from 120 feet to 240,000 miles in less than a lifetime

"bwhiting" wrote in message
...
Chris, I'm afraid I'll have to side with Tracy....the air ship/air
balloon mainly floats.

Sure, I accept that.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the although the Wright
brothers' achievement was indeed momentous, it was "evolutionary" rather
than "revolutionary".

One can trace a clear path of evolution from the first glider flights
(arguably that of the Englishman, Sir George Cayley, in 1853), through the
various experiments with powered and unpowered balloons, airships, and
gliders, to the natural process of using the newly developed lightweight
engines with what were by then quite sophisticated gliders. It was an idea
whose "time had come", and had the Wright brothers not done it in 1903,
without doubt someone else would have done so in the immediate future in
either the US or France, the two countries which led the early world of
aviation.

The Wright brothers achieved the goal of powered heavier-than-air flight
first, but they certainly weren't alone in the "race" to do so!

Regards,

Chris

Chris Marriott wrote:

One can trace a clear path of evolution from the first glider flights
(arguably that of the Englishman, Sir George Cayley, in 1853), through the
various experiments with powered and unpowered balloons,

Manned balloons came long before 1853, so you need to "trace through" a
different time line ...

bwhiting wrote in message ...
Chris, I'm afraid I'll have to side with Tracy....the air ship/air
balloon mainly floats.
There are separate FAA licenses for both air balloons, and air ships,

So even the FAA considers it a completely different form of
transportation, otherwise it would all be the same licenses.
[my turn to spit] ;-)
Clear Skies,
Tom Whiting - (Nam -pilot-vet-retired)

With all due respect Tom. You have yourself clearly made the
distinction. I maintain that if you have control over the movement of
something. Then you are driving, flying, or doing something else. But
not simply floating. Otherwise balloonists would be free to fly
airships. They are not allowed to unless trained & licensed to do so.
As you admit yourself.
Okay, let's take another example: Is someone floating effortlessly in
the sea a swimmer? If they begin to swim are they still a floater?
Does the buoyancy negate the act of swimming? Even though it may
assist in its performance?

It is also true that any object immersed in the Earth's atmosphere is
subject to floatation as a result of its displacement. Even a lead
fishing weight. So must any fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter or glider
be subjected to its own level of floatation simply as a result of its
displacement.

Thankyou for not spitting in my airship while it is flying. g

Chris.B.Pedant

Spitting into the wind is an argument and the very act of doing so means
your looking for one.

You can spit into the wind and dare the spit to hit you, or you can spit
into the wind and try to duck.

It's pointless either way, but I find ducking more fun.

The correct answer is no. An air ship is called a ship because it
floats and an air plane is called a plane because it flys. You can hang
a fan on a balloon, but that doesn't make it a plane. If you turn the
fan off, the balloon will continue to float. If you turn the engine off
on a plane, the plane will have to glide back to the ground.



Chris.B wrote:

Tracy wrote in message ...



An air ship does not fly, it floats. Bouyancy keeps an air ship aloft
while aerodynamic lift keeps an airplane aloft.

Your turn to spit into the wind.




While I don't normally wish to appear (even slightly) argumentative.
One might reasonably suggest that a powered airship does in fact fly.
It may well rely on floatation for the bulk of its lift. But the
tailplanes are (& were) of (fairly conventional) aerofoil cross
section. By being driven forwards (or even backwards) by the motors.
The direction and lift/sink of the body is greatly modified by these
(often adjustable)lifting surfaces. The geometry of the motors
themselves is often highly adjustable to further increase the
directional control. Couldn't one call this "flying"? Does the skilled
"driver" of an airship have a pilots license or that of a balloonist?
I'll pass on the argument regarding the directional changes afforded.
By raising or lowering a conventional balloon. By means of added heat,
venting or reducing ballast into variable wind direction at different
altitudes. Can't this also be called "flying"? Though "ballooning" is
indeed the common term applied to the latter activity. Probably for
romantic & nostalgic reasons. (Montgolfier et al)
Makes yer spit! Don't it?

Chris.B.Pedant

Chris Marriott wrote:

"bwhiting" wrote in message
...


Chris, I'm afraid I'll have to side with Tracy....the air ship/air
balloon mainly floats.



Sure, I accept that.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the although the Wright
brothers' achievement was indeed momentous, it was "evolutionary" rather
than "revolutionary".

The point you tried to make was that the original poster was wrong when
he stated that the the first powered flight was made by the Wright
brothers in 1903. By your own admission air ships are ships that float
in air, they do not fly.

Now the point you are trying to make is that even if the Wright brothers
did fly first, It wasn't a big deal someone else would have done it.

If your going to spit into the wind, you must spit upwind. Spitting
downwind doesn't count.

Now your picking on the Wright brothers and they're sort of my favorites
and I'm in the mood to fight back. If the spitting contest seems
fruitless, then so be it and get ready for the ****ing contest. Be
warned, I've have plenty of ale on hand, I'm armed with a book I bought
at Kitty Hawk, and its been cloudy for days.

One can trace a clear path of evolution from the first glider flights
(arguably that of the Englishman, Sir George Cayley, in 1853),

His first successful unmanned glider was built in 1804.

through the
various experiments with powered and unpowered balloons, airships, and
gliders, to the natural process of using the newly developed lightweight
engines with what were by then quite sophisticated gliders. It was an idea
whose "time had come", and had the Wright brothers not done it in 1903,
without doubt someone else would have done so in the immediate future in
either the US or France, the two countries which led the early world of
aviation.

Filling a ballon with lighter than air gas has nothing in common with
heavier than air gliders or powered aircraft.

The Wright brothers succeeded in POWERED and CONTROLLED flight in 1903.
All previous gliders allowed flights to occur only as part of a slow
motion crash. The only means of control was provided by shifting the
riders weight.

The Wright brothers early gliders addressed the issue of control with
the introduction of three dimensional flight control. They
accomplished this in 1902.

None of the engines available at the time were sufficiently light and
powerful enough for aircraft use. Since no acceptable engine was
available, they developed their own engine in six weeks time that
developed 12 Hp with a weight of 179lbs.

This left them time to design an efficient propeller. No one had
understood that a propeller was a rotating wing at that time. While it
may seem trivial today, no one else figured that out and no one else was
first to figure that out.

On September 20, 1904 Wilbur flew the first complete circle in the sky.

The Wright brothers were keeping their aircraft aloft for flights of a
half hour or more by 1905. Then they flew no more for 2 1/2 years while
they attempted to secure patent rights.

The first French flight stayed aloft for 22 seconds in the fall of 1906
and no non-Wright pilot was able to stay aloft for a minute until 1907.
In the summer of 1908 French aviators had finally managed to stay aloft
for 20 minutes. They still had no real method of flight control.

So not only did the Wright brothers fly first, they went from first
flight to flying in cirlcles to maintained flights of more than 30
minutes one year before the other inventors made their first
uncontrolled flights of 22 seconds. It only took the Wright brother 2
years to attain maintaned flights of thirty minutes while the other
inventors took 2 years to attain partially controlled flights of 20
minutes even though the airplane capable of doing this was invented 5
years previously.

If powered flight was an idea whose time had come, then why did other
inventors take three years to achieve uncontrolled flight after the
initial inventors proved that controlled powered flight was achievable?
If the improvements the Wright brothers made were evolutionary, then
why did it take other inventors three years to evolve a less advanced
airplane and after two more years they still hadn't evolved their
airplanes to the state that the Wright brothers had achieved 5 years
earlier?



The Wright brothers achieved the goal of powered heavier-than-air flight
first, but they certainly weren't alone in the "race" to do so!

I'd wouldn't call a five year lag to produce an inferior product a race.
I'd call it a day late and a dollar short.



Regards,

Chris

In article , Tracy wrote:

Chris Marriott wrote:

"bwhiting" wrote in message
...

Chris, I'm afraid I'll have to side with Tracy....the air ship/air
balloon mainly floats.

Sure, I accept that.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the although the Wright
brothers' achievement was indeed momentous, it was "evolutionary" rather
than "revolutionary".

The point you tried to make was that the original poster was wrong when
he stated that the the first powered flight was made by the Wright
brothers in 1903. By your own admission air ships are ships that float
in air, they do not fly.

That admission is wrong. "Floating in air" is flying too. If you
don't believe me, then get an airship or a balloon and "float" in
towards an airport; then you'll quickly get aware that aviation laws and
rules apply to the airship or balloon as well....

I live in Stockholm, Sweden, which during the last few decades has
become the world's capital for those who enjoy flying hot-air
balloons. During the summer season, if the weather is suitable, we
can see about 10 balloons flying over the city. Sometimes I've seen
20 balloons flying simultaneously. Yes, we say "fly balloon", not
"float balloon". And I've been up in such a balloon myself too; the
experience is very different from riding a normal airplane.

There are two different principles of flight:
1. "Lighter than air": balloons and zeppelins/airships
2. "Heavier than air": airplanes

So Chris is right: the Wright brothers weren't first in powered flight,
although they were first in the "heavier-than-air" kind of powered flight.

Now the point you are trying to make is that even if the Wright brothers
did fly first, It wasn't a big deal someone else would have done it.

If your going to spit into the wind, you must spit upwind. Spitting
downwind doesn't count.

Now your picking on the Wright brothers and they're sort of my favorites
and I'm in the mood to fight back.

....and that mood will prevent you from being objective.....

Filling a ballon with lighter than air gas has nothing in common with
heavier than air gliders or powered aircraft.

It does have one part in common: these methods will all keep you above
the ground, up in the air..... and the balloon will keep you up in the
air longer than the air glider....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/

wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:47:25 -0700, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:

You're mssing the point...what transpired within the lifetime of an
average person from the Wrights to Armstrong.

No, you're missing the point. Only one of these anniversaries occurred
yesterday, not two as your first post states.

Well, I have to discredit NPR for the information, and wonder why John
Glenn and Neil Armstrong appeared in Dayton at the Wright brothers
memorial yesterday. It was said to commemorate the joint anniversaries
of the two events.

There are a lot of centennial year activities, all year long:
http://www.firstflightcentennial.org...ial_events.htm

Just another excuse for a party

--
RM Mentock

No se puede vivir sin amar

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 05:03:59 -0400, RM Mentock
wrote:

wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:47:25 -0700, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:

You're mssing the point...what transpired within the lifetime of an
average person from the Wrights to Armstrong.

No, you're missing the point. Only one of these anniversaries occurred
yesterday, not two as your first post states.

Well, I have to discredit NPR for the information, and wonder why John
Glenn and Neil Armstrong appeared in Dayton at the Wright brothers
memorial yesterday. It was said to commemorate the joint anniversaries
of the two events.

There are a lot of centennial year activities, all year long:
http://www.firstflightcentennial.org...ial_events.htm

Just another excuse for a party

Damn...all I wanted to do was help celebrate the human spirit and
intelligence; instead, I stumbled into a whole nest of anal retentive
types.

Cheers,

Dennis

"Tracy" wrote in message ...
The correct answer is no. An air ship is called a ship because it
floats and an air plane is called a plane because it flys. You can hang
a fan on a balloon, but that doesn't make it a plane. If you turn the
fan off, the balloon will continue to float. If you turn the engine off
on a plane, the plane will have to glide back to the ground.


Bear in mind, Tracy, that in the early days of aviation there wasn't the
clear separation between "lighter than air" and "heavier than air" machines
that you're making. Many of the aviation pioneers built machines with both
wings _and_ a gas bag to provide additional lift. It sounds wierd to us
today, but look at pictures of early aircraft and you'll find a lot of that
kind of arrangement!

Regards,

Chris

Tracy wrote in message ...

The correct answer is no. An air ship is called a ship because it
floats and an air plane is called a plane because it flies. You can hang
a fan on a balloon, but that doesn't make it a plane. If you turn the
fan off, the balloon will continue to float. If you turn the engine off
on a plane, the plane will have to glide back to the ground.

Are we now discussing spitting, floating or flying? Had you read a
single word of my second post. You would now be so convinced of the
error in your false opinions. That you would be arguing with me as to
whether I put the case for flying strongly enough!

A ship steams ahead, is underway, is cruising, is sailing, is
crossing etc. The fact that it floats is so utterly unimportant as to
be not worth mentioning!

eg. "Wow! Look at that great battleship son. It's floating at thirty
knots".
or: "See that sailing ship floating into the teeth of gale. What a
magnificent sight!
or: "That giant cruise liner just floated across the Atlantic in 11
days!"
or: "They are having a tall ships floating race tomorrow! I must go
down to the harbour and watch them float!"
or: "The American fleet floated at top speed towards their base!"
or: "The ferry floating was so rough, I had to lean over the side!"
or: "The tramp steamer floated into harbour belching black smoke!"
or: Nelson's flagship floated with all sails aloft after the Armada.

All these statements are a complete nonsense. Admit it and move on.

And can we please stop talking about spitting?

Chris.B.Pedant