Centenary of Powered Flight

[poetpilot]

Does anyone have web links to good info on the above - regarding the planned flying of the Wright biplane at Kittyhawk in 2003?
All I know at the moment is that the replica is being built.

I've not seen any info yet on what is happening, how it will be organised, facilities on or around the site, etc, but I'm seriously wanting to be there in Dec 2003 when it happens...loose plan is to team up with a mate of mine in NY state and fly ourselves down to it.

Sorry, I havent dug into any magazines, searched the www, or anything, there's probably tons on it but a pointer or two would be useful.

[FNG]

cor, poetie, talk about lazybones, you just have to point your google in the right direction to find:-

<a href="http://www.wrightflyer.org/" target="_blank">http://www.wrightflyer.org/</a>

and

<a href="http://www.first-to-fly.com/" target="_blank">http://www.first-to-fly.com/</a>

I've booked my group's aeroplane for 17th December 2003: anyone got a weather forecast for that day?

[poetpilot]

Thanks FNG, You are indeed A Wonderful Human Bean... yes I was being a bit lazy, but most of my time is spent working to pay for flying...

Have just checked these two sites out and they're excellent. Many thanks!

Incidentally, as someone pointed out some time ago, a most suitable acronym for poetpilot was toilet plop....

[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: poetpilot ]

[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: poetpilot ]</p>

[FNG]

You are welcome, oh Calliopean Aviator, but that's an anagram, not an acronym

An anagram of FNG is NFG, which is an acronym for Not Going Flying

Wrong though, as I am, cheerio

[poetpilot]

Durrr, apologies, got my mords wixed up a bit. the old Dyslexia is advancing with old age. The acronym should be.....

Pathetic Old Eejut Tries Peeing In Latrine Outside Tescos

[boofhead]

I saw a T shirt labelled "Wright Brothers..First to Fly." So much for history.

I thought that in fact, the first documented and accepted true powered flight was done by Glenn Curtiss in 1908. All the Wright airplanes relied on a catapult launcher and rails and did not in fact takeoff and fly under their own power.

Am I wrong?

[poetpilot]

...and even on one of those websites given to me above, there's reference to an obscure New Zealander who may have flown under power, but the trip wasn't accurately documented. I think there was a documentary on Discovery about this recently, but I missed it.....

....Whatever, the "centenary" is a chance to wallow in nostalgia and celebrate flight. Any excuse to do that after the past few months of terrorism, crashes & aviation negativity is most welcome!

Interesting thought... I've seen a couple of quotes by Leonardo da Vinci that, to me, suggest that he may have secretly got himself airborne. If he'd admitted it in those days, he probably would have been burned at the stake or somesuch. Are there any theories or stories that he may have actually built any of his contraptions?

[Vfrpilotpb]

Hey PP,

Taking me back to the school library, I seem to remember reading that Leonardo was the very first to fly, but I am damned if I can remember the book title. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[FNG]

Much that is said about the achievements of Curtiss vis a vis the Wright brothers is clouded by the ill feeling and rumour mongering engendered by their long patent law suit (which the Wrights won, later merging their company with that of Curtiss).

Each camp has its loyal followers and there are even those who seriously maintain that others, such as Augustus Herring or Gustave Whitehead, flew first. An internet search will reveal plenty of far fetched claims by fans of various late C19 inventors who, unlike the Wright Brothers, left no documentary or photographic evidence of systematic experimentation and ultimate success.

I think that the Wrights deserve the credit for solving the problem of flight. They were the first to devise a solution to the problem of lateral control, the first to build a practical aircraft engine, and the first to demonstrate sustained manoeuvres in flight. It is true that their very earliest powered machines needed an assist to depart (not their later ones from, if I recall correctly, about 1907-8, which took off unaided), but they flew under their own power and in control before anyone else. The more their claims to primacy are investigated, the better they stand up. I'm not knocking Curtiss, who was a great pioneer, but the boys from Dayton did the deed first.

[ 15 January 2002: Message edited by: FNG ]</p>

[foxmoth]

I think the term POWERED flight needs a bit more emphasis here, before the Wright brothers there was of course Montgolfier, Cayley, Lillienthal......

[18-Wheeler]

Sorry guys, but the Wright Brothers were very definitely second at best.
Richard Pearse flew in his completely home built aeroplane 400 yards or so, on 31-3-1902. The plane took off under its own power, no catapult.
In June 1903, he took off next to a dry-ish river bed, turned left over the river - out of ground effect - then turned right to follow the river. The plane kept flying until the engine overheated, resulting in a flight about 1,000 yards long.

Read all about it here - <a href="http://www.billzilla.org/pearce.htm" target="_blank">www.billzilla.org/pearce.htm</a>

[18-Wheeler]

Forgot to add, for the doubters.
It was sustained, controlled flight.
The plane took off under its own power, using tricycle wheels. (Not a tail-dragger)
It had crude ailerons for lateral control. The patent for them is registered to Richard Pearse.
There were many independant witnesses.

[tony draper]

ooerr!, fine kettle of pigs you've opened there.
Did you know the real Wright Flyer resided in England for many years because either Wilbur or Orville cannot remember which now, fell out with the Smithsonian.

[poetpilot]

Thanks 18 wheeler, fascinating website! I think this was the guy I saw a trailer for on Discovery. I expect they'll repeat it - they repeat everything else.

I still want to go to the US in 2003 though <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

...any excuse for a flying adventure! But I'll drink to Mr Pearce & all the other pioneers when I'm there.

[FNG]

...the same website that asserts that the Wrights employed a team of specialist engineers, whilst poor Kiwi yokel bloke did it all on his tod. Now, as I recall, the Wrights super-slick R&D team included, er, themselves (a couple of well-read bicycle mechanics), some bloke to help in the workshop, a little kid (sorry, ace test- pilot) to ride the early gliders, and some fishermen guys at Kittyhawk to help launching and recovery. Just like Lockheed or Boeing really. I am distrustful of undocumented claims, especially when accompanied by inaccurate rubbishing of people who took the trouble to provide some evidence of their accomplishments, so my money is still on Wilbur and Orv.

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: FNG ]</p>

[tony draper]

There was a documentry on the History channel that examined all the claims for the first powered flight.
It came down on the side of the Wright brothers because their flight was so well documented and witnessed.
They did admit that on the balance of probability Pearse and Whitehead did do a powered flight before the Wrights, but the evidence was scant, affidavits and such not taken untill years later ect.
The Wright brothers also ran a very effective campaign to keep other names out of the running, that was the prime reason as I stated above the Wright Flyer was in a British Museum for years and not in the Smithsonian, they demanded that no other person get any credit for powered flight, the Smithsonian refused to comply to this demand for year.
It is a month or so since I watched this program, and Drapers memory only last about three weeks, but that basicly I think that is what the document said. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: tony draper ]</p>

[I have control]

There are numerous replicas of the Wright Flyer under construction at the moment for the 1903 anniversary. The best of them is undoubtedly that being built for EAA by The Wright Experience. Go to <a href="http://www.wrightexperience.com" target="_blank">The Wright Experience</a> to find out why - Ken Hyde and his crew are just about the most meticulous replica builders you could ever find.

This is the only replica that will be allowed to fly at Kitty Hawk on 17th December 2003.

As well as the Whitehead and Pearse claims already mentioned, there are claims from Scotland (Preston Watson), Wales (Bill Frost), France (Clement Ader) and Russia (Moshaisky) that I know of. Some of the claimants are sheer make-believe -some (particularly Whitehead and Pearse) merit further investigation but are deeply flawed. Unfortunately national and family pride often obscures the facts in some of these controversies. And there is often a pretty deep ignorance of the facts. For example the person above who writes that the Wrights used catapults until 1908 is just plain wrong. They used it from 1904 onwards as a take off assistance devide (and it worked damn well) but the December 1903 flights were unassisted. Similarly,regardless of the questionable date, the impressive account of Pearse's "flight" neglects to mention something that Pearse himself openly admitted - he flew down a gorge and his point of landing was substantially lower than his point of take off. So, whatever the date, all he achieved was a powered glide.

The case for the Wrights however is solid, well documented and pretty much cast iron. Unlike any of the aforementioned they conducted detailed, methodical, progressive scientific study. I defy anyone to read one of the numerous good biographies that have been written about the Wrights who would deny them their (deserved) place in history. All of us who fly today owe those guys a huge debt.

[boofhead]

I've got an old book that I bought at a garage sale 25 years ago. It is a collection of flying magazines devoted to the history of flight, called "War in the Air" or "Aerial Wonders of Our Time." Fascinating book, although it is falling apart. It appears to have been published in 1936 but there is no publishing information inside.
On page 278 is the famous picture taken of the actual first flight, and the caption reads "A New Science is Born..When man's age-old aspiration became a reality with the first brief flight of the Wright aeroplane on December 17, 1903, the news was received with doubt. But later an unbelieving world awoke to find that a new and mighty science had been born. In this historic photograph something of the romance of that eventful day has been captured. Amongst the desolate sand dunes near Kitty Hawk, Orville Wright, after a catapult launch from a special track, skims through the air with engine barking thriumphantly and twin propellers whirling. Meanwhile, his brother Wilbur watches in an attitude of wrapt, critical attention. Five other persons only were present on that historic occasion." This accompanies an article written by Capt J Laurence Pritchard Hon FRAes titled The Flight That Changed the World. The text of this article has been published other places many times. I have another copy of it published in the Observer Magazine Sunday 12 December 1993, with the original photo, but the caption is changed, crediting it to John Daniels, a Coastguard employee working nearby. The article does not mention a catapult, but refers to a sled using bicycle hubs as wheels running on a track arrangement. It infers that the takeoff was solely under the power of the engine running two propellers. But no photo of the track arrangement exists to my knowledge.

And again on page 426 there is an account of the first flight written by Sir Alliot Verdon-Roe, OBE FRAeS under the title Aeroplanes of the Past. Again no date. In this article, discussing the first flight of Orville and later flights in the series, and based, he says, on written conversations with Wilbur Wright, he wrote "Having started with glides from a hillside and knowing they could land all right on the sledge-like runners (instead of wheels), they developed a starting-off catapult arrangement. A weight was hoisted up to the top of a pylon, and when this weight was released it catapulted the machine into the air by means of a suitably arranged line over pulleys. There was really nothing terrifying to them in being shot off in this manner, as they were used to being launched down hill. The pilot lay down at first and later sat up, controlling the front elevator with a lever in one hand, and warping the main wings, for the purpose of lateral control, with the other."

So maybe I am not the only one dead wrong. But I guess part of that description applies to the original authors.

[18-Wheeler]

You can jump up & down all you like, guys, but in `1902 a Kiwi named Richard Pearse flew in his home-built aeroplane about 350 odd yards. In mid-1903 he flew about 1000 yards, including a couple of turns.. .That's far better than the Wrights did for some time to come.

[Iron City]

Believe you are most correct FNG.

The Wrights not only managed to build a powered, heavier than air machine and execute controlled flight they worked it out on paper first and derived or assembled from other sources the information necessary and taught themselves "Aero Engineering 101" while doing it. I believe that is where they are the real "inventors". Nothing against Da Vinci or the Kiwi guy (who I never heard of) or the farmer in Kentucky (or Tenessee) or Glen Curtis or anyone else who managed to craft a machine that got them in the air. After the Brothers did it and published most everything then everyone could do it.

The 1903 wright flyer did not use a catapult for launching, just a sloped track with a dolly on it upon which rested the aircraft. The later experiments a Huffman Prarie in Dayton OH used a catapult, mostly because the powerplants were so marginal I think.

The person who gets a lot less credit than he deserves is LT Thomas Selfredge. In the history books as the first heavier than air powered flight fatality. Though that is true, this Army Signal Corps officer had been a member of an aeronautical experimental group organized by some unknowns like Bell (as in Alexander Graham) and Glen Curtis ( a whiz with lightweight powerful engines and no mean shade tree mechanic and engineer) and was the closest thing the Army had to an aero engineer or somebody competent to judge what the Wrights were doing. He seemed to think the Wrights knew what they were doing, at least until the engine quit in a downwind turn...oops.

[I have control]

Most of the evidence that has been offered up in support of obscure claimants are newspaper stories and affidavits, neither of which can be considered conclusive proof.

Browse through the newspapers from any large city between 1860 and 1900, and you are likely to find stories about successful flying machines. While one or more of these newspaper stories may have been true, it's much more likely that they were all fantasy. Aeronautical hoaxes have been a tradition in journalism since the 1840s. Few (if any) of these stories are researched articles; they are simply letters to the editor. In these letters, would-be aviators stretched the truth or fabricated successful flights to attract investors and finance their aeronautical research. Editors published the letters without questioning their accuracy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that aviation stories made good copy.

Affidavits from eye-witnesses to supposed flights are just as suspect. They become more so as the elapsed time between the flight and the deposition lengthens. Because most people like to be helpful, that can often be coaxed into remembering things that never happened by investigators -- particularly if the investigators are insistent or attach some importance to the event. A. V. Roe, a pioneer aviator, collected a large number of affidavits to prove that he had been the first person to fly in England. But actual correspondence between Roe and other aviators from that time (among them Orville Wright) showed that the flights he made took place sometime after the dates that the witnesses had been prompted to remember. The same goes for the Dundee aviator James Preston Watson -"eye-witnesses" signed affadavits in the 40s and 50s swearing that Watson flew a powered airplane in the summer of 1903, before the Wrights. A careful study of other evidence shows this cannot possibly have been the case.

What is needed to prove a claim that someone else was first to fly is evidence that corroborates the newspaper stories and affidavits -- diaries, letters, scientific notebooks, blueprints, photographs of airplanes in flight. So far, none of the claimants have produced corroborating evidence sufficient to unseat the Wright brothers from their widely accepted place in history as the inventors of the first practical airplane.

[FNG]

This from. .<a href="http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/NewZ/research.html" target="_blank">http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/NewZ/research.html</a>

"Wild and inaccurate statements have been publicised from time to time concerning Richard Pearse's achievements in the field of aviation. However, no responsible researcher has ever claimed that he achieved fully controlled flight before the Wright brothers, or indeed at any time. To attain fully controlled flight a pilot would have to be able to get his plane into the air, fly it on a chosen course and land it at a predetermined destination. Obviously Pearse's short "hops" or "flights", whilst they established the fact that he could readily become airborne, did not come within this category, but neither, for that matter, did the first powered flights of the Wright brothers in December 1903. The Wright brothers, however, had the resources necessary to continue their experimentation until they achieved fully controlled flight."

and later:-

"...At about this time two of Pearse's letters to the press came to light. In the first, dated 10th May 1915, he stated: I started out to solve the problem (of aerial navigation) about March 1904. The Wrights started at about the same time". In the second letter, dated 15th September 1928, he wrote: "I started my experiments on aerial navigation about February, 1904".

The site also quotes statements by witnesses, giving various dates for early flights, some of which pre-date those recalled by Pearse himself. Whatever the dates, it is worth bearing in mind the points about flying a chosen course and landing at a chosen time and place. By 1905 the Wrights were able to fly circuits at will. The Flyer III of that year could fairly be described as a practical aeroplane, viable as a means of transport. None of the rival claimants got this far.

[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: FNG ]</p>

[18-Wheeler]

The interviews and research that Geoffery Rodliffe did concentrated on the dates and distances specifically because Pearse was notorious for not getting his dates correct.. .He checked on things like weather conditions (heavy rainfall, snow, etc, that was recorded, and referenced that with the dates that the witesses claimed.. .The dates and distances are correct.

As for controlled flight, he made two deliberate turns, at least one of which was out of ground effect.. .We are not going to change each other's minds over this, but Pearse clearly showed sustained, controlled, powered flight before the Wright Brothers. I'm sticking with that.

[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: 18-Wheeler ]</p>