I hope that you all have a Happy Holiday Season and that afterward you have a chance to sit back, relax, and dream about those things that you have put off for too long. Last month we reelected the same slate of officers since there were no volunteers or complaints and further agreed to continue to meet at the Madison Library.

As I watch the various documentaries on Wright aircraft I wonder about some of these people. Why do we have several builders of replica Wright engines? The Hay brothers built and ran their engine years ago at Oshkosh; why redo what has already been done since I'm sure that they didn't save any money using other builders.

Then there are all these attempts to fly. If you look at the Wright Flyer some things are immediately obvious. It is short coupled with the main weights near the center of gravity, thus it is sensitive in pitch. There is little rudder so yaw control is marginal. The long wings have a lot of inertia which slows the roll response while anhedral produces negative roll stability. On top of this the high drag and low power produce flight speeds only slightly above the stall speed.

The very low wing loading allowed flight at low speed but makes gusts extremely hazardous. A gust tends to make the craft turn and the inside wing which slows down may stall; then you’re done. Of course the Wright Flyer was not designed to turn; all that they wanted to do was to fly straight.

As pilots we are used to applying aileron and having instant roll response; not so with the Wright with a high friction control system and a lot of roll inertia. If you watched people fly the simulator, by the time that they noticed the effect of their wing warping it was already too late to counter the excessive roll taking place; they were behind the aircraft, the roll equivalent of the pitch proposing of bounced landings with conventional gear.

The Wright brothers picked Kitty Hawk for steady wind, lack of obstructions, and a smooth sandy surface. People erroneously conclude that they needed the wind for lift or that it took less power to fly in the wind. Remember that it is the "relative wind" or airflow in relation to the wing which governs all flight and that has nothing to do with the ground. All their flying into a high wind did was lower their ground speed on take off and landing and thus minimize crash damage and lethality. Launching was easier. They basically had a foot launched hang glider in 1902 and a powered one in 03. Gusts though, were always a problem, destroying the plane that Dec 17th morning.

I think that all of the reenactors missed the boat on training. It is necessary to learn the control responses under "steady state conditions" and the only steady state condition which is relatively easy to achieve is zero wind velocity. Assuming that they couldn't locate a large enough indoor stadium, what they needed was a long runway with no trees, buildings, or obstructions and zero wind; say at dawn. Actually during the night works well too with big portable lights. A catapult like the Wrights later used would be useful for a controlled launch using an auto or sailplane winch rather than a falling weight. Flying with no wind is the same as flying with a steady wind; its the gusts that cause all of the problems. More power and consequently higher airspeeds ultimately would allow safe turns.

The January Popular Science has the first article that I have seen on the Fossett-Branson-Rutan Global Flyer. Read it. Even the National Geographic has an issue devoted to the History of Flight with a fold out map showing aviation distance record flights with milestone aircraft on the back. Personally I think that they slighted Louis Bleriot since his crossing of the English Channel demonstrated that the airplane was not just a toy but had utility as well. Finally, the Cabin Fever Model Expo is at the York Pa. fairgrounds on Jan 17-18. See cabinfeverexpo.com.

Happy Holidays

TREASURERS REPORT

The last treasurers report in the Feb 03 newsletter showed that we were in the hole to the tune of $78 which I agreed to absorb. However at the Jan 03 meeting five members donated $55 to offset this for which I am grateful. Without having to pay for a meeting place this year I'm happy to report that we are presently ahead by $188. We talked about leaving the dues at $20 for 04 but if you want we could reduce them. Please make any checks payable to me.

INCOME EXPENSES

Dues - 20 members @ $20 = $400 EAA registration $40

(see July Newsletter)                                     Insurance 115

Postage                                                                              32

Madison Library                                                                 25 (Chaase room)

                                 __________                         ____________

                                        $400                                         $212

___________________________________

The Allaire Flight Instructors' Association (AFIA), is sponsoring A trip to Andrews AFB's high altitude laboratory on June 12th, 2004. Participation requires a current medical. Fifteen slots are available. For information call Jim Josenhans (908) 464-4732 or write, W8FVI@arrl.net .

As we all are aware now, 100 years of technology didn’t help get a successful flight from the Wright Flyer replica. This is a testimonial to the incredible job that the brothers did in writing the book on how to do something that wasn’t done before. We won’t mention that their Flier may have had subtle differences that helped them. The 6 week engine didn’t need Ford’s dynamometer to get the 12 hp to the props. How did we ever get to the moon?