The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.

[simplex1]

The best contemporary evidence about the credibility of the Wrights' claims is Ernest Archdeacon, who had doubted them until 1908, when he seems to have become convinced not only that they had a good aeroplane in 1908, but that his earlier doubts had been mistaken and they had been telling the truth all along.

What exactly did Ernest Archdeacon say about the Wright brothers in 1908?

[joy ride]

I too feel that OP is using evidence to support an agenda, rather than to gain full understanding.

I disagree that the Wrights invented the aeroplane/airplane, but feel that they were the first to fly within the criteria used to define their flights and machines.

Whether it was them or someone else who was first to fly a machine within any other meaningful criteria I am at present undecided.

[dubbleyew eight]

if simplex read "kill devil hill" he would find that the wright brothers used an entirely unique physical explanation for their machines.
they developed their own aeronautical theories and formulae.

comparing figures used by the wrights with modern aeronautical figures is about as valid as saying that 60 kilometres per hour is faster than 37 miles per hour because the number is bigger.

simplex you really are a doofus.

[FlightlessParrot]

What exactly did Ernest Archdeacon say about the Wright brothers in 1908?

I really should charge a fee for research, but Archdeacon is quoted as saying:

For a long time, the Wright brothers have been accused in Europe of bluff...They are today hallowed in France, and I feel an intense pleasure ... to make amends.

This is quoted in The Wright Brothers: Beyond the First Flight and I can't cite the source, because the footnotes aren't visible in Google preview. Archdeacon may, of course, have spoken in French. If you doubt this, the burden of proof is on you, oh simple one, and I hope you can come up with something more interesting than that Archdeacon was bribed to become part of the conspiracy. ? The Masons ? The Illuminati ? Alien Reptilian Overlords ?

[Noyade]

Maybe too much wine, but I don't get this...

Again, another lie of the Wright brothers, that 62 pounds/HP at 38 mph was not a realistic figure, they could not have achieved such a performance before Dec. 1906 as long as about two years later their flying machines were considerably less capable sustaining just 35 pounds/HP.

As the machines improve the power to weight ratio improves, no? How can a ratio of 35 lbs/HP be "less capable" than 62lbs/HP. It's not - it's much better?

who had doubted them until 1908

I don't think even simplex disputes that. Even the title of the thread accepts the fact they flew (superbly) in 1908 - it's prior to 1908 that's the issue and in simplexes view, they only power-glided.

What I find amazing among the witnesses testimonies of 1903, is that no one noticed a 747 near the fight line?!...

[Haraka]

is that no one noticed a 747 near the fight line

Nor the fact that the Flyer did indeed ,evidently, take off down a slope as Simplex has claimed !

[joy ride]

^ Nice one!

Today the BBC has an article about the Jet Age and it reminds me of why media sources of information are not necessarily accurate.

BBC News - Flying with the jet set back when travel was glamorous

If someone were to read that that article and watch the embedded video they could use it to state that the B707 was the first jet airliner and that only Americans liked jet travel.

In my mind it is a seriously flawed article/video/book, having been written by an American apparently with an almost exclusively American viewpoint.

It might just be a poor article but it seems only to exist to plug a book, and from the look and sound of it it is unlikely to appeal to me.

[eetrojan]

Simplex is comparing apples and oranges.

According to his post, the French story reported that the 1908 plane weighed about 882 lbs and had an engine developing 25 HP. Using the division key on his trusty calculator (882/25), he gleefully announces that the 1908 plane was only capable of sustaining 35 lbs/HP - a number that in his conspiratorial mind is very tiny when compared with the earlier "lies" of the Wrights. Case closed.

However, regardless of whether or not 35 lbs/HP has some useful meaning, it's a single number that isn't meaningful in this context because it doesn't account for varying flying conditions he hides from us.

According to Simplex, the 1906 edition of Scientific American reports only that:

"At 38 miles an hour, they (the Wright brothers) were able to sustain 62 pounds per horse-power"

However, he is lying by omission. If you go to the source and actually read the orange language on either side of the single yellow sentence that Simplex quotes, you can see that it really reports how much weight can be sustained per HP at three different speeds:



If you reorder the three data pairs in terms of MPH, from slowest to fastest, you get the following assertions:

• At 20 miles an hour, they could sustain 125 lbs/HP
• At 38 miles an hour, they could sustain 62 lbs/HP
• At 75 miles an hour, they could sustain 30 lbs/HP

The meaning of all this is above my pay grade, and it may be all theoretical since they never went 75 MPH so far as I know, but it's clear that the pre-1908 performance does not boil down to a single metric of 62 lbs/HP.

Simplex continues to try to manufacture evidence from the thinnest of threads in order to fit his existing bias.

[eetrojan]

Haraka said - Nor the fact that the Flyer did indeed ,evidently, take off down a slope as Simplex has claimed !

I know you're joking (and appreciate the humor! ), but nonetheless wanted to point out that nearly one-thousand glides were from the hill, but the flights on the 17th were from a rail that was indeed on flat ground. In fact, the Wright's progressively transitioned to flat ground in that they got the Flyer airborne on the 14th, but didn't count it as their "first" flight because the Flyer was still on a slope and not yet started on level ground:

However, the apparently most well informed objection to accepting this flight as The First Flight involves not the damage to the machine but the means and manner of take-off. On the 14th, The Flyer and the track from which it was to be flown were moved from the level area around the Wrights’ work and storage sheds and placed on an 8-degree 50-minute slope at the base of Big Kill Devil Hill, with The Flyer facing downhill.

The FIVE FIRST FLIGHTS

[Haraka]

I know you're joking (and appreciate the humor! )

No! no ! no ! If you look at the diagram you will ALSO see that the Flyer landed at lower level than that which it took off from. (Powered glide ???!!!!)

I think Noyade should reveal his sources .

[eetrojan]

Not to mention the obvious layer of yellow thermals that unfairly provided additional lift.

[simplex1]

According to Wikipedia, Flyer II and III had the same max. speed, 35 mph, but for some mysterious unknown reasons Flyer III had a much poorer weight to power ratio

1) Flyer I 1903 (see: Wright Flyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Max. takeoff weight: 745 lb
Powerplant: 1 × straight-4 water-cooled piston engine, 12 hp
Maximum speed: 30 mph
Weight/Power at 30 mph = 62 lb/hp

2) Flyer II 1904 (see: Wright Flyer II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Loaded weight: 925 lb
Powerplant: 1 × water-cooled straight-4 piston engine, 15 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 62 lb/hp

Wilbur in Flyer II Circling Huffman Prairie November 1904. The front elevator has been enlarged & the radiator moved to a rear strut since the May photo above.

3) Flyer III 1905 (see: Wright Flyer III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Max. takeoff weight: 710 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Wrights' water-cooled, 4-cylinder, inline engine, 20 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 35.5 lb/hp

The Wright Flyer III over Huffman Prairie, October 4, 1905, Orville piloting.

4) Wright Model A 1908 (see: http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Wright_Model_A )
Loaded weight: 1,263 lb (573 kg)
Powerplant: 1 pusher × Wright Model 4, 35 hp
Maximum speed: 42 mph (67.6 km/h)
Weight/Power at 42 mph = 36 lb/hp

[eetrojan]

According to Wikipedia, Flyer II and III had the same max. speed, 35 mph, but for some mysterious unknown reasons Flyer III had a much poorer weight to power ratio

Aside from the Wikipedia issue...

What does this mean? What conclusions should we make, if any?

What differences, if any, arise from the different "maximum speeds" of 30, 35, 35, and 42 MPH?

What differences were there in terms of time aloft and distance flown? Were the later planes with higher power motors capable of only maintaining level controlled flight for a relatively short period of time, or lengthy sustained flight and even climbing?

Does "speed" refer to speed through the air or speed over the ground? If the latter (which is presumably the case since they weren't using pitot-based air speed indicators), how do you account for the affect of differing wind conditions on the ground speed of the different flights?

While an an engine is capable of producing maximum HP under certain conditions, how do you know if it was producing the rated HP under the engine and/or flight conditions then present?

[longer ron]

From the nasa website

For the 1905 aircraft

The brothers were able to solve this final problem by increasing the size of the elevator and rudder and moving the elevator and rudder farther from the center of gravity on the new 1905 aircraft. This increased the torque produced by the control surface and provided greater control for the aircraft. The radiator and fuel tank were moved back to the front strut and the size of the fuel tank was increased. The engine stayed the same as the 1904 aircraft and the weight was decreased to 860 pounds by eliminating the iron bars (70 lbs ballast in 1904 a/c) . The 1905 aircraft could be flown until the fuel tank was empty; staying in the air for more than a half hour, flying nearly 25 miles around Huffman's farm, executing turns and figure 8's, and flying more than 50 feet off the ground. The brothers now had a practical working airplane and began to market it to the War Department.

1903.....750 lbs (inc pilot) with 12HP motor - 505 sq feet wing area

1905......860lbs (inc pilot) with 18HP motor - 505 sq feet wing area

lbs = pounds (weight)

[simplex1]

It appears that the journalist FRANÇOIS PEYREY said: "For a long time, the Wright brothers have been accused in Europe of bluff...They are today hallowed in France, and I feel an intense pleasure ... to make amends." not Ernest Archdeacon

Ernest Archdeacon is quoted as admitting that "he had committed an injustice in disbelieving the Wrights' achievements" (see 1). However, I found that the journalist Francois Peyrey, who, in August 1908, wrote a book that praised the achievements of the Wright brothers, was the one who said what aviation history books attribute to Archdeacon (see 2).

Whether Francois Peyrey took money to write the book or not, I do not know, but many of his affirmations are simply ridiculous, like (see 2): "It would be as ridiculous to challenge the first flight of December 17, 1903, in North Carolina, as to deny the existence of the recent tests at Sarthe (Le Mans, France, Aug. 1908)."
Just because W. Wright flew a powered plane in front of credible witnesses on Aug. 8, 1908 it does not mean he also flew in 1903, 1904 or 1905. The logic of Peyrey was evidently not good.

(1) "For a moment, patriotic loyalty withered. Even Ernest Archdeacon lowered the French tricolor long enough to make a brief concession. “For a long time, for too long a time, the Wright brothers have been accused in Europe of bluff--even perhaps in the land of their birth. They are today hallowed in France, and I feel an intense pleasure in counting myself among the first to make amends for that flagrant injustice.""
Source: James Tobin, "To Conquer the Air: The Wright Brothers and the Great Race for Flight", pag. 309

(2) "J'ai eu moi-même (François Peyrey) la bonne fortune de me trouver aux Hunaudières, le 8 août 1908, date de la mémorable démonstration. Je vais donc essayer de donner à nos lecteurs une idée de la maîtrise incomparable des aviateurs américains, dans l'art prestigieux d'imiter les oiseaux.

Longtemps, trop longtemps, les frères Wright ont été accusés de bluff en Europe, peut-être même dans leur pays natal. Ils sont aujourd'hui consacrés par la France, et je (François Peyrey) ressens un plaisir intense de compter parmi les premiers qui répareront la flagrante injustice.

Wilbur Wright a volé, nous l'avons vu évoluer, nous avons constaté son expérience datant de plusieurs années, sa connaissance approfondie du métier d'oiseau. Il serait tout aussi puéril de contester le premier vol du 17 décembre 1903, dans la Caroline du Nord, que de nier les récentes expériences de la Sarthe.

Je me trouvais donc, le 8 août, à la première heure, sur l'hippodrome des Hunaudières (8 km. du Mans, route de Tours). ..."
Source: FRANÇOIS PEYREY, "Les Premiers Hommes=Oiseaux Wilbur et Orville WRIGHT", PARIS, Henry Guiton, Imprimeur - Editeur, 35, rue de Trévise,35, pag 37 -38, 1908, https://archive.org/stream/lespremie...e/n46/mode/2up

[FlightlessParrot]

Well, there you go, a misattributed quotation. Doesn't change the history of aviation, though, which is determined by reasonable inferences, not strict logic. So, it was Peyrey who said this (unless, of course, he was stealing the quote from Archdeacon--could have happened, and your challenge is to prove that it didn't happen that way round), but I see nothing ridiculous in the train of thought which goes:

1. We said they were bluffing, from 1903 right up to now.

2. Now we see they are not bluffing.

3. It is therefore highly improbable they were bluffing in 1903.

So, the question for you is, what were the Wrights doing between 1903 and 1908?

[Brian Abraham]

I Don’t know very much to write about the flight. I was there, and it was on Dec the 17, — 1903 about 10 o’clock. They carried the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track, and started the engine, and they through a coin to see who should take the first go, so it fell on Mr. Orval, and he went about 100 feet or more, and then Mr. Wilbur taken the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track and he went off across the Beach about a half a mile or more before he came Down. He flew so close to the top of a little hill the he Pulled the Rudder off so we had to Bring her back to the camp, and it was there I got tangled up in the machine and she Blew off across the Beach with me hanging in it, and she went all to Pieces. It Didn’t Hurt me much I got bruised me some. They Packed up every thing and went home at Dayton. That ended the Day. I snapped the first Picture of a Plain that ever flew. They were very nice men and we all enjoyed Being out at the Camp with them mostly every Day.

That accident made me the first airoplane causiality in the world and I have Piece of the upright that I was holding on to when It fell.

Would be glad to Render any informattion at any time you need it.

Sincerely,

John T. Daniels
Manteo NC
Box 1W

It is my understanding that the Wrights were launching the Flyer from the hill on the 14th, but as shown in the photo above, they moved the rail to the flats on the 17th.

eetrojan, you are quite correct. The flights on the 17th began at the lower end of the red line, which as you can see is quite some distance north of the hill, which is at the bottom with the circular road around its base.



The launch point for the flights on the 17th was identified by Dough, Etheridge, and Moore in 1928 - who had witnessed the flights. The following is the wordings of their findings in locating the spot, since the area had changed somewhat since 1903.

"Beginning with the site of the building which housed the Wrights’ plane at the time, distinctly remembering the wind direction at the time, and that the track was laid directly in the wind, collaborating our memory on these facts by the records of the Weather Bureau, remembering that we helped bring the machine from the building and placed it on the track, referring to distances laid down in feet in Orville Wrights article, "How We made our first flight."

"We proceeded to agree upon the spot, and we individually and collectively state without the least mental reservation, that the spot we located is as near correct as it is humanly possible to be with the data in hand to work from after a lapse of twenty five years. We marked the spot with a copper pipe driven into the ground."

In 1932 at this location, The American Aeronautical Association placed a large granite boulder containing a commemorative plaque consisting of the pictures of Orville and Wilbur and a statement that reads, "THEY TAUGHT US TO FLY."

[eetrojan]

Thanks for the comments Brian. That's a great picture to put the actual location in context.

Some day I would like to put down on the adjacent runway! (the placement of which, by the way, underscores just how level that parallel red line is)

[simplex1]

What did the Wright brother do before their August 8, 1908 first public flight? While other inventors made constant progresses improving their planes and flying longer and longer distances in front of witnesses, the Wrights filled journals with news of the kind one can read in tabloids.

For example, in June 1907, W. Wright, being in Paris, asked Captain Ferber for information about "the only light engine existent in the world"

In its number from June 1907, L'Aerophile published a letter of Captain Ferber (a well known client of this aeronautical journal) in which Ferber said that Wilbur Wright had visited him, two weeks before, looking for information about the only light engine existent in the world? So, in June 1907, Wilbur was interested in knowing more about a French aviation engine (likely an Antoinette because it was being advertized in L'Aerophile). In a time when the longest flight in France was just 220 meters, W. Wright, who had claimed he had flown 24 1/5 miles in 39 minutes, on Oct. 5, 1905, came to Paris to search for a plane engine?!

Maybe you will believe the article in L'Aerophile is a negative one. Not at all. Ferber prized the Wright brothers, saying that without them he would have been nothing, Santos-Dumont would not have built his plane, Delagrange would not have ordered a flying machine and L'Aerophile journal would not have quadrupled its circulation.

Ferber also said that "without the french press campaign of 1905, the most reliable news from America (about the Wright brothers) would not have come, in fact, from France (from Ferber who got letters from the two brothers), and France would not have become the only market of airplanes where the Wrights could sell their invention. Ferber also made the remark that a plane, in 1907, should not be paid for more than 50000 francs.

"WILBUR WRIGHT A PARIS

Wilbur Wright, l'aîné des fameux aviateurs de Dayton, à Paris !... Cette nouvelle, d'abord tenue secrète, finit par transpirer et la presse a cherché par tous les moyens à avoir des renseignements précis sur ce voyage inattendu et surtout sur ses motifs réels. Le capitaine Ferber nous donne à ce sujet les intéressants détails ci-dessous :

Mon cher Besançon,

Vous me demandez pourquoi je ne vous ai pas signalé l'arrivée de Wright des que je l'ai connue, il y a quinze jouis? et en punition vous voulez me condamner à vous écrire les impressions que j'ai eues en le voyant entrer dans mon bureau pour me demander des renseignements sur le seul moteur léger qui existe dans le monde?

Eh bien! je viens m'exécuter. — D'abord, il m'avait prié de ne pas encore divulguer son arrivée — ce qui est une raison suffisante, et ensuite j'avais une grande jouissance à constater que, malgré la puissance d'information de la presse moderne, il reste encore de la place pour ceux qu'autrefois, on appelait des "nouvellistes" qui savaient les nouvelle longtemps avant les autres; — pour l'aviation je suis un "nouvelliste" et j'en suis fier.

Quant à mon impression, elle a été profonde et c'est avec une grande émotion que je lui ai serré la main et que je l'ai contemplé. Songez donc que sans cet homme, je ne serais rien, car, je n'aurais pas osé en 1902, me confier à une faible toile, si je n'avais pas su, par ses récits et ses photographies que "ça portait". — Songez que, sans lui, mes expériences n'auraient pas eu lieu, je n'aurais pas eu Voisin comme élève — les capitalistes comme Archdeacon, Deutsch de la Meurthe n'auraient pas, en 1904, fondé les prix que vous savez — la presse n'aurait pas porté partout la bonne semence, — votre journal n'aurait pas quadruplé son tirage — et d'autres journaux spéciaux ne seraient pas nés!!

Sans notre campagne de presse de 1905, où vous avez pris la meilleure part, les plus sûres nouvelles d'Amérique ne seraient pas venues de France (1), et notre pays ne serait pas devenu "le seul marché" (market) d'aéroplanes, si bien que Wright, est obligé de venir ici pour vendre son invention. Ailleurs, on confond encore ballon et aéroplane; ici, interrogez les enfants aux Tuileries, ils vous feront la différence.

Sans cette campagne de presse, Santos-Dumont, le grand ballonniste, n'aurait pas vu que le moment était venu, il n'aurait pas mis sa rapidité d'exécution et son audacieux courage au service de la cause, le public n'aurait pas été frappé d'évidence.

Delagrange aurait continué à sculpter de délicieuses statues et n'aurait pas commandé un aéroplane à Voisin...

Par un juste retour des choses d'ici-bas, le bruit fait autour de ces deux derniers pionnière a fait, sortir le loup du bois — je veux dire que M. Wright s'est mis entre les mains d'un financier et qu'il nous arrive enfin disposé à traiter.

C'est toujours la même affaire que j'ai essayé en 1905, de faire aboutir : "Les frères Wright s'engagent à faire en l'air 50 kilomètres, après quoi on leur remettra un million et demi de francs." (Le temps écoulé a fait augmenter l'indemnité.) Ainsi posée la question, on ne risque rien et je n'ai jamais compris pourquoi en 1905 je n'ai pas été suivi. Aujourd'hui, après les expériences de Santos, de Voisin et les miennes, je trouve qu'un aéroplane ne doit plus se payer au maximum que 50.000 francs. C'est ce que j'ai dit à notre collègue M. Hart O. Berg, qui est le financier auquel O. et W. Wright se sont enfin confiés. Mais M. Berg m'a dit avec la grande expérience des financiers : "Capitaine, vous avez peut-être raison : absolument, l'affaire vaut moins qu'en 1905; mais relativement, aujourd'hui, elle vaut beaucoup plus, parce qu'avec la publicité que vous avez faite et les expériences de Santos-Dumont, les gens croient que la chose est possible et ils donneront leur argent; c'est moi qui vous le dis."

En conclusion, mon cher ami, je le crois aussi et je m'en réjouis parce que nous allons entrer dans la période active que je prévois depuis si longtemps :

"Truly yours" comme on dit en Amérique.

Ferber

Voici encore quelques détails publiés par nous-mêmes dans l'Auto du 14 juin après une longue conversation avec Wilbur Wright. M. Henry Deutsch de la Meurthe, le Mécène de l'aéronautique, serait disposé à garantir une partie de la somme demandée, pour élucider un des points les plus discutés et les plus importants de l'histoire aéronautique. Il s'est même rendu au ministère de la Guerre, les appareils devant être offerts à la défense nationale en cas de succès. Les Wright ne vendraient cependant pas le monopole de l'invention et se réserveraient le droit de traiter le cas échéant avec d'autres nations.

L'Aérophile croit pouvoir affirmer que fin 1905 et au début de 1906 des pourparlers officieux avaient été entamés par notre ministère de la Guerre pour l'acquisition éventuelle de l'appareil après démonstration. Ces pourparlens auraient été rompus par ce que les Wright n'avaient pas voulu s'engager à effectuer leurs démonstrations à 300 mètres de hauteur, condition capitale pour les applications militaires. Ils y seraient disposés aujourd'hui, nous assure-t-on.

L'"affaire Wright" dont nos lecteurs eurent la primeur en 1905, toucherait-elle à son dénouement quel qu'il doive être? On ne saurait trop le souhaiter. — Aérophile.

(1) Il faut se souvenir que nous avons publié en novembre et décembre 1905 , les nouvelles que seul d'entre les journaux américains le New York Herald de Paris, n'a reproduites que le 1" janvier 1906 et encore sur les supplications de M. Lahm."

Source: L'Aerophile, pag. 167-168, June 1907, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6551462k/f177

[eetrojan]

Simplex asks - In a time when the longest flight in France was just 220 meters, W. Wright, who had claimed he had flown 24 1/5 miles in 39 minutes, on Oct. 5, 1905, came to Paris to search for a plane engine?!

Seriously?! (note the similarly emphatic punctuation). Let's just assume what you say is true.

Given your base concession that the Wrights "had flown 24 1/5 miles in 39 minutes, on Oct. 5, 1905," and with an apparently less capable engine, how does their searching for a more capable engine in 1907 imply anything sinister about the truth of their prior flights?

An invention that succeeds to some impressive extent with lesser components can do even more with better components, non?