# Dec 17, 1903 - Dec 17, 2003 -- 100 Years of Powered, Heavier than Air Flight **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 17, 2003, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485 "2003-12-17T06:37:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![caligynephobia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@caligynephobia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligynephobia)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/21 "2003-12-18T02:19:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Figaro \* > \*\*Count me in as amazed at the progress we’ve seen in this hundred years. > > The irony is that I’m now finishing up my flight training in a Cessna 152 - a design that goes back what, 50 years? It seems to me that general aviation is still fairly in touch with flying’s roots, whereas commercial and military flying are so far down the path of technology that it’s unrecognizable. GA still has a touch of magic in it. Strap into your buddy’s Aeronca Champ and buzz some trees… \*\* Congratulations on your training and good luck with your checkride **Figaro**! Quite a bit of the military hardware flying these days is considerably older than the 152 (1978 roll-out I believe). Even the C-150 came out around 1959, younger than many KC-135 and B-52 airframes still flying . . . you’ll be surprised at how recognizable much of the same basic airmanship you use in your 152 translates directly to flying “state-of-the-art” military equipment. They’re still airplanes! I definitely agree about the magic of GA though - the most fun I’ve had in planes in the last few years has been in gliders and a J-3 Cub. I’d take that Champ ride any day . . . good luck with your flying! caligynephobia ---
**Author:** ![Lucretia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@Lucretia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucretia)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/22 "2003-12-18T02:42:21Z")
Our country is free and prosperous today due in no small part to the efforts of the Wright brothers. **Faces North Carolina, salutes smartly.** Oh yes, and…Air Power! ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/23 "2003-12-18T04:38:01Z")
A few years ago, a crowd gathered to open a time capsule at the county court house in Gibson County, Tennessee. One of the things inside was a list of questions and among them this: **Did man ever learn how to fly?** It brought tears to the eyes of many who had flown there was the occasion. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/24 "2003-12-18T04:53:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Revtim \* > \*\*What I find most astonishing is that the leap from the Wright bros to a man on the moon took place **in a single human lifespan**. > > There were people who lived when many thought man would NEVER fly in a heavier than air craft, who saw Neil Armstrong walk on the lunar surface. > > Amazing. \*\* Speaking of human lifespans, today is my grandmother’s 99th birthday. She truly has lived to see amazing changes. I’m grateful I still have her. She can’t see or hear all that well, but she still has a sharp mind and pays attention to the news better than I do. Born just after the advent of flight, she has gone from horse and buggy to the space age. ---
**Author:** ![RalfCoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@RalfCoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RalfCoder)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/25 "2003-12-18T14:19:56Z")
Did anyone else see that Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites flew a test of their SpaceShipOne yesterday? They hit mach 1.2, the first time that a privately built aircraft broke the sound barrier. [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/18/1071337101311.html](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/18/1071337101311.html) ---
**Author:** ![Figaro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ea666f/32.png) [@Figaro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Figaro)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/26 "2003-12-18T17:09:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by caligynephobia \* > \*\*Congratulations on your training and good luck with your checkride **Figaro**! Quite a bit of the military hardware flying these days is considerably older than the 152 (1978 roll-out I believe). Even the C-150 came out around 1959, younger than many KC-135 and B-52 airframes still flying . . . you’ll be surprised at how recognizable much of the same basic airmanship you use in your 152 translates directly to flying “state-of-the-art” military equipment. They’re still airplanes! I definitely agree about the magic of GA though - the most fun I’ve had in planes in the last few years has been in gliders and a J-3 Cub. I’d take that Champ ride any day . . . good luck with your flying! > > caligynephobia \*\* Thanks, **Cali**! You’re right of course about the B-52 and lots of other older designs that are around. And I have never flown anything high-tech, so I’ll have to wait until my flight in an F-22 to see if it feels like an airplane!. I have to think, though, that, as an experience, cruising at .85 mach at 40,000 feet is a lot farther removed from aviation’s beginnings than counting cows at 85 knots with the windows open. Now, if I could just win that WACO from AOPA… ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/27 "2003-12-18T17:13:12Z")
> [@](#): > > They hit mach 1.2, the first time that a privately built aircraft broke the sound barrier. Didn’t Jim Bede’s flutter-prone BD-10 hit Mach 1? ---
**Author:** ![RalfCoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@RalfCoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RalfCoder)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/28 "2003-12-18T18:23:54Z")
Johnny, I can’t say for sure. I was quoting from the article. I did google around a bit, though, and found these: [Bede’s website](http://www.jimbede.com/bd10.html) says that the BD10 was designed to be faster than sound, but not to cruise that fast. There’s no mention there that they actually achieved that speed. If he had, I would have expected that to be pointed out. [This Yahoo group](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bd5/message/4911?source=1) has a message said to be by Jim Bede about at least one test program. The speed they’re discussing here is 350-380 knots, give or take. That’s well below mach 1. That doesn’t mean that a different plane did get that fast. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/29 "2003-12-18T18:32:07Z")
Fair enough. I do know that the BD-10 had flutter problems that resulted in at least one fatality. It might be that even though it was designed to go supersonic, it never achieved that speed because it broke up. ---
**Author:** ![caligynephobia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@caligynephobia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligynephobia)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485/30 "2003-12-18T20:21:49Z")
I remember an article in a popular mechanics -type magazine when I was younger that touted the BD-10 as everyman’s supersonic jet. I don’t think it ever got close, [this NTSB report](http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X02760&key=1) deals with the crash of one prototype (read the full narrative for more detail). I read an article by an engineer who did some BD-10 aeroelastic study after the crash (can’t find it though) and concluded that analysis of the empennage structure design was inadequate and/or faulty. I saw one of the other prototypes for sale in Trade-A-Plane a couple years ago. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dec-17-1903-dec-17-2003-100-years-of-powered-heavier-than-air-flight/219485.md?page=1)