Orville & Wilbur 98 years ago today

[ETOPS]

If I remember my history correctly it was on December 17th 1903 that the Wright Brothers first flew the "Flyer".

Thanks boys - you gave me something worthwhile to do........

[Flypuppy]

Yes, but were they really the first...?
http://chrisbrady.itgo.com/watson/watson.htm
http://chrisbrady.itgo.com/pearse/PEARSE.HTM

[newswatcher]

Actually, ETOPS did not claim that they were the first, only that it was 98 years since they flew. But following the theme, you may like to consider John Stringfellow, Clement Ader and Gustave Whitehead. See:
http://www.aopa.ch/xeole.htm

[411A]

Recall years ago a Douglas Aircraft magazine advertisement mentioning that the Wright Brothers first flight was exactly the same length as the DC-7C wing span, 127 feet. I wonder what they would say if alive today?

[RATBOY]

Doubt if the boys from Dayton would be too too suprised, especially if they had a little time to look at things. Agree some people George Cayley and others may probably have managed to get in the air before December 1903, but the Wrights did it, other people saw it, they developed from there aircraft that really worked in controlled flight and once that happened everybody else working on it knew for a fact it could be done and the floodgates opened.

would either of these guys be able to get a license these days? Solo with only a hour maybe of solo pracatice in gliders obtained 20-60 seconds at a go over a couple years. Not current at all. tisk tisk dare say no medical either. shocking!

<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[calmar]

Don't sell the bike shop Orville!

[Wiley]

Re the comment above on the DC 7's wingspan, someone pointed out to me that if, on the first flight, Wilbur had taken off from the rear galley of a 777-300, he would have landed before he reached the First Class cabin, (and only barely made it into Business Class)! Another way of looking at it – if he's taken off from abeam the main wheels of the same aircraft, he would have landed less than thirty feet beyond the nosewheel (and probably never reached the height of the main passenger deck).

Add to that the fact that there are still people alive today who were alive when that first Wright brothers flight took place, it puts how far we've come in less than a century into perspective, doesn't it?

[Belgique]

But it nearly didn't happen (according to this account)

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76775

[18-Wheeler]

More on Pearse here - http://www.billzilla.org/pearce.htm - and his flights of 350 yards & 1,000 yards in 1902 & 1903.

[maxalt]

This guy Pearse sounds like a Paddy to me.

Was the inventor of flying an Irishman?

I like that idea!

[t'aint natural]

One thing's for sure... champions of every dingbat since Icarus will be crawling out of the woodwork this year to claim that their man/woman/android flew long before the Wrights.
The annoying thing is that most of these people conveniently forget the fact that their heroes were comprehensively debunked at the time, or soon afterwards. Clement Ader is mentioned here... he was discredited by his own side when the official report on the Avion was finally published. Cayley? Pearse? Augustus Herring? Puh-leeze.
There was a widespread movement to discredit the Wrights in the early years of the last century, spearheaded by (among many others) the French, Alexander Graham Bell's faction, Glen Curtis, and the Smithsonian. In the face of all the evidence, they all had to abandon their postions.
The newspapers are going to be full of this stuff for the next year. It's up to every Pprune to stand up for what's Wright.

[MightyGem]

I'm planning to go to Kitty Hawk in December. Anyone else??

[BoeingMEL]

98 years ago today? 1903 to 2003 = 98 years? Am I missing something here? Hope you're not doing my fuel calcs!

[QDMQDMQDM]

If you define powered flight as 'sustained out of ground effect flight with three axes of control', the first flight was by the Wrights. If you define it less stringently you can possibly argue for one of the others, but, if so, what is the point and significance? I mean, who cares whether the others hoppped off the ground for 50 yards?

The triumph of the Wrights lead to the explosive development of powered flight. None of the others did. End of story.

QDM

[cwatters]

> I'm planning to go to Kitty Hawk in December. Anyone else??

I'm planning to go to the US, but probably Ohio.

Anyone got details of organised events?. I know there are several teams planning to fly 1903 Wright Flyer replicas but I haven't yet see proposed dates (except the obvious one). What about locations other than Kitty Hawk?

[18-Wheeler]

If you define powered flight as 'sustained out of ground effect flight with three axes of control', the first flight was by the Wrights. If you define it less stringently you can possibly argue for one of the others, but, if so, what is the point and significance? I mean, who cares whether the others hoppped off the ground for 50 yards?

The triumph of the Wrights lead to the explosive development of powered flight. None of the others did. End of story.


Incorrect - Pearse flew about 1,000 yards, mostly out of ground effect on 11-May-1903. The Wrights could not equal that for a some time later.

[t'aint natural]

18-wheeler:
Pearse has been debunked so many times it's not worth wasting electrons on him here. His 'flights' are on a par with Moriarty's off the Reichenbach Falls, and his legacy to aeronautics is diddly squit.
To compare him to two men whose incomparable logic and practical skill, whose experiments over a period of years included literally thousands of glides at peril to their lives, who measured lift and drag, who created their own wind tunnel, whose aeronautical tables were impeccable, who fought and debunked Sam Langley's theories, who deduced their way step by step to controlled, manned, powered flight, and who remained for two and a half years the only pilots in the world, is feeble-minded tosh of the first water.
But as Wilbur wrote in the face of the empty claims of Pearse and many, many others: 'It is rather amusing, after having been called fools and fakers for six or eight years, to find now that people knew exactly how to fly all the time. People who had not the least idea of flying until within the last year or two now attempt to write books stating what the situation of the flying problem was in 1900 and 1901, when we made our first experiments at Kitty Hawk. In view of our experiences in 1901 it is amusing to hear them tell that the science of aerodynamics had been reduced to a very exact basis, so that anyone could calculate without difficulty the lift and drift of aeroplane surfaces. After the real truth had been discovered, old experiments seemed to have an importance in value sometimes which they did not have at the time.'

[18-Wheeler]

Pearse has been debunked so many times it's not worth wasting electrons on him here. His 'flights' are on a par with Moriarty's off the Reichenbach Falls, and his legacy to aeronautics is diddly squit.

Debunked? Where? The only people that debunk him often know practically nothing about him or his achievements.
What on earth would YOU call a 1,000 yard flight, mostly out of ground effect, and including two turns?
As for his legacy to aeronautics, he was the first to gain a patent on ailerons.
Please, if you have no idea what you're talking about do not post.

I am not taking anything away from the Wright's acheivements - they have certainly had a far greater effect on aviation than Pearse did - but they simply did not fly with all the appropriate rules that would make up 'the first flight' before Pearse. Someone else may well have flown before Pearse before with those rules, but I have honestly never heard of anyone being close.

[t'aint natural]

You're right, mate, you're not taking anything away from the Wrights' achievements.
What I want to know is who gulled the first sucker.

[cwatters]

> As for his legacy to aeronautics, he was the first to gain a patent on ailerons.

I'd be interested to know more. Did Glenn Curtis use this to defend his case with the Wrights?

[18-Wheeler]

I'd be interested to know more. Did Glenn Curtis use this to defend his case with the Wrights?

No. I doubt anyone in the US knew about what he did for decades afterwards. Too late then, the history books had been written .... :(

[t'aint natural]

Now come on T'N. Insults have absolutely NO place on this particular forum. However, if you wish to move over to JB.....................

Any further comments like those I have deleted will get you some warning points.

PPP

[Captain Airclues]

BoeingMEL

ETOPS made the original post in December 2001. I make that 98 years. I'll trust ETOPS' fuel checks any day.

Airclues

[18-Wheeler]

t'aint natural, stick to petty insults, it's all you're qualified for.

[Lu Zuckerman]

It's nice to defend your point of view but don't reduce it to name-calling. Just remember the arguments on Rotorheads regarding the 18-degree offset, centrifugal force and gyroscopic precession.

Those arguments contributed to my being banned for several months.

:D

[t'aint natural]

OK, Lu, who flew first? You were around.

[Kermit 180]

Didn't we have this conversation a few weeks ago? :confused:

Pearse admitted he never satisifed himself that he flew controlled sustained flight, nor did he seek media attention or official witnesses that may have helped him to claim a stronger place in world history.

The Wright Brothers are the rightful owners of the title in the history books, be it wrong or right. Please do not denegrate a New Zealand pioneering icon, who, despite not having achieved world fame, still made a significant contribution to aviation in his own way, and for his own country.

By the way, today's microlights do look very similar to Pearse's first aeroplanes. ;)


Kermie

[I have control]

Yup, we have been through the merits and demerits of Pearse several times already on this board. 18-Wheeler's staunch advocacy of the Pearse case has caused me to pick up some books on the subject and I found this one to be the most fair and balanced, using historical sources wherever possible:

"The Riddle Of Richard Pearse"
by Gordon Ogilvie
published 1994 (3rd edition), ISBN 0790003295
Reed Publishing, Auckland, NZ

My own conclusion is very similar to that of Kermit 180, and I think Pearse's own views on the matter carry a lot of weight. Nice to see a Kiwi not getting too carried away with national pride on this issue.

The Wright Brothers deserve all the praise that is heaped upon them. Whatever we may think about the claims of others to have staggered into the air before December 17th 1903, there is no doubt that aviation as we know it today traces its ancestry back directly to the discoveries of the Wright Brothers.

For the person who was talking about going to Kitty Hawk next year - that might be very difficult. I believe that there will be very few spaces available owing problems with fitting people on the site.

[18-Wheeler]

I base my statements on what he actually did, as told by witnesses who saw him fly.
The only difference between what Pearse & the Wrights had achieved by the end of 1903 was that Pearse had flown a lot further but did not bother to get any photo's taken because he did not think it was important.
The Wrigthts knew how import what they were doing was, so they did get a photo taken - That's the only real difference.
The dates & distances are correct.

[I have control]

So you are happy to ignore Pearse's own opinion on the matter?

The problem with witness statements, even when recorded immediately after the event, is that they are notoriously inaccurate.

When recorded decades after the event, as with the Pearse case, the situation is even worse. There are many other "decades after the event" witness statements and affadavits supporting other first flight claimants - notably Clement Ader, Gustav Whitehead and James Preston Watson. Careful investigation, as with the Pearse claims, leads to a firm conclusion that witness statements like this are extremely unreliable.

[18-Wheeler]

Yes I am happy to not trust his word on that, as he was not in the best mental state in his later years. He claimed a few things in those years that did not match what he actually did.
I believe that he was not happy with his efforts so made no big deal of them. His ultimate effort was to build an aeroplane that could fly like a bee and be affordable to the average family, and the First Flyer was the first step in that process. He would not have been happy until he achieved that, and he did not in fact manage it.
The witness statements were not pulled out of a hat, and were carefully cross-checked by George Bolt & Geoffery Rodliffe. In every case the dates & distances match up.
As I have asked many times, what would you call a flight of 1,000 yards, a couple of turns, including flight out of ground effect? Does that sound like it was out of control by someone who had never (obviously) had flying lessons? How many students could manage that these days?
If a modern pilot was to get into each of those planes and try to fly them, I honestly think that Pearse's plane would be easier to fly and certainly more natural.

None of the witnesses claimed anything different on that big flight of his. Local farmer Arthur Tozer was crossing the river in his horse & cart, and Pearse flew right over the top of him, not something you would forget back then.
Again, the only real difference was that the Wrights took a picture of their plane in flight.

[Dagger Dirk]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76775

This would appear closer to the truth of the matter.

[Lu Zuckerman]

If this discussion continues to it's eventual end it will be 2004 and the celebration will be history.

:D

[Philip Whiteman]

British readers - and a few abroad - will now have had a chance to make a further assessment of the claims for Pearce from my friend Miles McCallum's article in the February issue of Flyer.

Miles seems happy to swallow the whole story. All I can see in Pearce's design, beside two- and a suggestion of three-axis controls, is: no trace whatsoever of an aerofoil; no tail surfaces and chord-width fin/rudder set back one-third from the leading edge; a heavy bamboo structure; a flimsy mad-inventor style engine with no provision for cooling whatsoever and a terrible, crude propeller that looks like a paint-stirrer.

So, it is about as clear as it can be that Pearse had no idea of how to design an aerofoil, had an engine that would have cooked in minutes, if not seconds and no idea of how to design a propeller. If anybody built a faithful replica (same engine, prop, non-aerofoil etc.), It is impossible to imagine that it would even hop.

I am not saying that the poor man deserves no credit, but I really do think that lining his simple ingenuity against against the Wright's genius is just silly.

[18-Wheeler]

Mostly correct - The plane had a poor wing section and would have been rather touchy to fly.
The comments on the engine are mostly incorrect though, as it was a very clever design indeed, with double-acting pistons and evapouration carburetors.
It has been estimated by several NZ engineers that it would make roughly double the power of the Wright's engine.
As for the plane being unable to fly, when making a documentary about Pearce some years ago the film makers built a replica and towed it behind a couple of horses, just like Pearse did. Before they were ready, the horses got startled and ran off, towing the replica behind them - The plane took off and flew with good stability while they ran.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the plane was capable of flight, and this was witnessed by many locals over several flights.

[FNG]

Let's all give up, folks. There is nothing that any of us can say that will ever convince 18-Wheeler that the space shuttle is not a direct lineal descendant of the Pearce machine. The debate as to who flew with power and control at the earliest chronological moment seems to me to be largely irrelevant anyway. Orville and Wilbur themselves didn't think that they'd cracked the problem on 17/12/1903, but after continuing their careful, methodical, and documented work for a liitle while thereafter they knew, and proved to the world, that they really had.

[t'aint natural]

Prune Pop:
I've just noticed you've edited one of my posts here...
I would humbly plead for a little leeway. It was not an insult, merely a little light-hearted provocation.
It's come to a pretty pass when one cannot tweak the eminently tweakable.

[Philip Whiteman]

Before I sank into magazine editorial work, I worked on engine and vehicle testing as an engineer for seventeen years.

Take it from me: Pearse's engine, cleverly contrived from simple materials though it was, is a pretty poor example of combustion engine technology. No cooling jacket, no cooling fins and combustion above and below the pistons equals rapid seizure or melt-down!

The Wright's motor was not particularly clever in its detail design, but was especially suited to its purpose because it could be produced on the basic machine tools to hand—Charles Taylor had to drill and chisel the crank out of steel plate—and it produced the (minimal) power the brothers knew was required.

As for 'good stability'; well, kites do well on the tow-line—but how many of them work without the stabilising effect of the line?

I am sorry, but there is plenty of room for doubt that Pearse's machine ever flew, in the true sense of the word.

[18-Wheeler]

FNG - Do not distort what I am trying to say. The modern aeroplane has little to trace back to the Pearse plane, though he did come up with ailerons first, as well.
All I am saying is that Pearse made a couple of sustained controlled flights before the Wright brothers did, as witnessed by many local people at the time. They have nothing to gain by making up stories and with careful interviews their statements all agree with the dates & distances.

Philip, I know a lot about engines as well, and Pearse's one did precicely the job it was intended for. It was not meant to run for more than a minute or so and pretty much any engine will run without cooling for longer than that - You should know that!
If you have a closer look at it, you'll see that the fuel lines going to the evapouration carburettors run around the barrels, so there is transfer of heat there and so some minor cooling of the barrels. Did you know that?

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

[Philip Whiteman]

I think we'll have to beg to differ on this one forever. Note, however, that even Miles conceded that, of the several replica Pearse engines built, one ran for just thirty seconds. And there's still the issue of that daft prop, with its miniscule blade area and non-design.

Should someone build and fly an exact replica of the Pearse machine and fly it over the distances claimed, I may have to start nibbling on my hat. However, I see no need to even think of a change in diet for the time being.

[flyboy6876]

Rather interesting article in Flightpath by Brett McCunn on Pearce. Enjoyed the read.

[cwatters]

> The only difference between what Pearse & the Wrights had
> achieved by the end of 1903 was that Pearse had flown a lot
> further

Really?

In 1965 the Science Museum via Her Majesty's Stationary Office published a booklet entitled "The worlds first Aeroplane flights and Early attempts to fly".

Relegated to notes on the last page the publication says...

"(2) The Pearse Claim. Claims have recently been made for (not by) the New Zealander Richard Pearse that he flew a powered aeroplane of his own design in 1902 and 1903. But statements by Pearse himself were later discovered in which he stated that he first started experimenting early in 1904; that his first machine was “uncontrollable”; and that “I never flew with my first experimental plane”. He also accepted that the Wrights were the first to fly."

[18-Wheeler]

As I wrote above - "Yes I am happy to not trust his word on that, as he was not in the best mental state in his later years. He claimed a few things in those years that did not match what he actually did.
I believe that he was not happy with his efforts so made no big deal of them. His ultimate effort was to build an aeroplane that could fly like a bee and be affordable to the average family, and the First Flyer was the first step in that process. He would not have been happy until he achieved that, and he did not in fact manage it.
The witness statements were not pulled out of a hat, and were carefully cross-checked by George Bolt & Geoffery Rodliffe. In every case the dates & distances match up.
As I have asked many times, what would you call a flight of 1,000 yards, a couple of turns, including flight out of ground effect? Does that sound like it was out of control by someone who had never (obviously) had flying lessons? How many students could manage that these days?"

There are only two differences between the Wright brothers flights and Pearce's - Pearse did not bother to get a photo taken as he didn't think what he was doing was important, and the credibility of the witnesses of both series of flights.
I cannot see why Pearse's wintesses would be any less credible than the Wright brother's ones would be.
We only have their word for both series of flights at the end of the day. Neither group has any reason to make up stories about what happened.

[I have control]

>>>>>I cannot see why Pearse's wintesses would be any less credible than the Wright brother's ones would be. <<<<<

>>>>>Neither group has any reason to make up stories about what happened.<<<<<

This is extremely naive, given that we are talking about a claim for the first flight in history, and that the Pearse witnesses were interviewed decades after the supposed event.

Again, can I recommend that people try and look up the Ogilvie book previously referenced, for a serious historical approach to the Pearse story. IMHO the Rodliffe books are seriously flawed by the author's efforts to make the "evidence" justify and fit what he wants to believe, rather than looking closely at the evidence itself.

[18-Wheeler]

IMHO the Rodliffe books are seriously flawed by the author's efforts to make the "evidence" justify and fit what he wants to believe, rather than looking closely at the evidence itself.

It seems likely that you have not read the Rodliffe books. He only reports what Pearse did, and passes little judgement.

There is nothing remotely naive about my comment.
Look at it another way - If the flights that the two groups were swapped over, how would I look if I was promoting someone who had made a handful of relatively minor hops of a much shorter distance, no turns, not out of ground effect, etc.
It'd be laughable.

[I have control]

18 Wheeler - I have read the Rodliffe books, and the problem with him, like you, is a blind acceptance of unreliable witness statements. Just because someone says that something happened, does not mean that it actually happened exactly that way.

In my opinion it is naive in the extreme to take at face value witness statements gathered under dubious circumstances decades after the event took place.

[FNG]

May I add to this, wearing my (reasonably experienced) trial lawyer hat (or wig) for a moment, that perfectly honest witnesses can have great difficulty in accurately recalling even very recent events, dates, times, places and so forth, let alone events which occurred a considerable time ago. This is one reason why photographs and contemporaneous documents can be of value in getting as close as possible to a historical record. Why is there this persistent concern here and elsewhere to talk up oddball claimants and belittle the Wrights, even though they did take the trouble to maintain records of what they did?

[Philip Whiteman]

The acid test of science is whether other people can repeat an experiment or observation using the same equipment. Thus we know all that school chemistry. physics and biology stuff to be true because we have all proven it over and again for ourselves.

Now, if someone builds and exact replica of the Pearse monstrosity and flys the contraption 1,000 yards there would be grounds for crediting all the claims.

Many Wright Flyer replicas have been built and flown. The body of evidence (and our lawyer friend will agree that even in the most cut and dried of cases there is some degree on contradiction - it is the weight of evidence that counts) the body of evidence pushes the Wright's acheivements up there with great genius.

The one difference with Pearse is that no picture was taken... no, hang on, the two differences were that no picture was taken and the witnesses disagreed... no, wait a minute, the three differences were that there was no picture, no contemporary witness account, no flight instruments...

[Blacksheep]

To put Orville and Wilbur's achievements in perspective, read the 'replica' account in the current issue of Flight International. Some 600 people were involved in completing the replica and certification as an 'experimental' aircraft took a whole year!

The Wright brothers worked to a deliberate project plan, read up all that was known about aerodynamics, built a wind tunnel to test aerofoils and performed detailed calculations for their basic design. The 'Flyer' was produced as a flight test prototype to test their theories and calculations. They even correctly calculated the power they would need and designed an engine that would produce just enough power for the job with the minimum weight - steel cylinders screwed into an alloy block, alloy crankcase etc. They flew four missions on 17 December 1903, the duration of the last flight being 59 seconds, covering 872 feet under full control. The Flyer was then damaged by being blown over by a gust, but the Wrights had already gathered enough data to prove the basic design and return to developing their larger commercial model.

In short, they weren't happy amateurs just playing at flying, they were professional engineers determined to design and build a practical flying machine as a fully commercial proposition.

...and as we all know, they succeeded.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[18-Wheeler]

I do not have 'blind acceptance' of the Rodliffe books - The ones that I have read show that he carefully checked the statements both against each other and with the conditions of the period.
They all agreed quite well indeed.
I stand by my comments that the dates and distances are correct.
I stand by my comment that there is no reason to believe/disbelieve the Wright's observers any more/less than Pearse's. There were no qualified or experienced aviation observers in that era.

[FNG]

The Earth must be flat. I can see that it is. If it were round like some mad people say, then all those nice people in New Zealand would fall off it and wouldn't be able to reach their keyboards to type, repeatedly "I read it in a book that some bloke said it was true so it must be true". On second thoughts, speaking as an aerobatics geek, perhaps I too should abandon reason and science and become a Pearse groupie, because any flying which he did would, by virtue of his location in NZ, have to be done upside down, and this is, of course, the best way to fly.

Hoorah for Mr Pearse! The Brian Lecomber of, er....1902, or 3, or 5, or whenever.

Please address all further enquiries via Earth Embassy, Planet Zarg.

[redmist]

Philip,
Is it so hard to believe that history has not been altered to satisfy the populous? Just because there were more eye witnesses doesn't make a fact more believable. How many people eye witnessed the landing on the moon?

Stating that the Pearce machine was incapable of flight is ill founded. If I were to make a story up of a possible flight I'm sure I would make it romantic. Certainly not terminate it by crashing into a hedge. I also wouldn't construct fantastic powerplants that FAR excelled that of any engine of the era. Study them, I'm sure you would be amazed. I can't state that the aerodynamics of the Pearce flyer would have produced enough lift however the large wing and rear tailplane are well proven and still in use today. With the horsepower those engines produced it would have simply been a matter of pointing the wing at the right angle!

In my opinion the Pearce machine most certainly flew. I've also no reason to believe that the eye witness accounts were inaccurate. In actual fact I've spoken with descendants of witnesses who sware by dates well prior to the Wright flight.

In regards to building a replica, what is the point? I really can't understand the reasoning behind the Wright replicas, unless there is question in regards to the fact that it actually flew?


Daniel Powell.
Computer Systems Engineer
Reading, England.

[Philip Whiteman]

My last post on this subject!

Daniel: yes, of course history gets altered with the passage of time. History is not a factual account of things, it is the latter-day view of what happened (which should contain a large proportion of fact, but doesn't necessarily!)

My simple contention is that if something worked then, it will still work now.

Of couse, people with dubious motives attempt to hijack even this premiss. Witness Glen Curtiss rebuilding (and substantially altering) the wretched Langley Aerodrome in a devious attempt to demonstrate 'prior art' in pursuit of his defence against the Wright's legal claims (he lost).

We know that you cannot fly by trapping the morning dew in a glass envelope, as one would-be aviator in the ancient world thought he could, because it doesn't work now and it didn't work then. We know the myth of Icarus is just that - a myth - because you cannot fly too close to the sun with wings made from feathers attached with wax. It's true now, and it was true then.

People build replica Wright Flyers because they respect and admire two great and gifted men. The Flyer worked in 1903, and it still works in 2003. A heap of junk with no aerofoil camber, a designed-to-seize engine copied from steam engineering practice and a prop that would not even cut the mustard as a room fan will not fly now, and didn't fly then.

[I have control]

It is interesting that Mr Pearse's supporters are prepared to exercise some level of judgement about the value of historical sources in questioning Pearse's own words on the subject - oh yes, the man was clearly out of his mind when he said he didn't start experimenting until 1904, and that his first plane didn't fly.

But the same folks have mysteriously lost their capacity to judge the accuracy of a historical source, happily trusting "witnesses" (and now, it seems, the descendants of witnesses!) interviewed some decades after the event under suspicious circumstances.

Funny, that.

[redmist]

You wish to change the course of history, simply because it wasn't recorded to your satisfaction?

In regards to the belief of word of mouth recollection, I was simply attempting to demonstrate that proof of his flight was not only recorded by written media.

"A heap of junk with no aerofoil camber," Does this prevent an object from flying?? Kite technology, the first gliders, rockets?

"a designed-to-seize engine copied from steam engineering practice" You could state that about my race car engine. It has a piston, bore, uses expansion to create power much as any steam engine. The race engine is most certainly not designed for long term use either. Reduced valve guides and a very stressed crank, rods and valve train all ensure that my modern race motor is also designed to seize. Yet I am sure that given the right airframe my motor would fly, and drag me up with it. The question is for how long, he's not attempting to fly around the world, only across a field.


" and a prop that would not even cut the mustard as a room fan will not fly now, and didn't fly then." You could say that about the Wright props. Modern high revving engines and speed have radically altered the prop forever. I would be interested in any proof of the failure of his prop.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Pearse flyer actually took to the air. I also think that if the man was a little more interested in the publicity then this argument would have no founding and there would be proof positive of the exact date and time of his flight.

Is it so unbelievable that a single dedicated and undeniably talented man could outperform that of the Wright brothers and their team?


Daniel Powell

[FNG]

Hey, you can call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but why is it that the people who support the Wrights tend to be (1) able to spell, (2) familiar with the empirical approach of scientific experimentation, and (3) aware of the subjectivity and unreliability of witness testimony, whereas the Pearse fans tend to display, er, none of these qualities?

[tony draper]

http://users.commkey.net/fussichen/otdFly.htm

[redmist]

In actual fact I do know of 18 wheeler. Unfortunately have not had the pleasure of meeting him, but we share an interest in building racing engines and the cacophony of equipment that surrounds them. 18 wheeler informed me of this thread and I have voluntarily inserted my argument.

FNG I think it is you that refuses to adhere to basic scientific principals. It is you that believes that Pearce did not fly, whereas there is a body of evidence to prove that indeed left the solid earth (briefly). So if you believe so heartily that he failed then you prove he did so.
In regards to witnesses, you state that Wright followers are aware of the unreliability of witness testimony. Then what would the Wright flight be without witnesses!? Your argument only states that both flights failed to exist.

In closing it appears that you have lost all focus on the argument and instead are forced to counter with weak diatribe. Why not attempt to keep this factual, or sir are you out of facts?

[FNG]

I'm sorry if it comes across like that, redmist. I don't think that I've ever positively asserted that Mr P didn't ever fly, although frankly I'm enormously sceptical as to the contention that he did. The evidence as to when he flew, if he flew at all, seems sketchy to say the least. My real point, however is: "so what if he did fly?" As for the point about witness evidence, it is that having to rely mainly or entirely on the recollections of individuals as to what they may or may not have seen years before is a slender basis for any case. The Wrights' case is not thus based.

As I understand it, the basic story goes something like this. One day, bloke on his own says, “I think I’ll invent an aeroplane”. So, he does, and flies it a bit. A few people stand idly by watching him do this. Bloke thinks “Well, that was fun, but solving this problem which has obsessed mankind for millennia is not a big deal. Certainly no point writing about it, taking photos or anything. Think I’ll pack it in now and go and invent mobile phones, styrofoam cups, or warp drive, or something”. Many years later, bloke says “I didn’t invent the aeroplane”, but this doesn’t count, because, tragically, he is by now a loony. Various other people say “oh yes, I recall idly standing about and seeing him flying about a bit in this really cool aeroplane, er.....quite a while ago....I know this is right because I distinctly recall the Air Traffic Controller telling him to enter the hold until that squadron of flying pigs had cleared the runway".

Meanwhile, at about the same time as “quite a while ago”, two other blokes, well-read bicycle mechanics, read up on all the work done on flying through the previous century, exchange ideas and info with people who’ve thought about it a lot, systematically research wings and engines, do quite a bit of gliding, sort out an engine, then put it all together. They have been keeping records. They manage some short flights in December 1903. Again, they keep records. They carry on working, and record keeping, and, by the time that they’ve taken their machine to France a few years later, it is so good that even the French have to admit that these boys have done the business. Again, it’s all recorded.

So, weighing up the evidence, it’s possible that Mr P flew, and maybe, just maybe, he flew before the Wrights. No one can be sure. As for the Wrights, however, there is no reasonable basis for doubting that they did what they did and when they did it. From their early work there evolved an industry making aeroplanes. The world (after some debate) acknowledges them as the fathers of powered flight. Is the world really so wrong?

[Blacksheep]

You can see a replica of Mr. Pearse's mechanically powered flying machine here (http://chrisbrady.itgo.com/pearse/images/pearseb.jpg)
Note the carefully shaped aerofoil profiles on the mainplane - no doubt the result of hours of wind tunnel testing, the ailerons and elevators - so superior to the primitive wing warping employed by the Wright brothers and finally the beautiful curves of the hand carved propellor blades.

To be fair, here is the complete link to the "Museum of Transport and Technology of New Zealand Inc." (http://chrisbrady.itgo.com/pearse/pearse.htm) so readers can read and judge for themselves at least one version of Pearse's story. Personally, I'm sure he succeeded in becoming airborne, but as Richard Pearse himself declared, he couldn't get his machine going fast enough to make the rudders effective and so he couldn't keep it under control. Hardly a qualifier by either his own or anybody else's judgement.

Whether he did or didn't make the first sustained and controlled powered flight is largely irrelevant - Pearse certainly didn't leave an indelible mark on the history of aviation. His reclusiveness alone was sufficient to ensure that his efforts went unrecognised and contributed nothing to subsequent developments in aviation.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[tony draper]

This reminds Drapes of the Electric light bulb controversy,
The history books will have you believe that Thomas Edison invented the electric light bulb among other things, yet a house not two miles from Drapes was enjoying the benifits of electric light two years before Edison thought of the carbon filiment vacuum bulb.
History as she is writ has great inertia, once something is in the history books, nothing will change it.
There is something called the steam engine and wiggit theory, this states that when its time for the steam engine or wiggit to emerge, ie the technology becomes capable of actually producing some wiggit that people have had in mind for years, said wiggit appears all over the place more or less at the same time.
Television is a example, quite a few were working on radio transmition of images, but old John Logie got the credit, yet his invention in no way resembles modern TV recievers.
Radio is another, Marconi wins the medal, but Tessla was working with radio at more or less the same time, only he didn't call it wireless.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Man does not invent things he discovers the things that God has placed before him. Whether you are talking about Television, Radio or the cure for cancer God placed the necessary elements before man to be discovered.

Is it that necessary to lay claim as to who was the first? If Mr. Pearse were the first to fly in a powered aircraft I ask what has New Zealand done to memorialize him? In Ohio there is a major USAF airbase named after the Wrights and there is a major university named after the Wrights.

It would seem that New Zealand could lay claim that they had the first birds not to fly (Kiwi) that is if you don’t take into consideration penguins and the dodo. This might set off a confrontation from those that lay claim to being the home of the latter two birds and if they did disagree with New Zealand’s claim the whole thing would seem to be stupid to the outside world.

Do you get my point?

:D

[tony draper]

That only applies if you believe in said gentleman Mr Zuckerman, and also begs the question, why would the deity want someone to think up napalm?.

[t'aint natural]

Furthermore, if as you suggest Lu this God character knows of a cure for cancer and fails to divulge same, ought he not to be held to account? What sort of behaviour is that?

[I have control]

Oh dear, this thread has taken a distinctly worrying turn... but, as I think we have run out of steam on the Pearse argument...

My understanding is that, whether you believe in God or not, Christian and Jewish teaching does allow Man the capacity to invent things - that's what the whole Garden of Eden story is about, right?

[t'aint natural]

You're right, the thread's gone haywire.
Time to knock it on the head now.

[CamelPilot]

Usually I don't have to intervene on this forum, but this thread has taken a turn away from the original topic and has deteriorated into topics which have nothing to do with aviation.

Now! I personally like this topic and I believe there is an awful lot that can come from it yet. All intelligent and informative stuff about the Wright brothers and the history of flight. After almost a 100 years it would be reasonable to expect that. So if you can contain yourselves from introducing other matters perhaps we can keep the thread going until the 17th December. The greatest day in aviation history. Unless of course you know better! ;)

[Philip Whiteman]

'If a man is in too big a hurry o give up an error he is liable to give up some truth with it, and in accepting the arguments of the other man he is sure to get some error with it. Honest argument is merely a process of mutually picking the beams and motes out of each other's eyes so that both can see clearly. Men become wise just as they become rich, more by what they save than what they receive. After I get hold of a truth I hate to lose it again, and I like to sift all the truth out before I give up in error'
1903 letter from Wilbur Wright to George Spratt

So, long may the debate continue! (Not my posting, please note, but one made on behalf of the magnificent and admirable Mr Wright.)

[I have control]

I am trying to compile a complete list of controversies and claims to the "first powered flight" title.

Can anyone add to the following?

Wright Brothers - Dayton/Kitty Hawk, USA
Hiram Maxim - England
Samuel Langley - USA
Richard Pearse - New Zealand
Clement Ader - France
James Preston Watson - Scotland
John Montgomery - San Diego, USA
Gustave Whitehead - Connecticut, USA
Burrell Cannon - Texas, USA
Alexandr Fyodorovich Mozhaisky - Russia

[cwatters]

If you are making a list you could add...

Felix Du Temple 1874 France (Short hop in a steam powered machine after a run down a ramp. Claimed as the first attempt to fly a powered machine).

..or perhaps even..

Karl Jatho 1903 Germany - 60 meter hops, possibly not from level ground.

...and for the avoidance of doubt.. I'm a Wright supporter.

[t'aint natural]

Icarus, too.
Or more correctly, Daedalus - who flew first, and survived.
I forget the date.

[chriscook]

18 Wheeler - so, Pearse invented ailerons, did he?

"At the end and back or hinder part of each wing is a flap which moves up and down upon a hinge in the back edge of the wing ............ when both are raised, but unequally, the machine will make a curve towards the side on which the flap is most raised." From the patent specification of Richard Harte in 1870, seven years before Richard Pearse was born. Sound like ailerons to me!

Two years prior to that, fellow Brit. Matthew Boulton described in his patent application a system of wing tip balancers "to provide a controlling power .............. to prevent their turning over by rotating on the longitudinal axis." He postulated "vanes which are moved so as to take inclined positions, those on the ascending side of the vessel being caused to rotate to such an inclination that the air impinging upon them exerts a presure downwards, while those on the descending side are so inclined that the air impinging on them exerts a pressure upwards; thus the balance of the vessel is redressed and its further rotation prevented." Aileron-like devices undoubtedly, albeit envisaged for stability rather than control.

CC

[18-Wheeler]

Interesting, CC, thanks.

[Blacksheep]

Ah, the superiority of ailerons over the Wrights crudely fashioned wing warping eh?

Ailerons aren't inherently superior and wing warping is more efficient in some cases - as in the very low speed flight conditions of the Wrights early machines. The Wrights chose well, for according to Pearse, his rudder wasn't sufficiently effective to counter the adverse yaw induced by his ailerons. Eventually ailerons became the preferred method of lateral control, for they generally permit a stronger wing structure - at least when using traditional materials. An experimental F/A-18A with warping wings is currently undergoing tests at Edwards Air Force Base with NASA's Dryden Flight Research Centre.

Perhaps new materials may lead to the return of Orville and Wilbur's original solution, at least for those flight conditions where it is still the best choice ...?

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[AntiCrash]

Alberto Santos Dumont was if not the first, surely the most Dapper of the lot. 14 bis was not derivitive of the Wrights and was very keen. Demoisielle was the truley a masterpiece. :cool:

[lizard drinking]

I wrote the following for a magazine but they didnt want controversy. Can't imagine why; widens the imagination!

Were They the First?

Wilbur and Orville were pioneers in aviation who achieved great success and deserve acclaim, but it seems that anyone who questions the claims made on their behalf is considered ignorant, or worse. Although there are records of the time that show what really happened, the popular version as taught to school children seems to have been accepted by even aviation professionals. These brothers, talented as they undoubtedly were, did not wake up one day and decide to invent an airplane. They used other work, by other aviation pioneers, as a starting point. Yes, the Wrights made great progress and by their skill and perseverance made a series of successful flights. Flights that excited the imagination of the world and spurred popular acceptance of a new science. But were they the first?

One of the ways that the Wrights were different from the other aviation pioneers of the time was the way they saw the profit potential in flying, and they were quick to claim that they had been, indeed, the first to fly a powered airplane. They were also quick to take legal action to press their claims. For a time, until the First World War in fact, they were generally successful in litigation, receiving royalties on their patents and in doing so, they set aviation, and particularly American aviation, back. For instance they demanded a sum equal to twenty percent of all monies made, including gate receipts at flying displays, by those who flew virtually any flying machine for gain. They were determined that even those who flew in other countries should pay, and their claim was made on the basis of US patents for some aviation designs that had already been used overseas. It is interesting to read about the battles that Curtis, for example, had with the Wrights over the patent for the aileron, even though such a device was hardly an invention of either group. The Smithsonian did not accept the Wrights’ claims until 1948, and then only so that the original Flyer could become the property of the museum.

Had the Wrights been more open and ready to share, as were most of the other aviation pioneers of the time, the US would not have lost its edge, and who knows how fast the development of this new science would have progressed?

Perhaps because of the ongoing legal battles, the Wrights did not at any time give credit to others, whose works they used to develop their Flyer. There are too many similarities for their ideas to have been unique, yet they destroyed records that might have shown where these ideas came from. The first Flyer, which was damaged beyond repair after that first day of flying, could not be accurately duplicated or repaired since there were no plans or diagrams.

As a scientific experiment, the first flights would not, today, qualify as acceptable since independent experimenters would be unable to duplicate them. All replicas, and computer simulations of the first Flyer, cannot be flown. Even the Wrights, with their extensive gliding experience, could not manage to fly the airplane beyond a short distance, and could not make turns. Whenever they moved the pitch control the airplane stalled or dived into the ground, and only the low groundspeed (the wind was a steady 25 mph with a flying speed of around 35 mph) saved the machine, and the pilot, from disaster. Without that wind, it is doubtful that the Flyer would have even been able to get airborne. Other pioneers are criticised because they chose to make their takeoff run on a downslope, but the Wrights are given a pass when they make a machine that can only make it into the air with a strong headwind.

On the last attempt a wing dropped and the primitive roll control did not work. The machine broke as it struck the ground and never flew again (the Flyer was badly damaged in a wind gust while it was parked, waiting repair, and practically destroyed by flood waters later). Knowing that they were on a dead end path, the Wrights built a new machine for the next series of flights, and although it, too, was unsuccessful, their third attempt, more than a year later, was a real winner. Yet they did not alter the basic design, and the Wright series of airplanes petered out after a few years, with other, more innovative builders taking the lead. It was many years before the US regained its dominance in aviation.

The real reason that this day has gone down in history was the Coast Guard photo. A famous photograph that has been published in thousands of books and magazines did more for the Wrights than anything else. Without that photo the public would not have accepted the Wright’s claim any more than they had the others.

Meanwhile, what of the others? Did anyone really fly a successful powered airplane before the Wrights? There were many who could have, including Langley, Maxim, McDonald, Mozhaiski, Pearse, Stringfellow, Du Temple de la Croix, Watson, Whitehead and others. One thing that distinguishes these experimenters from the Wrights is that they did not have the Wrights’ desire to be famous, seeing what they did as steps in the process, rather than as a way to fame and fortune. Could they have done what they say, or in many cases, what was said on their behalf?

Several of their designs, sometimes including the actual machine or parts of it, have been re-built and flown successfully, so there is no doubt that some of them could have beaten the Wrights into the air. But they did not have the Wright’s ambition, and they did not have The Photograph.

Although it is only fair that the Wrights should be given a great deal of credit for their success, even to the point of popular acceptance of their claim to be the “first”, serious aviation scholars (aren’t we all?) should keep an open mind. In this way we give homage to those other, mostly ignored pioneers, whose work and sacrifice, and even their failures, made possible the success of the Wrights on December 17th 1903.

[18-Wheeler]

That's pretty much what I have said, though in not so many words -
The only real difference was that there was a photo taken. If the Wrights had flown as far as Pearse, and done a couple of turns like he did then we would all be somewhat more impressed with their first flights.

[I have control]

.... yawn .... coda .....

[cwatters]

I know it's not on topic but....

I just saw on TV that Maxim's "captive flyer" a fairground ride he built in 1904 is still operating at Blackpool (I think it was).

[Gog]

Oddly enough I was having a look at a Pearse flyer replica yesterday at the Ashburton SAANZ fly in, when a couple of old fella's started talking about the film replica taking off while being towed by a horse.
The reply was that it may have happened but would have been in the manner of a big kite .
It looks to me to be more closely related to a low powered hang glider than a conventional plane.

[Kermit 180]

Pearse's aeroplane does resemble modern microlight designs. Perhaps that's why microlighting is so strong in South Canterbury.

Kerms

[Steepclimb]

Nothing to add to the: 'Who was really first row'.

But I re-read the a copy of the Wright's biography published originally, I think when Orville was still alive and so couched in terms as not to draw his litigious ire.

Nevertheless, what struck me was how long it took after 1903 for anyone to actually accept that anything significant had actually taken place that day in Kittyhawk and indeed further developments in the following years. The press were either sceptical or disinterested. Not to mention the US government. This was in part it seemed to me partly the fault of the Wright's themselves who rather sat back on their achievements and spent the time attempting to negotiate attractive deals yet at the same time making no real effort to actually demonstrate their machine to interested parties.
In fact it was only when the went to France and actually demonstrated the machine that word really got around in their own country.
I've concluded that, as someone on this thread has already stated, they (rather ironically) set back the cause of aviation because of their interest in making a quick buck. Even if that is a little unfair. It has to be said their marketing skills were considerably lacking. They were in fact fortunate that no other pioneer had developed a comparable aircraft while they dragged their heels, otherwise we may be having this argument with them in the role of Pearse or whoever. If that had happened and say Santos Dumont had got their first. We would be faced with the possiblity of the celebration happening in a couple of years time somewhere in FRANCE!
Oh my, how the French would love that. In the end the Wrights were lucky. History could have been quite different.

[Iron City]

Don't have the books handy so I may be a little faulty on this but:

After the December 1903 first power flight I believe they tried to fly a improved version in Dayton and had problems with it, as I recall more aerodynamic than mechanical and it took a season or two to develop the Wright A and Wright B machines. As I recall the machine Orville demonstrated in France had been shipped ahead and after customs and shipping contractors got through with it it arrived at Le Mans as crates full of pieces. Took awhile for him to rebuild the airplane. I dont recall whether this was at the same time Wilbur was demonstrating to the Army at Fort Myer or after. In any case Wilbur smashed himself up good (which isn't so bad when you consider Selfridge got killed) there and couldn't demonstrate anything for awhile.

On the business side the Wrights appear to have been a little paranoid about letting anyone see what they were up to. I believe that was fairly justified when you consider when and where they were from and the cut throat competition in the "technology sector" that they were familiar with at the time. Having done extremely well at the engineering and physics of flight they turned out to be not the greatest business men. Or at least their business plan didn't work that well in the environment that they were in.


Seems to me they were undercapitalized and couldn't generate a revenue stream that would keep them going in all the development work they had to do in a new technology to stay ahead of other people who could just copy their work if they liked and wait for the Wrights to come after them with their lawyers. Does that sound like .com startups and personal computer manufacturers like oh say Atari, Apple, etc?

[HectorusRex]

Since this topic has generated a considerable quantity of at times acrimonious discussion, the following is one of three articles published today in NZ Weekend Herald, March 15-16 2003.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3200893&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

Pioneer's vision about to fly again

15.03.2003


Part-time engineer Lex Westoby, of Pareora, 14km south of Timaru, is in awe of Richard Pearse after spending the past three years building a replica engine from the pioneering aviator's original plans.

On Tuesday, the engine will be attached to the frame of the replica in preparation for the centenary celebrations this month.

True to the spirit of the inventor from Waitohi, 28km northwest of Timaru, Mr Westoby has used bits and pieces to complete the job.

"It's 90 per cent junk, but Pearse also used what was available to him around the farm," he said. Some spare copper pipe from the Westoby's house, cast-iron cylinders from a truck maintenance company's rubbish ship and an oiler from an old jigger have all become integral parts of the engine.

Even aluminium off the loading ramp from an old Bristol freighter had been included.

A fitter and turner by trade, Mr Westoby said he really enjoyed the challenge because it "stretched the grey matter".

"If something didn't quite work out the first time, we tinkered with it in much the same way Pearse would have," he said.

Mr Westoby said that his father, Colin, was also invaluable in completing the project. The first time the engine fired successfully, the draft from the propeller sent oil cans and other bits and pieces flying from the trailer they used as a test bed.

Mr Westoby said he had used carburettors and added fins to cool the engine.

Pearse didn't have these elements in his engine, but their addition was only to add to its reliability. The design and layout had remained identical.

"Pearse was years ahead of his time and I think that may have frightened a few people."

- NZPA

The following is the editorial from today's edition of the NZ Herald, published March 15-16 2003.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3200865&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

Editorial: Pioneer without honour in own land

15.03.2003


New Zealanders pride themselves on being innovative, on being able to see what others cannot. Perhaps it stems from the thirst for exploration that first brought many settlers to these shores. Not that we are inclined to blow our trumpet about it. Or that we would readily heap praise on the innovator.

It all makes for a rather perplexing cocktail, as illustrated by the ultimately sad tale of pioneer aviator Richard Pearse.

Pearse, long accustomed to occupying a footnote in accounts of early flight, is making one of his periodic forays into the public eye. His problematic place in history will again be debated at celebrations to mark the 100th anniversary of what is reputed - though never widely accepted - to have been the world's first powered "flight".

Pearse is said to have flown a monoplane for about 150m before crashing into a gorse fence at Waitohi, near Temuka, on March 31, 1903. A home-grown celebration of this event, featuring a replica of his home-grown, bamboo-made aircraft, will be staged. Needless to say, it will be dwarfed by worldwide and year-long events to mark the Wright brothers' flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, eight months later on December 17, 1903.

If Pearse has never received adulation, it must be said that he never courted it. In many ways he was the archetypal oddball inventor, beavering away in a shed on his farm. He had no technical training and precious few resources - other than the ideas in his head. No 8 wire was his stock in trade, and ingenuity and perseverance his allies.

He was working for himself, not public applause or the sort of lucrative Government backing that eventually fell to the Wright brothers. Yet if he was reclusive by nature, he had other reasons to shun the limelight. Some in his South Canterbury community opposed his ideas of flight on religious grounds; others thought the very concept could only be envisioned by a halfwit.

Whether or not Pearse flew before the Wright brothers, it is probably true that his efforts would have garnered more credence if his first "hop" had, like that of the Wrights, been captured on camera. Or if he had been American. But this would be true, too, for the Italians who claimed to have invented the telephone before Alexander Graham Bell.

Pearse himself effectively settled the debate on who flew first. He did not believe, by his own strict standards, that he had achieved sustained, powered flight. Additionally, he acknowledged that the fraught conclusions of his early endeavours meant they could hardly be termed "controlled" - even if the same could be said of those of the Wright brothers in December 1903.

Pearse, however, conceded the achievement of "proper" flight to the Americans and turned to other areas of invention because he could not compete against "men who had factories at their backs".

This was perhaps, even if indirectly, Pearse's comment on the way his feats went unacknowledged in his own country and the way in which that shortcoming led to his genius remaining hidden from the world.

What flair he had. If the most New Zealanders can claim is that Pearse was at the forefront of aviation history, his aeroplane was certainly much more sophisticated than that of the Wright brothers. Features that were to become standard included a single wing, as opposed to the Wrights' biplane, wheels, not skids, a propeller at the front, not the back, and aileron controls, not wing warping. Sadly, others were to earn credit and cash for these innovations.

Therein lies the tragedy of Pearse. Cloistered at the end of the world and deprived of encouragement, he ended up contributing nothing to the development of aviation. No 8 wire was not, by itself, enough. Even now, we only sporadically recognise Pearse's vision and achievement.

In a world that more than ever treasures innovative flair, he deserves better.

The following is the third of three articles from this weekend's edition of The NZ Herald.

I'm sorry to make such a long post, but there is at least historical value in the story.
HectorusRex

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3200868&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

Remembering New Zealand's visionary aviator

15.03.2003
By WARREN GAMBLE
Across the United States this year there are multimillion dollar celebrations of Orville and Wilbur Wright's first faint brush with the sky.

A federal commission has been set up to oversee centennial events, and big business and non-profit organisations have joined forces to recreate the Wright brothers' plane which flew at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on December 17, 1903.

Celebrities such as flying enthusiast John Travolta are lending their profiles to the celebrations of what is widely recognised as the world's first heavier-than-air powered flights.

At the end of this month in a South Canterbury farming community a group of elderly volunteers will stage a homegrown recreation of an event which many believe beat the Wrights into aviation history.

With little fanfare and no Government support, they will be attempting to get airborne in a bamboo, cloth and metal replica of farmer Richard Pearse's monoplane, which they believe flew on March 31, 1903. One hundred years later the attempt to recreate history will take place on the Pearse farm, still owned by relatives, at Waitohi, 10km northwest of Temuka.

The plane has been faithfully reproduced from Pearse's drawings, but so far, despite the best efforts of engineers in Auckland, Timaru and Australia, a replica of the remarkable Pearse engine has yet to be perfected. A Japanese microlight motor might have to be used for the attempt.

The date when the reclusive Pearse first hopped into the air has been debated for 50 years since relatives found relics of his forgotten flying experiments after his death in 1953, and his feats were publicly resurrected.

Pearse himself, in letters to newspapers in the 1920s, gave credit to the Wrights for the first successful flight in a motor-driven plane, and referred to his own experiments taking place in 1904.

But biographers and researchers relying on affidavits from Waitohi witnesses believe March 31 of the previous year was the correct date.

Others question the memory of witnesses who were not approached for half-a-century, and the only documentary evidence, a photograph, taken the day after of the plane resting in a hedge, was destroyed in flooding.

Any record of Pearse's visit to a local hospital with a collarbone injury after the flight were destroyed by fire.

But no matter what the actual date, Pearse supporters argue that his innovative design, created without formal training in an isolated rural community, is worthy of more recognition than he has been given.

They point to the Pearse plane's superior features over the Wrights' flyer: single wing as opposed to biplane, wheels in preference to skids, propeller at the front, not the back, directly connected to a lightweight engine, and moveable wing panels.

The chairman of the South Canterbury Aviation Heritage Society, Jack Mehlhopt, will fold his 74-year-old frame into the Pearse replica plane on March 31.

Weather permitting, he will taxi along a prepared track at the Pearse farm next to the main Waitohi road where Pearse performed his public experiment.

Mehlhopt, who has 55 years experience as a pilot and aircraft engineer, says given a favourable wind on the day there is a good chance the plane will get off the ground, if only briefly, to a height of around 4m.

Most witness accounts say Pearse was airborne for between 100m and 150m before landing in a 4m-high gorse hedge. (The Wright brothers' first powered flights in December 1903 travelled around 40m, but at the fourth attempt the plane flew 280m in 59 seconds).

Mehlhopt says even if Pearse was not the first in the world to fly, he would have been the first in the British empire, "and we know Richard flew on more than one occasion".

He says Pearse was frustrated in his attempts and downplayed them later because he had sought to achieve aerial navigation, controlled flight from one point to another.

"All he wanted to do was to be able to get in his aeroplane and fly to Temuka to pick up his stuff," says Mehlhopt. "He was not wanting to be the world's greatest inventor but was trying to make something of practical use."

Mehlhopt says by Pearse's own strict definition, he had not flown, but his experiments were comparable with the Wrights' early attempts. When they mastered controlled flight in 1905 at Dayton, Ohio, flying for half an hour and making figures of eight, Pearse wrote that he decided to "give up the struggle as it was useless to continue against men who had factories at their backs".

Ridiculed by neighbours as "Mad Pearse" or "Bamboo Dick", Pearse became disillusioned with flight, turning his attention to other inventions such as a powercycle.

He had one more attempt at an aircraft in the 1930s, but his "utility plane" featuring a tilting engine for vertical takeoff never got off the ground. An increasingly paranoid Pearse died aged 75 in a Christchurch mental hospital. He never married.

Mehlhopt says he has written to the Government for the past two years seeking some greater recognition of Pearse and the centenary of his flight. The only reply he received was one informing him that because Pearse's flight was recognised on a 1999 stamp, another one could not be issued.

Like Pearse, who secluded himself in his converted farm shed to work on his plane, the replica for the March 31 attempt was built secretly in the Auckland shed of longtime Pearse researcher Geoff Rodliffe.

Rodliffe, author of three books on Pearse, is now in his mid-80s. A former RAF engineer, he was hooked on the Pearse story after a 1960s visit to the Auckland Museum of Transport and Technology where he saw the utility plane. Auckland aviation pioneer George Bolt had painstakingly uncovered the lost strands of the inventor's life, retrieving parts of his plane from a Waitohi dump.

Rodliffe and Christchurch historian Gordon Ogilvie carried on the research, and Rodliffe constructed a replica of Pearse's first plane for a 1970s film. Although it never flew under power, during filming the plane was being towed by a horse which got spooked. To Rodliffe's amazement, the plane lifted off the ground for some metres. That replica, based on designs in Pearse's 1906 patent application, is now at Motat.

For the past year Rodliffe, former Air Force engineer Don Fleming and other enthusiasts have been working on another replica, with Motat assistance, in Rodliffe's shed.

Bamboo from a stand near the Waitakeres has been used for the wing frames. Pearse used bamboo from the same area, rail-freighted south. Synthetic cloth has been sewn over the wings (Pearse used calico), and tubular steel used in the tricycle undercarriage. Pearse created his undercarriage from scrap metal shaped in a homemade lathe.

Former engineer Fleming says the process of piecing together the plane emphasises the homegrown brilliance of Pearse.

While the debate about whether Pearse was the first or one of the first to fly will probably not be resolved, Fleming says he has no doubt that the lonely inventor had enough power and the right structure to get off the ground.

"I think he should be remembered as a man who had an incredible vision of a flying machine and, even more remarkably, put it into practice."

[HectorusRex]

Another article from this morning's NZ Herald, written by Dr. Ross Ewing, former RNZAF A-4 pilot, Vietnam conflict FAC pilot, and noted Aviation author and historian.:D

Aviator's design stands test of time

18.03.2003
By ROSS EWING*
Much of the debate surrounding Richard Pearse centres on whether he beat the Wright brothers into the air to become the first powered-aeroplane flyer of all time. Exhaustive research shows the answer remains unclear and will probably remain so.
It might be more fruitful to ask where Pearse stands today as an early inventor of the aeroplane? Was he on the right track? Have his design ideas lasted to the present day? Have those of the Wright brothers?
There is little doubt that at the turn of last century Pearse was at the forefront of the design of controlled, powered aeroplanes.
He grew up as part of a large farming family at Waitohi, South Canterbury, and was not an orthodox thinker but inventive by nature. He started experimenting with bicycles, but it was aviation that caught his fancy.
He became determined to be one of the first, if not the first, to build and fly an aircraft.
The challenge meant hours and hours of research, largely on his own, in which he formed a plan to build from scratch a machine that would fly and be controllable once in the air. It would be powered by a suitable engine that he would also plan and build.
About that time, 1902-1904, the Wright brothers in America had been experimenting along the same lines. Pearse developed and tested his first machine at Waitohi about the time the Wrights were experimenting near the village of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. But the principles he pursued with both his flying machine and his engine were different from those of the Wrights.
The engine Pearse designed was a two-cylinder horizontally opposed two-stroke engine. His propeller drive was direct from engine to propeller, and his undercarriage consisted of a tricycle of three wheels each with air-inflated tyres, the nose wheel of which was steerable.
His method of lateral control was by wingtip spoiler/flap, and his method of controlling the craft's up-down pitch was by an elevator that was mounted at the rear.
The Wright brothers, on the other hand, used a self-made four-cylinder, in-line engine. They used a 20m wooden launching track and catapult device to get their craft moving and in a straight line, and they used chain drives from the engine to power two separate propellers.
They used skids (no wheels) attached below their plane for takeoff and landing, and their method of lateral-roll control was by wing warping. Their method of pitch control was also to use an elevator but to mount it out in front of the wings.
What is remarkable is that the features designed by Pearse, such as his direct drive from engine-to-propeller, his tricycle and steerable-nosewheel undercarriage with air-inflated tyres, his method of lateral control by wingtip spoiler/flap, and his rear-mounted elevator flight controls, have lived on to the present day.
What is also significant is that many of the Wrights' aeroplane features - including the catapult and launching track, the propeller drives, the skids below, the wing-warping method of roll control and the use of a forward-mounted elevator control - were to quickly disappear from aircraft design.
Compared with the Pearse machine and with modern light-aircraft design, the Wright Flyer flew "backwards".
However, the Pearse machine had significant design flaws, mainly about the wing. It was not a natural flying contraption.
His design was not long enough to allow the control services to have a sufficiently strong effect. The controlling devices were not powerful and, in hindsight, if the tail of the machine had been a little further back, it would have stood a much better chance of more effective control.
It is evident that Pearse made several cursory hops in his machine, although the exact timing of these has been hard to pin down. The strongest evidence for his most notable flight points to March 31, 1903 - about eight months before the Wright brothers.
Leading New Zealand aviation historians, including Gordon Ogilvie, Geoffrey Rodliffe and the late Ross Macpherson, agree he may have flown then. If this was so, he did beat the Wright brothers.
Regardless, Pearse has never fully received any credit for that possible flight, and many have rated him only a poor and doubtful second to the Wright brothers.
As to who invented the aeroplane, it is very clear that many of Pearse's design features are seen today in conventional aeroplanes.
That fact makes Pearse stand apart from other early designers, the Wright brothers in particular.
It is high time for New Zealand to begin openly remembering Pearse.
His name deserves elevation and to live on, not as that of the man who beat the Wrights but as that of an undoubted world pioneer - unlike the Wrights - in aeroplane design.
* Ross Ewing, of Christchurch, is an aviation commentator. A pageant celebrating Richard Pearse will be held at Timaru at the end of the month.

[Iron City]

In the various articles posted here comparing Mr. Pearse and the Wright Brothers machines there has been emphasis on a number of design characteristics of the machines and comparison to each other and to modern aircraft. Since I have never seen the Pearse machine I couldn't comment on it. Since I have never seen Mr Pearse's calculations of thrust and drag from propellers or his airfoil research or the calculations used to determine the size and geometry of the aircraft I couldn't comment. I do know that the skids and launch track method of landing gear is totally appropriate to the environment the Wrights were working in because wheels would have sunk in the sand. I do know there is nothing magic about the "conventional" monoplane tail in back design. See designs by, among others, Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites such as Voyager (around the world unrefueled nonstop). It has been speculated that the forward elevator design kept the Wrights from killing themselves while learning to fly. The Wrights used chain drive, obviously, to get the prop revolutions down from the engine revs so that both could operate efficiently. If the Wrights could have figured out another way to do this it would have saved them loads of trouble with shafts and sprockets. How did Pearse build an engine that gave the power needed at such low RPMs? The Wrights DID NOT USE A CATAPULT AT KITTY HAWK. They didn't need it as they had enough wind over deck to launch with motor power alone.

Let us give Mr. Pearse to accolades he is richly due to flying a heavier than air machine under power at the date it is claimed he did. Let us give similar accolades to the Wright Brothers for their accomplishments.

Let us not continue this anepodian inferiority complex posting things like the big, bad Wright Brothers had the industrial might of America behind them, it was hopeless for a regular guy from NZ to get anywhere etc. From a historical perspective this is totally bogus. The Wrights had NO government backing of any kind and in fact Wilbur nearly killed himself demonstrating an aircraft to the Army. Later on they sold aircraft but by the end of WW I they were not a major player in airplanes, though their company built great engines for many many years through the 1950's. They couldn't make it in jets and maybe ironicly became part of Curtis Wright Corporation. This company decided nuclear powerplants was a good business to be in (not) and is now a specialty metals and fabrication company.

Lets give Mr Pearse the credit he deserves as an aviation pioneer and give the Wrights theirs as aviation pioneers and leave it at that.

[Lu Zuckerman]

I believe the Wrights did use a catapult, If I remember correctly they used a weight which was dropped and the connecting rope thrust the aircraft forward on the tracks. No, I'm not that old I am recalling this from photos I had seen.

:cool:

[I have control]

Yes they did, but not at Kitty Hawk - the catapult came later for flights closer to their home in Dayton, Ohio

[HectorusRex]

From "The Timaru Herald"

Honour the man
29 March 2003

Today the celebrations begin to mark the extraordinary achievements of Richard Pearse – farmer, inventor and aviation pioneer. Known a century ago as Bamboo Pearse or Mad Pearse for his reclusive nature and perceived eccentricity, he was most out of place in his time because he was so far ahead of it. The Timaru Herald writes.

His achievements have long been under-estimated, and the full programme of activities over the next three days is at last a fitting tribute.

The celebration has been labelled a Centennial of Flight – a term that has prompted much debate through these columns. The opponents to the question "did Pearse fly?" rely heavily on Pearse's own word in letters to newspapers that he did not achieve flight. But to get the context of those letters one needs to read the whole text, and recognise that Pearse's definition of successful flight was to be able to go to Temuka and back to do his shopping.

For all that he did not achieve controlled and sustained flight as determined by strict aeronautic definitions, but his powered take-offs were certainly good enough for lay people of the time to exclaim, as we would today, words to the effect of "heaven's above, he's flying".

So first flyer in the world or not we'll celebrate, and we'll do it this weekend because, 100 years years ago on Monday, he achieved something truly remarkable.

From magazines and the Temuka Library and his own dreams, the plans for flight evolved. He designed and built an engine from bits and pieces lying around the farm. To do that he first built his own lathe and other tools. Then he designed an airframe, wings with flaps and a rudder. To do this on his own at a time when the Wright brothers were working with the backing of factories confirms his brilliance, and in many respects his design surpassed theirs.

We have to admire too his tenacity, for every time he suffered a setback, and there would have been many, he would try again, all in the face of ridicule from many of those in the neighbourhood.

But if we are to remember Richard William Pearse for anything, it should be this. That on that day in 1903 when he lined up his plane on a rough metalled Waitohi road, with high gorse fences looming large on either side, with no real knowledge if he would fly, that if he did how high he would go or if he could control it, he did the most remarkable thing of all. He took off. That feat did not require brains or engineering brilliance or sheer hard work. That took guts.

[18-Wheeler]

Superb posts, guys, thanks.

(Still reckon it was 1902 though .... ;) )

[HectorusRex]

Wings over Waitohi
31 March 2003

It has taken a long time, but New Zealand seems to be coming to terms with one of it outstanding sons, Richard Pearse. The weekend's celebration of his first important attempt to fly shows we are prepared to honour his achievement, not just show what it was, The Press says in an editorial.

Pearse has had some recognition for years. Waitohi, the lovely district in which he grew up and made his aviation experiments, erected a memorial a couple of decades ago, Gordon Ogilvie's landmark biography came out in 1973, and many articles have traversed his story. But this recognition has been marked by often bitter disagreement about Pearse's achievements, to the point that many of his detractors condemn them as worthless.

Such controversial recognition is better than none at all, which was Pearse's fate for the best part of 60 years. During most of his life he was unacknowledged and was forgotten after his death.

To a degree Pearse sought that anonymity – he seldom pushed his aviation claims and was reclusive. But it is inconceivable that he did not feel some grievance that New Zealand showed not a smidgen of interest in him, or that those around him thought him mad.

A nation more careful about its creative talent and tolerant of eccentricity would have made Pearse a happier man and nurtured his genius. But it was not just the society he found himself in that was to blame; time and place were hindrances also.

Had Pearse lived close to engineering schools and industries he would have had the opportunity to develop his skills, ideas, and personality. Instead, Waitohi at the beginning of the 20th century was isolated and the careers it offered were almost exclusively farming for men and marriage for women. Socially, it demanded conformity.

The Pearse family, cultured and energetic, was able to send one son to university but Richard had to come to terms with a life on the land. He left the district, but he went into a world skewed by two world wars and economic depression. Rural and suburban isolation were to be his fate through life.

Neither did he have the character to overcome such barriers. Richard Pearse was unable to establish the personal relationships that might have strengthened his resolve and confirmed his genius. The gifts of timing and luck, so vital to great creative success, were not to visit themselves on Pearse. Instead, his sensitivity and engineering insights went unsupported and were turned into a hurt life of isolation and tinkering. He must have died a disappointed, if not a bitter, man.

This is a pathetic tale. It should not subdue the celebrations of Pearse's achievements but neither should it be suppressed. It usefully illustrates that peculiarly New Zealand tension – too often destructive – between creative individuals and the society that denigrates them. Only now are we coming to understand that we must live off our wits rather than just the sheep's back.

Perhaps that is why this weekend's celebrations have been so fulsome. The debate about whether Pearse flew will continue but the fact of his genius has come to the fore. It is giving us a more realistic view of the man, establishing the truth that, even if he was not the first to achieve powered, sustained, and controlled flight, he was a visionary of great talent.

[Kermit 180]

Perhaps it is ironic that the Pearse replica couldn't fly the other day due to weather. That old guy had obviously spent a lot of time recreating the replica. Had a fella fly with me on the 31st just so he could say "I flew a powered aeroplane on the anniversary of Richard Pearse's flight". Pearse certainly isn't forgotten.

Kerms

[CamelPilot]

Just caught a snippet of info that the exact replica of The Flyer very recently DID do a short but successful flight.

Has anyone some exanded news on that?