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

narchee said:
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
Click to expand...
The correct question would be: "How much power does a 60 kg man have to develop to accelerate its own mass from 0 to 25 mph over 30 feet?"

Demonstration

Data:
v_initial = 0
v_final = 25 mph = 11.176 m/s
d = 30 feet = 9.144 m
m = 60 kg

The equations that govern the movement of a body m accelerated by the force F:
1) F = m*a
2) d = a*t^2/2
3) v_final = v_initial + a*t
4) P = F * d / t = m * v_final^2 / 2*t

It will follow that:

t = 2 * d / v_final = 1.636 sec

P = m * v_final^2 / 2*t = 2.29 kW = 3.11 HP

In conclusion, a 60 kg man has to develop minimum 3.11 HP over 1.63 sec. just to accelerate himself to 25 mph over 30 feet!! There is no more room for excess power delivered to the plane. No matter how many people had tried to push by hand the alleged Flyer III 1905 the outcome would have been null, the power delivered to the plane would have been zero.

Flyer III 1905 could not have been pushed by hand as the Scientific American wrote in 1906 based on some letters received from alleged witnesses.
See: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1717485&postcount=188
 
Last edited:
I've never done the wiki thing, but can't he just create a new page over the controversy? Or over whoever he strokes his dick for?
 
Henning said:
I've never done the wiki thing, but can't he just create a new page over the controversy? Or over whoever he strokes his dick for?
Click to expand...
Not really, because what he writes is junk with an agenda, Wikipedia in general avoids being a platform for such.

Easy to keep him out of there since he only has interest in talking about discrediting the Wright Brothers. Which is pretty funny, since the general public does not care about the Write Borther's accomplishments today anyhow.
 
simplex1 said:
This is from Wikipedia:

"The Wright brothers ... were ... not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft"
Author: the much celebrated editor Binksternet (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79105)
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
Click to expand...

Well, here's an intrepid American chick who flew a powered aircraft 6 months before the Wright Bros. She was called "the first woman aero-driver of the world." :)
What do you think, fellow aero-drivers?
 
Last edited:
This may be a good time to start talking about the lunar landing hoax.
 
simplex1 said:
The correct question would be: "How much power does a 60 kg man have to develop to accelerate its own mass from 0 to 25 mph over 30 feet?"

Demonstration

Data:
v_initial = 0
v_final = 25 mph = 11.176 m/s
d = 30 feet = 9.144 m
m = 60 kg

The equations that govern the movement of a body m accelerated by the force F:
1) F = m*a
2) d = a*t^2/2
3) v_final = v_initial + a*t
4) P = F * d / t = m * v_final^2 / 2*t

It will follow that:

t = 2 * d / v_final = 1.636 sec

P = m * v_final^2 / 2*t = 2.29 kW = 3.11 HP

In conclusion, a 60 kg man has to develop minimum 3.11 HP over 1.63 sec. just to accelerate himself to 25 mph over 30 feet!! There is no more room for excess power delivered to the plane. No matter how many people had tried to push by hand the alleged Flyer III 1905 the outcome would have been null, the power delivered to the plane would have been zero.

Flyer III 1905 could not have been pushed by hand as the Scientific American wrote in 1906 based on some letters received from alleged witnesses.
See: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1717485&postcount=188
Click to expand...

It appears your universe has only constant accelerations and no wind.

You need to pick a hobby you're a bit better at. Even modest winds make a huge difference.
 
You gotta admit, that at least Mr. Herpes (thanks EdFred) has successfully unified a bunch of POAers that usually argue with each other!.
 
MAKG1 said:
It appears your universe has only constant accelerations and no wind.

You need to pick a hobby you're a bit better at. Even modest winds make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that one of the main reasons the Bros selected Kitty Hawk was that they could rely on 30kt winds. If they got that, acceleration would be near zero.
 
Gotta' say I'm truly enjoying MAKG1's responses to Simplex's attempts at doing physics. Poor guy is out of his league...
 
Regarding my calculations,
see: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1718025&postcount=202

1) Attention! they are about Flyer III 1905 that allegedly flew near Dayton, over a flat pasture, in 1905. No significant constant winds existed there.

2) Headwinds, blowing along flat terrain, do not help a plane to get off the ground using less power (its own power + what is delivered by the catapult). Headwinds just shortens the take off distance and if they are strong enough, say 25 mph and the take off speed in calm weather is also 25 mph, the plane can get off the ground at zero speed, it needs no runway but unfortunately the same power as for the case when no wind blows and the plane travels at 25 mph, otherwise the plane is blown back.

With or without a headwind blowing along a flat terrain, a plane needs the same power P to take off!!

3) However, relatively constant wind, blowing from the foot to the top of a hill, slope, will help a plane fly (glide) with less power because such an air flow has a vertical component that increases the lift.
windyhill_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Simplex......what is your educational background? You appear to be lost in the physics discussion here
 
simplex1 said:
This is from Wikipedia:

"The Wright brothers ... were ... not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft"
Author: the much celebrated editor Binksternet (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79105)
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
Click to expand...
You are such a goof ball. Here's what Wikipedia says with the parts you took out put back in:
The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871 – January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867 – May 30, 1912), were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are credited[1][2][3] with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903. From 1905 to 1907, the brothers developed their flying machine into the first practical fixed-wing aircraft. Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed-wing powered flight possible.
Click to expand...

You might as well have taken out individual letters, like in a ransom note. Why are you so utterly unwilling to have a conversation based on facts and reality? Even your contemporary patron saints of Wright criticism (your ancestors?) gave it up and apologized after they saw the Wrights fly. So what's your issue, exactly? And why won't you answer such simple questions as, "Why do you care so much?"
 
simplex1 said:
Regarding my calculations,
see: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1718025&postcount=202

1) Attention! they are about Flyer III 1905 that allegedly flew near Dayton, over a flat pasture, in 1905. No significant constant winds existed there.

2) Headwinds, blowing along flat terrain, do not help a plane to get off the ground using less power (its own power + what is delivered by the catapult). Headwinds just shortens the take off distance and if they are strong enough, say 25 mph and the take off speed in calm weather is also 25 mph, the plane can get off the ground at zero speed, it needs no runway but unfortunately the same power as for the case when no wind blows and the plane travels at 25 mph, otherwise the plane is blown back.

With or without a headwind blowing along a flat terrain, a plane needs the same power P to take off!!

3) Only relatively constant wind blowing from the foot to the top of a hill, slope, will help a plane fly (glide) with less power because such a wind has a vertical component that increases the lift.
windyhill_1.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes, you'll need (roughly) the same power to take off (to a very low altitude) and cruise at minimal power. But as you say with strong headwind (and the Bros very likely selected a stiff breeze each time early on), the takeoff distance could be near zero, so your previous takeoff power calculations are wrong. The only issue then is how much power you need to remain airborne, and there are some equations for that, for example here. Bear in mind that at low altitudes (less then a wingspan or so), ground effect becomes a factor, reducing the drag and power required.
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
I read somewhere that one of the main reasons the Bros selected Kitty Hawk was that they could rely on 30kt winds. If they got that, acceleration would be near zero.
Click to expand...

True, but that requirement was when they were experimenting with their gliders.

They got so good at (gliding) that Orville went back to Kitty Hawk in 1911. On Oct. 24, 1911 he took off an soared for 9 minutes 45 seconds a record that stood for over ten years.
 
simplex1 said:
Regarding my calculations,
see: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1718025&postcount=202

1) Attention! they are about Flyer III 1905 that allegedly flew near Dayton, over a flat pasture, in 1905. No significant constant winds existed there.

2) Headwinds, blowing along flat terrain, do not help a plane to get off the ground using less power (its own power + what is delivered by the catapult). Headwinds just shortens the take off distance and if they are strong enough, say 25 mph and the take off speed in calm weather is also 25 mph, the plane can get off the ground at zero speed, it needs no runway but unfortunately the same power as for the case when no wind blows and the plane travels at 25 mph, otherwise the plane is blown back.

With or without a headwind blowing along a flat terrain, a plane needs the same power P to take off!!

3) However, relatively constant wind, blowing from the foot to the top of a hill, slope, will help a plane fly (glide) with less power because such an air flow has a vertical component that increases the lift.
windyhill_1.jpg
Click to expand...
Valtrex1.jpg
 
Last edited:
"Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed-wing powered flight possible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

They invented no aircraft control, they just claimed they had discovered what we call now ailerons. The truth is that these devices were patented by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1868,
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Piers_Watt_Boulton paragraph - Aeronautical works.

Not even wing warping was the creation of the two fraudsters from Dayton because a kite using this roll control method was already flown by Edson Fessenden Gallaudet in 1898,
see: http://www.flyingmachines.org/gallau.html
 
simplex1 said:
"Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed-wing powered flight possible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

They invented no aircraft control, they just claimed they had discovered what we call now ailerons. The truth is that these devices were patented by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1868,
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Piers_Watt_Boulton paragraph - Aeronautical works.

Not even wing warping was the creation of the two fraudsters from Dayton because a kite using this roll control method was already flown by Edson Fessenden Gallaudet in 1898,
see: http://www.flyingmachines.org/gallau.html
Click to expand...
Valtrex1.jpg
 
I never figured out how 'wing warping' itself could be issued a patent since the mechanics is already present in nature. :dunno:

As for Ailerons, that was Glenn Curtis, now that I could see issuing a conceptual patent on.
 
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...

Note:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1717111&postcount=172
 
RotorDude said:
Yes, you'll need (roughly) the same power to take off (to a very low altitude) and cruise at minimal power. But as you say with strong headwind (and the Bros very likely selected a stiff breeze each time early on), the takeoff distance could be near zero, so your previous takeoff power calculations are wrong.
Click to expand...

1) Once again, my calculations refer to Flyer III 1905 that flew near Dayton (Ohio) over a flat pasture where no significant reliable winds existed. They are not about Flyer I 1903 that benefited of a strong breeze and a slope at Kitty Hawk (North Carolina).

2) Look at this video (made after Aug. 8, 1908), min 1:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5o-fhBKf8Y
6 people working like slaves are slowly rising the weight of the catapult.
Later at min 1:34 - 1:35 the weight falls in ~2 seconds.
To force the plane take off a group of people pushing it by hand would have needed to deliver the same energy as the falling body in the same time, which means to transmit the same power as the catapult.

The falling mass weighed ~ 400 kg. It fell from about 5 m to the ground in ~2 seconds which means it delivered to the plane the power:

P = mgh/t = 13.32 HP

Using pulleys to avoid wasting energy by accelerating their own masses possible 26 strong men (not necessary athletes) are able to deliver 13.32 HP.

Another remark the people who pushed the alleged 1905 Flyer never showed up which is another piece of evidence the Wright brothers did not fly before 1908.
 
simplex1 said:
windyhill_1.jpg
Click to expand...


Okay, I think I found your problem.
That image above is not the wright brothers.

It appears to be a radio controlled glider.
My guess is it is the "Gently Lady" glider made by Goldberg Models.

I get that we are losing a lot in translation due to your thick French accent.

Ok, so here is a link to where you can buy the glider

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/291102279264?lpid=82&chn=ps

It is a really good glider. Easy to build, stable with very slow flying characteristics. I think you will get a lot of fun out of it.

The main spar might need a bit of reinforcement as it doesn't take too much back pressure to snap the wings. (don't ask me how I know amirite?)

You can hand launch it and you don't need 19 other guys or whatever you were talking about. Just you alone.

You need some alone time.

And it will totally fly straight and level with no power so you don't need any math to fly it.
 
Cruiser said:
They got so good at (gliding) that Orville went back to Kitty Hawk in 1911. On Oct. 24, 1911 he took off an soared for 9 minutes 45
seconds a record that stood for over ten years.
Click to expand...
I have heard about this record.
see more information here: http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Kites_&_Gliders/1911_Glider.htm

However, it appears to be also a claim as long as the flight was not officially controlled. A few pictures showing the 1911 glider in the air is not definitive proof the apparatus really soared for 9 and 3/4 minutes.
 
simplex1 said:
The equations you suggest are good and simple. You can use them to demonstrate your point of view.
As a note, the power necessary for the alleged Flyer II, III (1904 - 1905) to maintain level flight is known being 15 and 20 HP, respectively.
see: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1715156&postcount=63
Click to expand...

You are ignoring ground effect which as I noted above can greatly reduce drag and power required at their initial low altitudes. If not, how did you account for it?
 
RotorDude said:
You are ignoring ground effect which as I noted above can greatly reduce drag and power required at their initial low altitudes.
Click to expand...
Just take the ground effect into account. Show some numerical results and the formula you have used.

In my calculations, no drag appears. They are just energetic evaluations assuming the people who allegedly pushed the 1905 plane would have not dissipated their power fighting against any form of friction. If we take friction into account (aerodynamic or of a different nature) the number of slaves needed by the Wright brothers to give an initial impulse to their plane would have increased.
 
The Wright brothers bought 40 HP french engine Bariquand & Marre to power the planes they finally flew in front of credible witnesses in 1908

The articles, "Aviation in US. Seven french engines for the Wright brothers, L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127",
see: (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f137.image.r=wright 40 CV.langEN )

which says that the french company "Barriquaud-Mare" had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and the article
"Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23", 1908,
see: ( http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001208/ )

that also talks about french engines, demonstrate, both of them, that the brothers needed in May 1908 far more powerful motors for far less spectacular flights than the ones allegedly performed in 1905.

Also on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers using same french engines flew only 1 min and 45 sec in France, far from 38 minutes in Dayton in 1905 when a considerable weaker engine (20 HP) was used. These brothers have simply no credibility and only their officially witness flights can be trusted. The rest is their own fiction.
 
Last edited:
simplex1 said:
Just take the ground effect into account. Show some numerical results and the formula you have used.

In my calculations, no drag appears. They are just energetic evaluations assuming the people who allegedly pushed the 1905 plane would have not dissipated their power fighting against any form of friction. If we take friction into account (aerodynamic or of a different nature) the number of slaves needed by the Wright brothers to give an initial impulse to their plane would have increased.
Click to expand...

If you have zero drag, you need zero thrust, and therefore zero power for level flight. To climb you'd need one time investment of energy depending on altitude (which you'd gain back on descent if all were zero drag).
So in reality you can't ignore drag, since it affects thrust and power. And drag is significantly reduced by ground effect. Until you account for it, your equations can't predict the viability of a given aircraft design which flies at very low altitudes, like the first Kitty Hawk flights.
 
simplex1 said:
The Wright brothers bought 40 HP french engine Bariquand & Marre to power the planes they finally flew in front of credible witnesses in 1908

The articles, "Aviation in US. Seven french engines for the Wright brothers, L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127",
see: (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f137.image.r=wright 40 CV.langEN )

which says that the french company "Barriquaud-Mare" had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and the article
"Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23", 1908,
see: ( http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001208/ )

that also talks about french engines, demonstrate, both of them, that the brothers needed in May 1908 far more powerful motors for far less spectacular flights than the ones allegedly performed in 1905.

Also on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers using same french engines flew only 1 min and 45 sec in France, far from 38 minutes in Dayton in 1905 when a considerable weaker engine (20 HP) was used. These brothers have simply no credibility and only their officially witness flights can be trusted. The rest is their own fiction.
Click to expand...

These flights that the Wright Bros. made at Kitty Hawk (your reference above). Do you admit that they are credible?
 
RotorDude said:
If you have zero drag, you need zero thrust, and therefore zero power for level flight.
Click to expand...
Yes (pure theory), but you need power to accelerate the plane to the flight speed, taken as 25 mph and reached after running 30 feet on the ground, in my calculations.
As I calculated if ones wants to accelerate, in vacuum and in zero gravity conditions, a 60 kg weight from 0 to 25 mph over 30 feet, then the required power is 3.11 HP for 1.63 sec.
Even without drag a plane has to reach the speed at which Lift = Weight (25 mph, for instance) and this operation absorbs a lot of energy that can not be delivered by people pushing the plane by hand.
 
simplex1 said:
Yes (pure theory), but you need power to accelerate the plane to the flight speed, taken as 25 mph and reached after running 30 feet on the ground, in my calculations.
As I calculated if ones wants to accelerate, in vacuum and in zero gravity conditions, a 60 kg weight from 0 to 25 mph over 30 feet, then the required power is 3.11 HP for 1.63 sec.
Even without drag a plane has to reach the speed at which Lift = Weight (25 mph, for instance) and this operation absorbs a lot of energy that can not be delivered by people pushing the plane by hand.
Click to expand...

OK, I am focusing on the Wrights' initial flights for now (first things first).
If we assume a 30kt headwind for takeoff, no acceleration is needed for level cruise flight at 30kt (0 ground speed, for simplicity).
You just need to be sure your wingwalkers are holding your wings and then release them (no pushing needed) once you have enough thrust to keep you aloft at a low altitude of a few feet, in ground effect.
You do need a tiny bit more thrust than the cruising minimum to get you to your "cruising altitude", but not much.
You fly a bit, maybe advance forward a bit if you can produce a bit more thrust (actually you'll have that with your "climb power"), then settle down and land, all in ground effect.
What am I missing?
 
Not worth it Rotor, he has no interest in listening, only broadcasting to whatever audience may listen.

Of course, nobody actually cares 112 years later, so I'm not sure what he is hoping to achieve.
 
jesse said:
Not worth it Rotor, he has no interest in listening, only broadcasting to whatever audience may listen.

Of course, nobody actually cares 112 years later, so I'm not sure what he is hoping to achieve.
Click to expand...

Simplex does.:rofl:
 
I think I figured it out! This is all about be shut out of Wikipedia to disseminate his information, who ever had that I think got it, however, he has found an alternative that may actually give him a higher ranking on search engines. You Google an aviation related question and Google brings you to POA in the top 3 lines typically, often the first.

It's kinda brilliant, still ****ing insane, but they often go together.
 
What mechanism does this theory use to overcome the effect of 9.8m/s/s downward acceleration (ie, gravity)?
RotorDude said:
If you have zero drag, you need zero thrust, and therefore zero power for level flight. To climb you'd need one time investment of energy depending on altitude (which you'd gain back on descent if all were zero drag).
So in reality you can't ignore drag, since it affects thrust and power. And drag is significantly reduced by ground effect. Until you account for it, your equations can't predict the viability of a given aircraft design which flies at very low altitudes, like the first Kitty Hawk flights.
Click to expand...
 
Well, then the solution is to nuke the thread, and any other thread he starts. What say you MC? Not just lock it, nuke it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top