Al Gietzen wrote:

Since the thrust obviously  exceeds the drag at flying speed I don't
understand why everybody was so concerned with having a head wind.
It will eventually achieve flying speed in a calm with a long
enough track anyway.
Paul Lamar

- - - - - - - -
The problem was that the space they had to do this in was limited by
trees and buildings, so they could only use enough track to leave them
at least 120' of flying distance plus some margin.  It occurred to me
early on that their odds of success were very low.  To have the right
amount of steady wind from roughly the right direction at a specific
time on a specific day?  Do what the Wright's did - wait 'til you have
the right conditions; and then go try it.

My understanding was that that Ford Motor, and other smaller donors
covered the bulk of the cost.  EAA provided facilities, support,
volunteers etc.

Probably the biggest challenge was figuring out exactly how the Wright's
had designed and built the thing, and in that regard, it was a success.

Al

Did you see the TV specials on the other half dozen attempts.
The University of Utah built one using modern materials including
carbon fiber, foam ribs, (new airfoil) dacron covering  and a Harley motor cycle 
engine. They moved the pilot and engine forward to move the CG forward 
and load the canard. It also had a long conventional control stick to
warp the wings and provide a modicum of control harmony.

It could take off at will and fly around like any conventional airplane.
Of course all that was cheating :)

Paul Lamar
 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.