Thread Tools
Jul 29, 2009, 02:54 PM
Retired CAD guy
birdofplay's Avatar
Weisskopf - White head , whatever :-)))

The Wright juggernaut and USA historians will not be defeated !

AKA Politics as usual !
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jul 29, 2009, 03:45 PM
Registered User
There is no proof that the Whitehead machine ever flew. Compare that to the Wright Brothers who published scientific papters describing ther progress from the first gliders flown at Kittyhawk until they actully flew. They also published numerous photographs including one of the first flight. But conspiricy nuts conveniently ignore the data.
Jul 29, 2009, 06:36 PM
Registered User
7304 - Gribovski G29
Jul 29, 2009, 06:40 PM
Registered User
BuildItWright's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by one11
How about Zeppelin Airship LZ1 July 2 1900 2 x 14 h.p Daimler engines driving 4 props ?
I'll give you an "E" for effort one11!!

But I'm talking heavier than air with 2 motors, not one motor driving 2 props.

BlondeValkyrie, the Weisskopf/Whitehead machine looks to me like it is only has a single engine driving the props via chains,
therefore you mark is an "E" too!!


I'll post the pic tonight as I'm sure no one is going to get it right!!
Jul 29, 2009, 06:54 PM
Registered User
The Short Bros. S.39 Triple Twin Biplane
Last edited by dhc2pilot; Jul 29, 2009 at 07:06 PM.
Jul 29, 2009, 07:03 PM
Suspended Account
BlondeValkyrie's Avatar
BIW,

Actually the GW No.21 had two motors- one for the two props (20 hp) and a second 10 hp to run the t/o gear!!!

Because the main motor ran off a combination of acetylene and compressed air, this mixture could not be used in either the US or German modern replicas as much too dangerous. And that is the key problem with the misinterpretation of Weisskopf's work. He was not an aviation pioneer nor ever claimed to be- his work was with motors, experimental aviation research and mechanisms.

For example, the GW No.21 also had ground-set variable-pitch props and powered t/o gear. Very unconventional back then and to my knowledge no one has ever tried powered t/o gear run by a seperate powerplant ever since 1901. The GW No.22 used aluminium in 1902 plus a diesel engine.

His experimental gliders:





BTW, I do not wish to cause any controversy and resent the name-calling already, as better, more highly-educated aviation historians and Weisskopf researchers have debated this already inconclusively and let's just leave it at that.

Weisskopf was a German immigrant living in Connecticut who was not an aviation pioneer,but just a simple man who wanted to make motors for various applications that included emerging aircraft, helicopters, and ground vehicles. His Aug 14, 1901 flight was reported by many eyewitnesses and a scientific journalist for the local newspaper that was reprinted in various other newspapers throughout 1901, but no photos were taken. Dick Howell made a sketch instead.

The "sketch" by Dick Howell Aug 14, 1901:



If the journalist had just taken photos there would be no controversy at all. And I think it is wrong to label someone a "conspiracy nut" just because of that misfortunate set of circumstances. Weisskopf did not have the money to repeat flights and also invest in his motor business, so fame eluded him.

Weisskopf could not replicate his success with the GW No.21 and brief GW No.22 with his failed helicopter experiment and latter aircraft projects, which had taken all of his money. Nor could he get his motor business investment to succeed.

Weisskopf helicopter:



He went back to Germany heartbroken and died- a very sad story.

It is also irresponsible to claim that the Weisskopf supporters lack evidence. No, most of it was lost after his death. He did have his notes, various sketches of his motors and his a/c, plus all hardware- which was scrapped after his death. Apparently, some photos were taken of the GW No.22 in 1902 but were of poor quality due to bad weather conditions.

There is also a valid conspiracy with the Smithsonian that has a written contract with the Wrights to promote ONLY their aircraft as the first aircraft to fly in the world no matter what evidence to the contrary might show up in the future. That means that if a photo of the GW No.21 shows up in flight or any other world a/c besides the Flier- that the Smithsonian would have to deny it was first or lose rights to all of the the Wrights' aviation. If there was no other valid claim of who flew first, what were they worried about?

Here's how it reads:

Paragraph 2 (d)
"Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, nor any museum or other agency, bureau or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight".

The Smithsonian also has DENIED knowledge of Weisskopf's work prior to the Wrights' flight and yet have been proven in their own documents/books to have expresssed opinions on his claimed flight of 1901 (under both names Whitehead and Weisskopf as an early aviation pioneer); in other words, they lied.

And third, the Wrights made a bold claim that the _very design _ of the GW No.21 should be obvious to all that the aircraft was incapable of flight. Proven wrong with 2 replicas from two foundations- one in the US and another in Germany in the late 1980s and late '90s. Both a/c were detailed replicas and even used the same materials from the same existing manufacturers still around to build their machines, except they could not replicate the dangerous Weisskopf acetylene and compresed air motors, so they substituted simple lightweight modern 10 hp units with comparable props. Both flew wonderfully and out to over 1600 feet, better than the Flier's flight (which took a catapult and a strong wind to get airborn).

So something is wrong somewhere. The Wrights seemed to have runned a smear campaign against German-immigrant Weisskopf from the beginning which sadly continued even after his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead

BV
Last edited by BlondeValkyrie; Jul 30, 2009 at 04:01 AM.
Jul 29, 2009, 07:33 PM
Registered User
BuildItWright's Avatar

A clue....


The twin engine aircraft that I have in mind flew in the first half of 1910.
Jul 29, 2009, 10:56 PM
Registered User
Over a year before my Shorts entry.....blargh!
Jul 29, 2009, 11:15 PM
Suspended Account
BlondeValkyrie's Avatar
dhc2pilot,

Correct on #7304 Gribovski G-29 (G-11) glider
Jul 29, 2009, 11:21 PM
Registered User
Coanda Twin???
Jul 29, 2009, 11:37 PM
Suspended Account
BlondeValkyrie's Avatar
I was thinking the same thing- the Coanda 1911 with 2 engines driving one prop or this Coanda with 2 internal engines driving X-??? prop(s):





Cannot see engines detail as they are buried in the fuselage...
Last edited by BlondeValkyrie; Jul 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM.
Jul 29, 2009, 11:52 PM
Suspended Account
BlondeValkyrie's Avatar

What Might Have Been...




MS-Coanda WW1 jet fighter concept...
Jul 30, 2009, 12:25 AM
Registered User
BuildItWright's Avatar
Wow!!! Good stuff your digging up there, BlondeValkyrie!

I'd never even heard of Coanda till now!!

I found some more detailed info on Coanda and his designs at the following link:

http://www.newfluidtechnology.com.au/Henri_Coanda_The_facts.pdf

His machine few in 1911 though so no cigar for you yet!!
Jul 30, 2009, 02:59 AM
Suspended Account
BlondeValkyrie's Avatar
BIW,

What do you mean you never heard of Coanda- father of the "Coanda Effect"???

Anyway, here are some of his more interesting stuff:

Unknown early 20th century aircraft:





*if anyone can ID, let me know please

His 1910 Turbine Aeroplane thermal jet:







His WW2 forced SS design for a Lenticular Flugschiebe:







Ref:
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Coanda.htm
Jul 30, 2009, 04:57 AM
Suspended Account
BlondeValkyrie's Avatar
BIW,

1910 Andrews Pusher Biplane:

1910 = 1pOB; two 36hp Adams-Farwell rotary pushers. Andrews designed and constructed the first twin-engined airplane, which flew at Daytona Beach for about 100 yards at an altitude of six feet before the rear elevators vibrated loose and the machine came apart.

~ Aerofiles, Andrews

No pic... but you owe me a cigar

BTW, the 1910 Aviation Timeline states that on September 27, 1910 Roger Sommer flew a twin-engined biplane. Again, no pic.

And lastly, here is a 1911 Loubery Biplane:



TWO engines plus THREE propellers
Last edited by BlondeValkyrie; Jul 30, 2009 at 05:23 AM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools