Draft 02 by Jim Rait Page 1 15/06/2014

You have control Mr Larsen.

Thank you Mr Egerton.
Two versions of the Wright Flyer and their testing
programmes separated by almost a century.

100 years ago the 'sport' of flying heavier than air machines was about to
take off. It took courage and considerable skill to be a pilot, but there was
another thing needed deep pockets. Hand-crafted airframes and lightweight
engines do not come cheaply, and even when the determined flyer has made
it into the sky there is always a risk that they will damage, or even write-off,
their expensive machines with a single rough landing.

The Short-built Wright Flyer A -1909.
In 1909 five British sportsmen - Charles Rolls, Alec Ogilvie, Frank McClean,
Maurice Egerton and Cecil Grace - ordered Wright Flyer As (an improved
version of the Wright Flyer III). The Wright brothers, encouraged by Charles
Rolls and Griffith Brewer (patent agent to the Wrights), contracted out their
manufacture to Shorts. The Short brothers were astonished to find the
Wrights did not have the drawings of their Flyer so in February 1909 Horace
travelled to Pau, Wilbur Wrights winter flying ground, to make drawings of
the machine (Horaces sketchbook is now in the care of RAeS). For each
complete machine with a French-built Wright engine the pilots paid 1,000
(nearly 100,000 in todays money).

One of these pioneering pilots left a logbook of his experiences whilst learning
to fly his Short-Wright Flyer No 4 at Shellbeach, the Royal Aero Club flying
grounds on the Isle of Sheppey. Now lost, the logbook survived long enough
for the Xerox machine to be invented, and a copy to be made, in 1979, for
Gordon Bruce, who has kindly made a copy of a copy for me. Maurice
Egertons logbook brings to life the collaborative, competitive spirit
engendered by the aviators as they pushed at the boundaries of an ill-defined
flight envelope during those pioneering years 1909 to 1914.

How could Utah State University celebrate the centenary of Orville and Wilburs first
successful powered flight? Other organisations were carefully producing faithful
reconstructions of the Flyer so how could USU do something different whilst
remaining faithful to Orville and Wilbur Wright's vision of flight?
Dave Widauf, an associate professor at USU's College of Engineering, asked himself
what the Wright brothers would have done if they had access to today's technology.
He sat down with a colleague, Charles Larson, and together they realised that thei
brothers vision could reach new heights if they built a version of the Wright Flyer
using composite materials.
Draft 02 by Jim Rait Page 2 15/06/2014
"We knew we could keep the essence of the airplane but make it lighter and stronger,"
the colonel said.
After reviewing plans for the 1903 flyer the one that flew at Kitty Hawk, N.C.
and determining it would not fly for long periods, they decided to build a modern
version of the lesser-known 1905 Wright Flyer III.
"We didn't want to build something that wouldn't fly," Widauf said. "Even the Wright
brothers said the 1903 Flyer was impossible to fly, so they came back and changed it."
The Wright brothers came to the conclusion about their aircraft the hard way. After
making history by keeping their 1903 Flyer in the air for 12 seconds Dec. 17, the
brothers went back to Ohio discouraged after a crash damaged the craft beyond repair.
They went back to the drawing board, redesigned their aircraft and made history again
with the 1905 model, which flew for 39 minutes, 24 seconds and covered a distance
of almost 24 miles, longer than all their previous flights combined.
Widauf and his colleagues, working with USU's Space Dynamics Laboratory, decided
to make the project a community affair by involving students and faculty from various
areas in the College of Engineering along with a group of senior citizens who had
worked on aircraft before and local high school students.
"We changed some things," Widauf said. "It's actually closer to the 1909 Military
Flyer with two seats and the landing gear."
The project took 4,000 hours to design and 6,000 hours to build, he said.
Even with the extra seat and gear, the USU Wright Flyer is lighter than the 1905 Flyer
because of the composite materials used to build it. Composites, which are very
strong structurally and lightweight, are a blend of two or more materials in which the
individual elements are still distinguishable. Composites, such as Kevlar and graphite,
are commonly used in sports equipment, cars, and aircraft like the B-2 and F-22.
Widauf and his students used fiberglass and Kevlar-coated foam to replace the wood
and cloth used on the original Flyer. Another departure from the original plan is the
addition of a Harley-Davidson twin-cam 88B engine replacing the original built by
Charles Taylor for the brothers. One of the most difficult challenges of the project
was to take all these modern materials and equipment and create an aircraft that still
looks like the Wright brothers' 1905 Flyer.
Some aviation enthusiasts were upset by the group's plans to modernize the flyer.
However, Widauf said they worked with attorneys for the Wright family, and the
Wright Brothers Foundation eventually sanctioned the aircraft.
We had a wonderful showing at the Air Power 2003 event May 9-10 at Wright-
Patterson AFB (Ohio)," Widauf said. "A gentleman walked up and introduced himself
as Stephen Wright, the Wright brothers' great-grandnephew. He sat in the airplane and
loved it. They (members of the family) invited us to Kitty Hawk in December (for the
100th anniversary celebration of the Wright brothers' first flight) and are very excited
about the airplane. The unique thing is this is not an exact replica, and we never meant
it to be."
Draft 02 by Jim Rait Page 3 15/06/2014
The USU Wright Flyer made its debut flight at Utah's historic Wendover Airport
March 12, staying airborne for 23 seconds and traveling 800 feet. Since then, it has
been on a whirlwind tour throughout the West, impressing spectators at every turn.
Perhaps more impressive than the technological achievement is the emotional
response the aircraft elicits from people by bringing past and present together.

Adapted from:
The Wright Stuff by Capt. Anita Pavey
Citizen Airman - The Official Magazine of the Air Force Reserve
May 22 2003



Utah State University/ NCC Wright Flyer III- 2003
Nearly one hundred years after Maurice Egerton and his fellow flyers taught
themselves to fly Dr. Widauf, at the Utah State University, caught the shared
vision of the Wright brothers by building a replica of Orville and Wilburs 1905
Flyer III using composite material.

The USU Wright Flyers test flights began on March 11 and 12, 2003. The
Flyers first flight lasted about eight and a half seconds. The Flyer travelled
approximately 140 feet using a test runway about 8,000 feet long and wide
enough to provide the necessary room required for the controlled flights
being conducted by test pilot Wayne Larsen and the Utah State support team.
The second flight lasted nearly 135 seconds and covered almost 3000 feet of
the runway, powered by a Harley V88 engine. Larsen was able to dip the
wings with the wing warping controls and maintain a stable, straight flight
down the runway.
The Wendover Test Flight Operations Log for March 10-12, 2003 has been
published and an extract of both logbooks are compared below.
The entries highlight the similarities of the test pilots experiences even
though there is a gap of 94 years between the flights. Whilst the new Flyer
has greater structural integrity the issue of flight stability and engine reliability
are still challenging for the pilot.

Draft 02 by Jim Rait Page 4 15/06/2014

Maurice Egerton in his Short-Wright Flyer No 4, ready for takeoff in 1909/10.


An early test flight of the USU/NCC Wright Flyer III in 2003.

Draft 02 by Jim Rait Page 5 15/06/2014
Wendover Test Flight Operations
March 10-12, 2003
Tuesday March 11, 2003
Operations began at 7:00am. Some
adjustments were made from data and
concerns gathered the previous day.
Inspections were complete around 10:00am
and high speed taxi tests resumed until
1:30pm. At 1:30pm the aircraft and all
observers were moved to the far side of runway
120.
First flight (2:20pm) lasted 9 seconds during
which the aircraft travelled approximately 350
feet at a height of 4 feet AGL. Airspeed
recorded by the pilot was 40mph; wind steady
at 090 degrees at 7 knots; 5.5 on the Hobbs
meter at the end of the flight; airport density
altitude 5500 feet.
The weather was mostly clear with
temperatures near 70 degrees. The airplane
appeared very stable in all respects as observed
from the ground. The pilot reported the same
but that control pressure and pilot workload
was high. The canard lifted at about 32mph on
the airspeed indicator and the lift off occurred
at about 38mph. The ground speed recorded by
the chase vehicle was approximately 35mph.
Second flight (2:33pm) 4 seconds long then
touched down; flew 15 seconds; about 4-5 feet
AGL for 1200-1500 feet; engine rpm 4200;
airport elevation 4240 feet; density altitude
5500 feet.
Third flight (2:43pm) 22 seconds; 10 feet
AGL; 1500+ feet.
Fourth flight (3:40pm) 1 minute 26 seconds;
10 -15 feet AGL; 6000+ feet; take off roll 900
feet; landing rollout 300 feet.
Fifth flight (3:50pm) 1 minute 34 seconds; 20
+ feet AGL; 6000+ feet; shorter take off roll.
Sixth flight (3:56pm) 1 minute 22 seconds;
exceeded 25 feet AGL; full length of runway
(8500 feet) including take off and landing rolls.
This was the last flight of the day. Hobbs meter
time was 6.5 hours. Note: the oil temperature
and CHT were near red line.

Wednesday March 12, 2003
Operations began at 6:30am. We installed an
oil cooler to help lower the engine operating
temperatures.
Shellbeach Dec, 1909-June 1910
December 5, Sunday 1909
I got out to my shed about 8.15 am; and
started my first journey at 9.15.
A beautiful frosty morning, the wind, when
Short came by, was only 4 mph, and
occasionally at first dropping to an almost dead
calm.
Rose off the rail first time, and flew for perhaps
60 yds, and nearly every time increased the
distance up to my 6th trip, when I had to stop
only on account of bad ground just in front -
130 yds, Short's pacing -but got badly turned
round, right-handed; Short said I had got my
rudder set the wrong way all the time - quite
likely - as at present I can only think of
elevating and warping.
My 7th trip, the engine started missing half-way
down the rail, and I hopped to the ground,
yanked on the elevator, rose, lost all way, and
landed rather heavily, tail to the wind, as usual;
hit my right wing pretty hard; Short said, but
luckily no damage done. 8th and 9th journeys
not very grand.
10th. Engine ran very well, I made a clean rise,
and flew windward, till I came close to the
ditches and the sheep - 200 yds the men said -
which is about correct. The advance spark was
in the 5th notch after No. 5 run, hence my
good flight on the 6th trial. Much easier to rise
with the added power, without excessive
elevating.
11th and 12th. Motor missing, so switched off
on landing off the rail. Then the wind got up,
and Green said I mustn't fly in it; so having a
good morning, decided not to wait for it to go
down as the tide had just turned, so knock off
for the day. Took off the petrol pump in the
Shed and found a piece of cork in the Pipe!

June 2, Thursday 1910
In the afternoon we took some men over to
Shellbeach, and got out my Wright. The engine
ran without a miss, as soon as the air was out
of the petrol-pipes, so I went straight off the
rail to Eastchurch, landing near my shed. Wind
probably 6 or 7. Time probably 7 mins.
Made another flight of 9 mins. ----- 14 mins,
the crankcase was then beastly hot, so I
decided to bring her in; and Chapman is to put
on a new oil pump tomorrow.



Draft 02 by Jim Rait Page 6 15/06/2014
The challenge of flying a fairly large aeroplane at between 30-40 mph is just
as challenging today as it was a century ago. The rules of aerodynamics,
thermodynamics and the skill needed to control these beasts do not alter
with time. After flying as a passenger with Wayne Larsen in the USU Wright
Flyer former Space Shuttle astronaut Jake Garn described the skills and
physical stamina required by the pilot.
The Flyer has no ailerons to help it turn, Garn explained. The pilot has to
use the wing warping stick to turn the entire wing, which takes a lot of effort.
In the Flyer, both wings have to be turned mechanically. Theres no power
steering. You have to hold the stick constantly. It wears you out.