http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105989,00.html
What caused such a high price to reproduce the aircraft on show at the cenntenial celebration of the first flight?
It’s not easy to reproduce 100 year old technology and hope that it can fly.
The reproduced Wright Flyer would only get airborne under a few conditions. I think the winds had to be between 27 and 32 mph.
I think there were wind tunnel tests and such. The Wrights didn’t do that.
It was almost completely hand made, including the engine.
People are a lot more expensive now than they were in 1903.
They may be counting ancillary costs as well. One example would be the cost of producing a flight simulator to help train potential pilots.
It was a bit disappointing to see that the flight attempt was from level ground in low wind. An accurate replica of the 1903 Flyer would not have been able to take off from the length of track the Wrights used under those circumstances.
Winds were not strong when Wilbur attempted a flight 3 days before the first successful one, so the launch track was rigged on a downslope, and the Flyer did get airborne (for 115’ and 3.5 seconds, which the Wrights felt was too short to count as a true flight).
It took 10 years of research and over three years to build it. I’m surprised they did it for $1M. Seems like a very low amount of money when you consider the huge effort that went into recreating the plane.
Check out this page:
http://www.countdowntokittyhawk.com/gallery/1903reproduction_photos.html
If you were a contractor, would you submit a fixed price quote of $1M?? Not me! I would quote at least 5X that amount.
The Wright brothers did use wind tunnel tests - that was one of the great ideas they came up with. They tested various wing shapes in their home built wind tunnel.
The reproduction was tested in a giant wind tunnel that was big enough to house the entire plane.
Yes, the Wright Brothers did. In fact, they invented the wind tunnel as well as the airplane.
I thought they found an original engine and just had to hand make some of the parts to get it working…?
I’d thought so too, but no.
Not to stray too far off the topic, but this one got me thinking.
Did the folks trying to fly the new Wright Flyer have their aircraft registered with the FAA before they tried to fly it? If so, what was the N number?
wolfstu, where’s the quote from. Not that I’m doubting you, but I’d like to read some more.
The word “no” in my post is underlined and highlighted. Clicking on it take you to this webpage:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/first_wind_tunnels/Tech34.htm
(The word “no”, having thse properties, is called a “hyperlink” in internet parlance.)
Hmm, what about that junkyard megawar episode where 3 teams made 3 different types of very early planes, using only materials available at the time (e.g. steel tubing only, no alumimum)?
Junkyard Mega Wars - Flight of the Century
Yeah, OK, probably that episode cost well over a million in production values for all the TV necessary stuff, but still, I would supposed the actual planes and ‘labour’ cost under a mill for all…
I don’t know. If it was below a certain weight, then it would qualify as an ultralight and not need to be registered.
Well, I learned new stuff about the wind tunnels. That was cool.
The FAA did sign off on the reproduction of the Wright Flyer however.
The ultralight weight limit is 254 lbs. The 1903 Wright Flyer was (IIRC) something over 600 lbs. So if the replica is as accurate as is claimed, there would probably have been little choice but to obtain an FAA-issued airworthiness certificate and certificate of registration.