What is the POINT!?!:confused::confused::confused:

Is there a purpose behind this diatribe or are you a schizophrenic off their meds? We already see your evidence, it is time to move on to the next part of your story. Tell us why we should care?:dunno:
 
Henning said:
One more time in case you missed it before,

What is the POINT!?!:confused::confused::confused:

Is there a purpose behind this diatribe or are you a schizophrenic off their meds? We already see your evidence, it is time to move on to the next part of your story. Tell us why we should care?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Feed a troll and it will come back for more... :eek:
 
He's got to be off his meds.

Clearly not a neutral observer, regardless. And he seems not to know the difference between the 1903/1904 and 1905 Flyers and why the change was made.

The "physics" arguments are good for a mild chuckle, as they have no relation to reality.
 
Last edited:
There is one question I have in this, had the Wright engine been measured on a dyno for actual output?
 
May 30, 1908, two pictures showing the Wrights' plane in the air are published. The flying machine has a large, tall sand dune behind it.

Nearly four years and half after the alleged Dec. 17, 1903 powered flights there was still no solid evidence a plane built by the Wrights was able to rise under its own power. How can I believe the two inventors were able to fly more than 30 minutes in Oct. 1905 over a flat pasture near Dayton if they still needed a hill and strong winds to stay in the air as late as May 1908.
The two pictures (see the image) could prove an ordinary glide or a power assisted descent. There is no solid evidence the photos really show a true powered flight.

May-1908-Kill-Devil-Hill-Wright-Brothers-Plane.jpg

See: "The Wright Aeroplane Tests in North Carolina", Scientific American, pag. 393, May 30, 1908,
https://archive.org/stream/scientif...-american-v98-n22-1908-05-30#page/n7/mode/2up

As a remark:
The same May 30, 1908 Scientific American, at page 392, displays a few pictures presenting one of the Aerial Experimental Association's planes, one photo showing the airplane in flight. They are quite credible images. There is little doubt the AEA's plane really flew under its own power.
 
Still ducking the question?
Do you realize how creepy you are?
simplex1 said:
May 30, 1908, two pictures showing the Wrights' plane in the air are published. The flying machine has a large, tall sand dune behind it.

Nearly four years and half after the alleged Dec. 17, 1903 powered flights there was still no solid evidence a plane built by the Wrights was able to rise under its own power. How can I believe the two inventors were able to fly more than 30 minutes in Oct. 1905 over a flat pasture near Dayton if they still needed a hill and strong winds to stay in the air as late as May 1908.
The two pictures (see the image) could prove an ordinary glide or a power assisted descent. There is no solid evidence the photos really show a true powered flight.

May-1908-Kill-Devil-Hill-Wright-Brothers-Plane.jpg

See: "The Wright Aeroplane Tests in North Carolina", Scientific American, pag. 393, May 30, 1908,
https://archive.org/stream/scientif...-american-v98-n22-1908-05-30#page/n7/mode/2up

As a remark:
The same May 30, 1908 Scientific American, at page 392, displays a few pictures presenting one of the Aerial Experimental Association's planes, one photo showing the airplane in flight. They are quite credible images. There is little doubt the AEA's plane really flew under its own power.
Click to expand...
 
simplex1 said:
The two pictures (see the image) could prove an ordinary glide or a power assisted descent.
Click to expand...

But conversely those two pictures could prove a power assisted flight. ;)

simplex1 said:
There is no solid evidence the photos really show a true powered flight.
Click to expand...

But conversely there is no solid evidence the photos do NOT really show a true powered flight.
 
The witnesses saw the 1905 Flyer being pushed by hand before it took off!!

Regarding the claimed flights of 1905, there are serious doubts they really took place. In April 1906 the journal Scientific American said it had received letters from 11 witnesses and from their declarations "it would seem that the aeroplane (Flyer III) was pushed for a short distance by hand and left the rail after having traveled 25 or 30 feet".
There is no word about any catapult!! The force necessary to accelerate the 710 pounds of Flyer III, from zero to the flight speed in only 30 feet, is enormous, many times greater than the thrust generated by the propellers, and it could not have been delivered by hand.

"In order to ascertain if possible the manner in which the machine was launched, the witnesses were asked in the sixth question whether or not the machine arose from the ground by its own power. From the replies received, it would seem that the aeroplane rested on a single rail 40 feet long, was pushed for a short distance by hand, and left the rail after having traveled 25 or 30 feet. The rail was level and raised about 6 inches from the ground."
Source: Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906) - http://archive.org/stream/scientifi...-american-v94-n14-1906-04-07#page/n9/mode/2up
 
1. I zoomed on those images and couldn't tell if it was the wright bros.
2. I printed them out and looked on the back of them and they don't appear to have dates on them
3. Who gives a ****?


Everyone here knows the wright Bros. couldn't fly, they didn't have medicals.
We all know and agree with you. We are all just trolling you.

It has been a good laugh.

Buh bye.
 
simplex1 said:
"it would seem that the aeroplane (Flyer III) was pushed for a short distance by hand and left the rail after having traveled 25 or 30 feet".
Click to expand...

Simplex, your next assignment is to calculate how many people were needed to push that 710 lb pound from 0 to flight speed (25 mph) over 30 feet. Please don't forget about the engine contribution and please show all calculations.
 
simplex1 said:
The 2003 flying replica of Flyer I 1903 couldn't fly more than 115 feet (35 m)

The 2003 accurate replica of the Wright brothers' plane, allegedly tested on December 17, 1903, was not able to do more than short flights. None of its takeoffs came close to the claimed 59 seconds flight performed on December 17, 1903. What the 2003 experiment really showed was that the plane from 1903 could have been theoretically able to take off and fly chaotically for 100 - 115 feet, no more. Flyer I was uncontrollable and not capable to execute a sustained flight. The tests from 2003 demonstrated that the Wright brothers had exaggerated, at best, the performances of their claimed 1903, 59 seconds flight.

snip


The instability of Flyer I had been already predicted by prof. Fred Culick who tested in the wind tunnel another replica, different from the one that flew in 2003:

""They built it and then drew as they went along," said Fred Culick, professor of aerodynamics at the California Institute of Technology and chief engineer on Cherne's team. …" Cherne's group, working mainly on weekends in a warehouse donated by a rocket company in El Segundo, finished what they considered an exact replica. Then in 1998 they tested it at NASA's Ames Research Center near Sunnyvale, Calif. Three weeks of wind-tunnel tests of their Wright Flyer replica "clearly showed how unstable it was and how it can't be flown safely," said Culick."
Source: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20031008&slug=wright08
Click to expand...

Please re-read your above quotes very carefully.

1. Pay particular attention to the word Fly/Flight/Flown/Flying. It is mentioned at least eight times. For someone trying to discredit the Wright Bros. fly/flying/flown/flight, you sure use the word a lot to describe what you claim they didn't do.
 
narchee said:
I'm not convinced. You cannot prove this was a true replica or that the test conditions were the same as on the day the Wright brothers did their first flight.
Click to expand...

or the fact that they only put in three weeks of attempts compared to the three years of experience the Wright Bros. had with the airplane.
I find it a little arrogant that Culick would make such a dismissal (assuming the modern day pilots would be proficient in a couple of tries doing what the Bros. spent years practicing.)
 
simplex1 said:
snip

No matter where you try to find confirmation the Wright Brothers really flew a powered plane on Dec. 17, 1903 the evidence you discover is leading exactly in the opposite direction.

The two american inventors could not even glided 59 with Flyer I because the plane was extremely unstable.
Click to expand...

Your word is no more believable than someone else's. What authority do you claim to contradict what the Wright Bros. did?
 
Cruiser said:
Your word is no more believable than someone else's. What authority do you claim to contradict what the Wright Bros. did?
Click to expand...
Simplex's great grandaddy told Simplex that he was the first to fly a plane. Simplex believed him. When you were a kid, didn't you believe stuff that old people told you? What evidence did you need? Would any evidence have been sufficient, as a child, to convince you that your parents had lied to you? I suspect that Simplex is just here repeating old family stories resulting from a century of butthurt.

It also doesn't seem to be a coincidence that "simplex" refers to a form of signalling where communication only goes one way, and Simplex seems uninterested in actual dialog.
 
From a little Googling, it seems that Simplex is really butt-hurt because certain higher power editors wouldn't let him add all of this one-way drivel to the Wright Brother pages in Wikipedia. As a result, we're the only outlet for the obsessed demons in his mind.

Apparently Simplex1 is a native French speaker that hails from Quebec, Canada. He made his Wikipedia edits and submitted his failed complaint using IP address 70.83.114.138. The editors that shut him down call him "Montreal IP."

I had no idea that there's a Wikipedia "court." Who knew?

Here's a link to Simplex's 2014 Wikipedia "complaint" against those pesky editors (closed without action):

Link (click "Show" on right side of green bar)
 
register@teamandras.com said:
From a little Googling, it seems that Simplex is really butt-hurt because certain higher power editors wouldn't let him add all of this one-way drivel to the Wright Brother pages in Wikipedia. As a result, we're the only outlet for the obsessed demons in his mind.

Apparently Simplex1 is a native French speaker that hails from Quebec, Canada. He made his Wikipedia edits and submitted his failed complaint using IP address 70.83.114.138. The editors that shut him down call him "Montreal IP."

I had no idea that there's a Wikipedia "court." Who knew?

Here's a link to Simplex's 2014 Wikipedia "complaint" against those pesky editors (closed without action):

Link (click "Show" on right side of green bar)
Click to expand...

Well done.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
From a little Googling, it seems that Simplex is really butt-hurt because certain higher power editors wouldn't let him add all of this one-way drivel to the Wright Brother pages in Wikipedia. As a result, we're the only outlet for the obsessed demons in his mind.

Apparently Simplex1 is a native French speaker that hails from Quebec, Canada. He made his Wikipedia edits and submitted his failed complaint using IP address 70.83.114.138. The editors that shut him down call him "Montreal IP."

I had no idea that there's a Wikipedia "court." Who knew?

Here's a link to Simplex's 2014 Wikipedia "complaint" against those pesky editors (closed without action):

Link (click "Show" on right side of green bar)
Click to expand...


WOW!!!! You are the man.
 
I was going to guess he was Brazilian. I've met one Brazilian pilot who was just like him, swearing up and down that Wilbur and Orville weren't the first.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I was going to guess he was Brazilian. I've met one Brazilian pilot who was just like him, swearing up and down that Wilbur and Orville weren't the first.
Click to expand...
that's because there is a brazilian who was an early flyer and who some people think has a claim on being first. As opposed to all those aviation pioneers from montreal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top