The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908. [Archive] - Page 3

eetrojan

19th Jun 2014, 15:04

Simplex is comparing apples and oranges.

According to his post (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-26.html#post8527713), the French story reported that the 1908 plane weighed about 882 lbs and had an engine developing 25 HP. Using the division key on his trusty calculator (882/25), he gleefully announces that the 1908 plane was only capable of sustaining 35 lbs/HP - a number that in his conspiratorial mind is very tiny when compared with the earlier "lies" of the Wrights. Case closed.

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

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

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

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

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_HP2.jpg

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

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

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

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

eetrojan

19th Jun 2014, 15:23

http://i59.tinypic.com/iz2mg0.jpg

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

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

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

The FIVE FIRST FLIGHTS (http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/fivefirstflights.html)

Haraka

19th Jun 2014, 16:03

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

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

I think Noyade should reveal his sources . :) :)

eetrojan

19th Jun 2014, 17:31

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

simplex1

19th Jun 2014, 18:57

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

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

2) Flyer II 1904 (see: Wright Flyer II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_II) )
Loaded weight: 925 lb
Powerplant: 1 × water-cooled straight-4 piston engine, 15 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 62 lb/hp
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/WrightFlyer1904Circling.jpg/220px-WrightFlyer1904Circling.jpg
Wilbur in Flyer II Circling Huffman Prairie November 1904. The front elevator has been enlarged & the radiator moved to a rear strut since the May photo above.

3) Flyer III 1905 (see: Wright Flyer III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_III) )
Max. takeoff weight: 710 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Wrights' water-cooled, 4-cylinder, inline engine, 20 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 35.5 lb/hp
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Wright_Flyer_III_above.jpg/250px-Wright_Flyer_III_above.jpg
The Wright Flyer III over Huffman Prairie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_Prairie), October 4, 1905, Orville piloting.

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

eetrojan

19th Jun 2014, 19:51

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

Aside from the Wikipedia issue...

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

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

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

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

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

longer ron

19th Jun 2014, 20:37

From the nasa website

For the 1905 aircraft

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

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

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

lbs = pounds (weight)

simplex1

19th Jun 2014, 23:35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Je me trouvais donc, le 8 août, à la première heure, sur l'hippodrome des Hunaudières (8 km. du Mans, route de Tours). ..."
Source: FRANÇOIS PEYREY, "Les Premiers Hommes=Oiseaux Wilbur et Orville WRIGHT", PARIS, Henry Guiton, Imprimeur - Editeur, 35, rue de Trévise,35, pag 37 -38, 1908, https://archive.org/stream/lespremiershomm00wriggoog#page/n46/mode/2up

FlightlessParrot

20th Jun 2014, 01:06

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

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

2. Now we see they are not bluffing.

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

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

Brian Abraham

20th Jun 2014, 03:00

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John T. Daniels
Manteo NC
Box 1WIt is my understanding that the Wrights were launching the Flyer from the hill on the 14th, but as shown in the photo above, they moved the rail to the flats on the 17th.eetrojan, you are quite correct. The flights on the 17th began at the lower end of the red line, which as you can see is quite some distance north of the hill, which is at the bottom with the circular road around its base.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/z1_zpsb6415c27.png

The launch point for the flights on the 17th was identified by Dough, Etheridge, and Moore in 1928 - who had witnessed the flights. The following is the wordings of their findings in locating the spot, since the area had changed somewhat since 1903."Beginning with the site of the building which housed the Wrights’ plane at the time, distinctly remembering the wind direction at the time, and that the track was laid directly in the wind, collaborating our memory on these facts by the records of the Weather Bureau, remembering that we helped bring the machine from the building and placed it on the track, referring to distances laid down in feet in Orville Wrights article, "How We made our first flight."

"We proceeded to agree upon the spot, and we individually and collectively state without the least mental reservation, that the spot we located is as near correct as it is humanly possible to be with the data in hand to work from after a lapse of twenty five years. We marked the spot with a copper pipe driven into the ground."In 1932 at this location, The American Aeronautical Association placed a large granite boulder containing a commemorative plaque consisting of the pictures of Orville and Wilbur and a statement that reads, "THEY TAUGHT US TO FLY."

eetrojan

20th Jun 2014, 16:25

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

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

simplex1

20th Jun 2014, 16:42

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

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

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

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

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

"WILBUR WRIGHT A PARIS

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

Mon cher Besançon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Truly yours" comme on dit en Amérique.

Ferber

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

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

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

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

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

eetrojan

20th Jun 2014, 18:12

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

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

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

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

FlightlessParrot

20th Jun 2014, 22:18

@simplex1

You have a great knowledge of original sources. Your correction of the attribution to Archdeacon of the remark about believing all the Wrights said they had done, needs to get into the history (assuming you're correct on that--someone else will need to check the sources). I am sure that in the standard narratives, there are lots of inaccuracies, and it would be very unusual if the Wrights, like all the other pioneers, hadn't prettied up the story they told the world.

But a historical narrative is NOT a legal case, to be cross-examined at every point in the hope that lots of little inaccuracies will reduce the total credibility to zero. Unless you can show that every account of the Wright brothers' doings comes from one single source, then the most likely story is at the intersection of the various accounts.

When I asked what they were doing between 1902 and 1908, I meant that they must have been doing some development in aviation. At the moment, you seem stuck on the idea that flight needs a certain minimum horsepower. But the Wrights' aeroplane looks a lot less draggy than 14bis, for example (Santos Dumont seems even to have stood up to conduct his apparatus, which already adds a bit of drag), so it is entirely possible that they could fly with less power--especially as it is recognised that take off was a bit marginal on their machines. Obviously there were better engines available in France than the Wrights had, but the author of that letter is exaggerating when he talks about "the only" lightweight engine. As I recollect, Manly had built a satisfactory engine for Langley's Aerodrome.

It is a good thing to correct inaccuracies in the received accounts. It is entirely reasonable to correct the oversimplification that the Wrights somehow "invented" the aeroplane--Santos Dumont and the Voisins would have flown if the Wrights had stuck to bicycles, Langley might have done the work that Curtiss did for him. If he hadn't died in an accident, Lilienthal might have fitted an engine to one of his hang gliders, and then we'd be having a debate about whether it counted as a first flight if take off was assisted by the pilot running like buggery (what a film clip that would have made).

But they might not have done it quite so quickly, which is what I take it Ferber is saying:

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

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

Without the press publicity for the Wrights, the French pioneers would not have known that powered flight was now possible. I'm reminded of the claim that the biggest thing that all the spies in the Manhattan Project did for the Soviet Union was to give them the knowledge that an atomic bomb could be made.

So, good to correct inaccuracies, but that does not prove the Wrights were fundamentally lying, and all your corrections are only arguments against their achievements if you have already decided beforehand that they were lying, and are looking for holes in their story. The sorts of thing you are pointing to are not the kind of inconsistencies that would lead someone to say, "What I have believed all along is a tissue of fabrication."

So, what is the fundamental reason for not believing the standard account?

eetrojan

21st Jun 2014, 00:07

This is very well written.

But a historical narrative is NOT a legal case, to be cross-examined at every point in the hope that lots of little inaccuracies will reduce the total credibility to zero. Unless you can show that every account of the Wright brothers' doings comes from one single source, then the most likely story is at the intersection of the various accounts.

simplex1

21st Jun 2014, 03:26

The 57-59 seconds flight allegedly made on Dec. 17, 1903 has to be replicated by somebody.
The claims of an experimentalist, in general, have to be replicated by other experimentalists. If despite all efforts nobody in the world reaches similar results than something is wrong with those claims.

Brian Abraham

21st Jun 2014, 04:16

The 57-59 seconds flight allegedly made on Dec. 17, 1903 has to be replicated by somebody.Does not have to be replicated by anybody.

Allegedly Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in a Ryan, no one has replicated that feat. Kingsford Smith allegedly flew the Pacific in a Fokker, no one has replicated that feat.

NASA even allege that they have landed a man on the moon.

simplex1

21st Jun 2014, 04:33

August 13, 1904 - Three people witnessed a flight made by Wilbur Wright and all three remained silent.

There is a picture, allegedly made on Aug. 13, 1904, showing four people, one piloting the plane (Wilbur Wright), the other at some distance apparently running behind the plane and two people in the background in a vehicle drawn by one horse. We also do not have to forget about the one who took the picture. Therefore, there were at least three witnesses (excepting the Wright brothers) who saw the flight. Mysteriously all these people remained silent.
A simple and logical explanation would be that the picture was not made in 1904 but much later, after Aug 8. 1908.

http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/local--files/start/1904-Aug-13-Wright-Brothers-Flight-Four-People-and-One-Horse.jpg
http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/local--files/start/1904-Aug-13-Wright-Brothers-Flight-Three-People-and-One-Horse.jpg
Flight 30: machine close to the ground, Wilbur piloting, covering a distance of 784 feet in 22 3/4 seconds; Huffman Prairie, Dayton, Ohio, 1904 Aug. 13

Source, Library of Congress, [Flight 30: machine close to the ground, Wilbur piloting, covering a distance of 784 feet in 22 3/4 seconds; Huffman Prairie, Dayton, Ohio] (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/wri/item/2001696572/)

eetrojan

21st Jun 2014, 04:52

Mysteriously all these people remained silent.

A simple and logical explanation would be that the picture was not made in 1904 but much later, after Aug 8. 1908.

So, let me recap. Your "simple and logical" explanation is that after flying in front of thousands of amazed onlookers in Le Mans, France, on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers rubbed their hands together in a sinister fashion, cackled like fiends, and then slithered back to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, and also to Dayton, Ohio, where they systematically manufactured phony records and related photographs for various aircraft that they had finally learned to fly, presumably due to their being in the close proximity of so many French people (Vive la France!), all in order to falsely contend that they began flying in 1903, 1904, and 1905 - while enlisting the silence of the many co-conspirators shown in the fake photographs - when, in fact, the August 8, 1908 flights in Le Mans, France were really their first flights?

That's genius. :rolleyes:

simplex1

21st Jun 2014, 05:19

The flight of Lindbergh was replicated. So, there is evidence the plane could really cross the Atlantic flying non stop, from continental North America to continental Europe.
see: Wright-Bellanca WB-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright-Bellanca_WB-2)

FlightlessParrot

21st Jun 2014, 05:48

Sorry, simplex1, I've really tried, but you're a troll. Or perhaps this is a Turing Test, and you're really a trollatron.

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 06:25

Simplex - as previously posted by another forum member - nobody is going to take you seriously if you use Wiki as a source for information !
I use Wiki for non important stuff such as Rock band information etc but not anything to do with aviation !

You still have not told us why you are so personally keen to discredit the Wright Brothers - revisionist history and conspiracy theories are very fashionable but the truth is usually more mundane than the conspiracy theory would like .

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 06:45

Dunno about the aug 1904 flights but there was of course Amos Root and his article describing the sept 1904 flights in GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE published in Jan 1905.

And Simplex - it is a waste of time to pedantically criticise or question his words as Amos Root was not technically trained and the language of aviation had not yet evolved - so 'flapping and snapping' was probably his amateur description of the 'beat' of the props and the chain/sprocket noises from the prop drive system,which was probably fairly noisy and also the open exhaust ports on the engine !

The engine is started and got up to speed. The machine is held until ready to start by a sort of trap to be sprung when all is ready; then with a tremendous flapping and snapping of the four-cylinder engine, the huge machine springs aloft. ”

“When it first turned that circle, and came near the starting-point, I was right in front of it; and I said then, and believe still, it was one of the grandest sights, if not the grandest sight of my life. Imagine a locomotive that has left its track, and is climbing up in the air right toward you – a locomotive without any wheels, we will say, but with white wings instead, we will further say – a locomotive made of aluminum.”

“Well, now imagine this white locomotive, with wings that spread 20 feet each way, coming right toward you with a tremendous flap of its propellers, and you will have something like what I saw. The younger brother bade me move to one side for fear it might come down suddenly; but I tell you friends, the sensation that one feels in such a crisis is something hard to describe.”

Root asked plenty of questions. One had to do with lift.

“I confess it is not clear to me, even yet, how that little aluminum engine, with four paddles, does the work. I asked the question,

“Boys, would that engine and these two propellers raise the machine from the ground if placed horizontally above it?”

“Certainly not, Mr. Root. They would not lift a quarter of its weight.”

Edit for clarity - Four Paddles = Prop Blades

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 07:06

eetrojan
So, let me recap. Your "simple and logical" explanation is that after flying in front of thousands of amazed onlookers in Le Mans, France, on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers rubbed their hands together in a sinister fashion, cackled like fiends, and then slithered back to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, and also to Dayton, Ohio, where they systematically manufactured phony records and related photographs for various aircraft that they had finally learned to fly, presumably due to their being in the close proximity of so many French people (Vive la France!), all in order to falsely contend that they began flying in 1903, 1904, and 1905 - while enlisting the silence of the many co-conspirators shown in the fake photographs - when, in fact, the August 8, 1908 flights in Le Mans, France were really their first flights?

even more genius than that eetrojan - they also purposely crashed the aircraft a few times just to get some good pictures :)

Haraka

21st Jun 2014, 07:55

The OP's title of this thread, to me at least, does not deny the existence of Wright flying machines pre-1908.
I'm still a bit uneasy about:
a. The initial apparent inability of the Flyer to get airborne without there being a stiff breeze.
b. The use of the catapult in still air ( bearing in mind the power requirement to get airborne greatly exceeding that to stay there).
c. The late adoption, post the European visit, of an undercarriage, over five years after the initial flight.
d. The less then acceptable results of initial test by the U.S. Army , despite the specification being apparently Wright influenced. The aircraft was delivered to Ft. Myer on August 20, 1908 The Army officially accepted the "airplane" on August 2, 1909, after a ten month delay with several contract extensions, the Wrights being in default. I accept that this could be due, in part at least, to the fatal crash .

Unease does not imply disbelief in what was achieved , but these points of contention would be of some concern to me in arguing the case for the Wrights' claims as popularly espoused.

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 08:23

No arguments with any of that Haraka but - as I have posted before - even if you have a problem with the criteria for the 1903 flight - then by 1905 the Wrights were way ahead of anybody else.
It is not so much Simplex's questioning of the Wrights ability to fly but his dogmatic questioning of the integrity of the Wright Brothers !

Haraka

21st Jun 2014, 08:43

questioning of the integrity of the Wright Brothers
As per G. Voisin :)

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 09:01

As per G. Voisin :)

As per most French aeronautical 'experts' at the time - until Le Mans of course :)

Haraka

21st Jun 2014, 09:28

“After the miserable demonstration in France on 8 August 1908,” a French engine was fitted and “the Wright flew at last. But its performance was immediately outdone by French performances and it went back to America.”

Gabriel Voisin (at age 84 ) in "Men, Women and 10,000 Kites "

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 09:36

And complete BS :)

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 09:41

Perhaps a little more balanced view ...

While working on his machine at the Bollee factory, Wilbur did something, probably just because it seemed the natural to do, with no thought of the impression it would make, that delighted the hearts of the factory employees. He kept the same hours that the others did and his whole behavior was as if he were simply one more workman. When the whistle blew for the noon hour, he knocked off along with the others, and went, in overalls to lunch This lack of any sign of aloofness caused much favorable comment.

Wilbur’s greatest admirer was Leon Bollee himself. Though they had no common language, they managed to exchange ideas and formed a warm friendship. Bollee, a jolly rotund man with a saucy little beard, was ever ready to be of any service. Incidentally, though Bollee had no thought of personal gain when he generously offered the use of space in his factory, the fact that Wilbur worked on his plane there did not hurt the sale of Bollee cars.

But the work was soon transferred from the Bollee factory to the field at Hunaudieres where a hastily constructed hangar had been built. Another item of preparation was the setting of a launching derrick, similar to the one the Wrights had first used on their experiments at the Huffman pasture. Huge weights were attached at one end of a rope which ran over pulleys and had a metal ring at the other end to be caught at the front of the plane. When the plane shot forward, the rope automatically dropped away. As at previous trials, the plane when ready to take off rested on a rail, iron-shod, wooden track, about sixty feet long.

Not until August 8, did Wilbur attempt his first flight. A good-sized crowd was present, the majority from Le Mans and the near-by countryside, but it included many members of the Aero Club of France and various newspapers from Paris.

In describing the scene, years afterward, Hart O. Berg said: “Wilbur Wright’s quiet self-confidence was reassuring. One thing that, to me at least, made his appearance all the more dramatic, was that he was not dressed as if about to something daring or unusual. He, of course, had no special pilot’s helmet or jacket, since no such garb yet existed, but appeared in the ordinary gray suit he usually wore, and a cap. And he had on, as he nearly always did when not in overalls, a high, starched collar.”

At least one man among the spectators felt certain the flight would not be a success. That was M. Archdeacon, prominent in the Aero Club. So sure was M. Archdeacon that Wilbur Wright would be deflated that, as the time set for the flight approached, he was explaining to those near him in the grandstand just what was “wrong” about the design of the Wright machine, and why it could not be expected to fly well.

Wilbur’s immediate preparations had been made with great care. First of all, the starting rail had been set precisely in the direction of and against the wind. The engine was started by two men, each pulling down a blade of the two propellers and the plane was held back by a wire attached to a hook and releasing trigger near the pilot’s seat. After the engine was warmed up, Fleury, Berg’s chauffer, took hold of the right wing. Wilbur released the trigger and the plane was pulled forward by the falling weights. Fleury kept it in balance until the accelerating speed left him behind. By the time it had reached the end of the rail, the plane left the track with enough speed to sustain itself and climb.

At some distance, directly in front of Wilbur as he started to rise, were tall trees, but they gave him no concern. He bore off easily to the left and went ahead in a curve that brought him back almost over the starting point. Then he swung to the right and made another great turn. Most of the time he was thirty or thirty-five feet above the ground. He was in the air only one minute and forty-five seconds, but he had made history.

The crowd knew well they had “seen something” and behaved accordingly. In the excited babel of voices one or two phrases could be heard again and again. “Cet homme a conquis l’air!” “Il n’est pas bluffeur. Yes, truly Wilbur had conquered the air, and he was no bluffer. That American word “bluffer had been used during the time that reports from the United States about the Wrights had been stirring controversy in France. Now “bluffeur” became, more than ever, a part of the French language. “To think that one would call the Wrights ‘bluffeurs’!” lamented the French press over and over again.

For the next few minutes after Wilbur landed, Berg was kept busy laughingly warding off agitated Frenchmen who sought to bestow a formal accolade by kissing Wilbur in the French manner on both cheeks. He suspected that Wilbur might consider that carrying enthusiasm too far.

One of the skeptical members of the Aero Club, Edouard Surcouf, a balloonist, had arrived at the field late, barely in time to see Wilbur in the air. Now he was about the most enthusiastic of all. He rushed up to Berg, exclaiming: “C’est le plus grand erreur du siècle!” Disbelieving the claims of the Wrights may not have been the biggest error of the century, but obviously it had at least been a mistake.

The only person who offered criticism or minimized the brilliance of his feat was Wilbur Wright. When asked by a reporter for the Paris edition of the New York Herald if he was satisfied with the exhibition, he replied, according to that paper: “Not altogether. When in the air I made no less than ten mistakes owing to the fact that I have been laying off from flying so long: but I corrected them rapidly, so I don’t suppose anyone watching really knew I had made any mistake at all. I was very pleased at the way my first flight in France was received.”

A crowd of Aero Club members and other admirers were insistent that Wilbur should go back to Paris with them to celebrate the achievement at the best dinner to be obtained in that center of inspired cooking. But Wilbur just thanked them and said he wished to give his machine a little going over. Early that evening, so the newspapers reported, “he was asleep at the side of his creation.”

joy ride

21st Jun 2014, 10:00

I too have unease at some of the facts surrounding the Wrights as listed by Haraka, and I also include all the litigation and wrangling - I never fully trust anything where lawyers and politicians are involved! The fact that the Wrights were so litigious and ambitious, plus the fact that some of their Patent claims covered "Prior Art" leads me to a feeling of unease about their integrity.

I have doubts about the witness testimony surrounding several early flights, including the Wright's; for example, Doug, Etheridge and Moore identifying a precise location in sandy coastal territory 25 years after the event must be questionable. I am not saying any is wrong or fraudulent, just that I do not feel it is safe to trust it fully, and there are other examples.

I strongly agree with FlightlesParrots words:

It is a good thing to correct inaccuracies in the received accounts. It is entirely reasonable to correct the oversimplification that the Wrights somehow "invented" the aeroplane--Santos Dumont and the Voisins would have flown if the Wrights had stuck to bicycles, Langley might have done the work that Curtiss did for him. If he hadn't died in an accident, Lilienthal might have fitted an engine to one of his hang gliders, and then we'd be having a debate about whether it counted as a first flight if take off was assisted by the pilot running like buggery (what a film clip that would have made).

Personally I would add Percy Pilcher after Lillienthal !

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 10:45

The trouble is - if you doubt the testimony about the dec 17th flight - you also doubt the photograph clearly showing level ground -

As I have said before - the Wrights made a big mistake getting involved in the patent wars etc - but in my view that should not detract from their technical achievements and I do not believe for one minute that they were dishonest about their flights - au contraire they kept excellent notes and took hundreds of photographs.

FlightlessParrot

21st Jun 2014, 10:53

@joyride

It seems that the Wrights weren't especially nice people, and in their concern about monetizing their work, they lost first-mover advantage, and probably didn't do the best for their profit.

The evidence for their flights isn't what you'd expect for a modern record attempt, and there were at the time no definitions of what constituted powered flight for them to comply with; but using some form of assistance for take off is surely OK, whether it's JATO, water boost, a ski-jump or just taking off into wind--it's not the same as depending on the residual energy of the launch boost.

Above all, powered flight was bound to happen in the first decade of the twentieth century, whoever got there first.

But history is full of contingencies, and the Wrights lucked out. But it wasn't sheer luck--there's evidence that they started with the best available knowledge (Oscar Chanute does seem to have been a gentleman), and worked at applying it assiduously. They didn't invent the aeroplane, they weren't Corinthians, and they didn't document every stage of the development as well as modern process-oriented management would require ("Sure, you've done good work; but can you prove you've done good work?" They were their own bosses, and didn't have to put up with that sort of BS); but that doesn't prove they were outright liars.

It's great to correct the popular view, but if doubt is cast on the Wrights' priority, that implies that someone else was really first, and we're back with the question of who invented the aeroplane, to which one might as well reply Daedalus. If someone else did get there first, that's great and we should all know it; but there is no real evidence in this thread that "first" would mean anything but "before December 1903".

dubbleyew eight

21st Jun 2014, 11:06

and we're back with the question of who invented the aeroplane

I'm sorry that was never the question.

who invented the first successful aeroplane is a more valid question.

birds ultimately showed mankind that something was possible.
it took thousands of years for mankind to understand enough of the world around them to be able to create a machine that could do what birds had done ...seemingly forever.

nifty1

21st Jun 2014, 12:11

So, it's all down to semantics.

joy ride

21st Jun 2014, 12:53

Good post FP. As I said before I feel it is really hard to rule out any of the important claimants with complete certainty; as you say, and as I said earlier: powered flight was inevitable.

I feel that criteria, definitions, semantics, legal and political actions all play a part in this debate and they all blur the lines to some extent. Wherever you draw the line it excludes one set of criteria. If I am expected to accept the word of the Wrights' witnesses why should I NOT accept the witnesses of other flights?! How can we be sure that anyone in those days measured "level" or any other contributory factor accurately? As you say, nowadays we demand far higher standards!

I remember reading an article in National Air and Space Smithsonian Magazine describing how Chanute was a key figure in the Wright's work as he was fully aware of developments in Europe, particularly through the Royal Aeronautical Society. No harm in benefiting from someone else's experience.

I feel that if we HAVE to single out a single person/team then no-one actually has as good a claim as the Wrights, all things considered. However, I really see Human Flight as a multi-party international effort, and I consider the hero-worship associated with the Wrights is completely out of all proportion to the contribution of others in the bigger picture.

Ultimately my opinion is the same as a Coroner's Court which cannot decide 100% on the evidence presented...."Open Verdict".

GWFirstinFlight

21st Jun 2014, 19:41

Gustave Whitehead, of Bridgeport, CT, used a design based on Lilienthal's gliders to develop and fly a manned, powered, heavier-than-air flying machine in 1901 and 1902, at Fairfield, Bridgeport, and Stratford, CT. This is a matter of record with extensive documentation. He predated the Wrights into the air by two years four months and three days, making a sustained flight on August 14, 1901. Earlier manned powered flight tests occurred in Bridgeport, CT, on their streets in the West End, a somewhat rural section. He flew over the entire neighborhood as well, that summer. The Wrights needed to be considered "first" when they started suing everyone, trying to control world aviation and get paid if anyone else flew for profit or built airplanes. They were reviled for this then. This IS the history, it is evident in the media of the era and in countless communications of the era, including those of the Wrights and their inner circle. In latter days we have been fed a lie - that the Wrights were saintly do-gooders who could do no wrong. That is not the case. A new book, "Birdmen", is much more realistic on those points, as was "Pendulum" by Jack Carpenter, and "History by Contract" by O'Dwyer - all of these were meticulously researched. What we may not realize is that the pablum we're being fed by our so-called authorities on aviation history in this country are spoonfeeding false history for many reasons. One is a Contract with the Wright heirs, to obtain and keep the "Wright Flyer" for $1. If ever the Wrights are declared not to have flown first, the premiere Smithsonian exhibit reverts to the heirs. Thus you have the endless falsifications institutionalized at present. The original claim to "first flight" by the Wrights was necessary for broad patent application. If they were not first, there was no world control. I have the research, it is solid. They weren't first, not at all. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly (http://www.gustavewhitehead.info)

GWFirstinFlight

21st Jun 2014, 19:58

Even though the Wright-Wing element gave a nasty backlash to the Jane's announcement, this is Jane's All the World Aircraft's official position. Gustave Whitehead, first in powered flight, ahead of the Wrights. All the nay-saying won't change it. Brown was using the research from O'Dwyer and Randolph - it was the weight of the witness statements and affidavits (18 of them) that did it. Brown merely summarized it. The records of the early 1900's show that Whitehead was given worldwide recognition for his #21 aeroplane, which made a sustained, powered flight on Aug. 14, 1901, and others during that year. These were witnessed by credible people and they are on the record as such. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly (http://www.gustavewhitehead.info)

eetrojan

21st Jun 2014, 20:00

Hi Susan. Are there any photos of the G. Whitehead airplane in flight?

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 20:46

The records of the early 1900's show that Whitehead was given worldwide recognition for his #21 aeroplane, which made a sustained, powered flight on Aug. 14, 1901

:)

And proved by a few high quality photos of course cough ! cough !

longer ron

21st Jun 2014, 20:58

There is always another side to the coin :)

In connection with Junius Harworth's claim that he saw Whitehead fly one and one-half miles at an altitude of 200 feet on August 14, 1901, the following facts are relevant. Harworth is collaborating with a certain Washington journalist in preparing a book, the aim of which is to prove that Whitehead flew before the Wright brothers. Harworth is under contract to receive ten per cent or the profits of the projected book. His testimony, therefore, is not disinterested.

Furthermore, Harworth's elder brother, Nicholas Horvath, who operates a drug-store in Bridgeport, asserts that he never once heard his younger brother mention the alleged one and one-half mile flight or the seven mile flight. It was news to him that Whitehead had made such flights. In fact, it was news to everyone of Whitehead's old neighbors and former helpers who still live in the vicinity of Pine Street. Even Louis Darvarich, who was Whitehead's first partner in flying experiments in Pittsburgh in 1899, and who accompanied Whitehead to Bridgeport and lived near him for several years, had never heard of the alleged one and one-half mile flight or the seven mile flight. "

Brian Abraham

21st Jun 2014, 22:57

The flight of Lindbergh was replicatedYou do twist and turn. Using your own standard that the Wright flight has not been replicated, you will note that the aircraft you cite in Lindberghs so called replication was a Bellanca, not a Ryan. By your own definition of replication it fails to measure up.

simplex1

21st Jun 2014, 23:09

A Pope - Toledo motor used by the Wright brothers

Flyer III 1905 weighted 925 lb and was powered by a 12 - 15 hp, 240 lb engine similar to the ones used by Pope - Toledo cars made in Ohio about that time!!

Aviation history books attribute a mass over 900 lb and a 15 hp engine to Flyer II 1904, not Flyer III 1905. Secondly the use of a Pope - Toledo motor, even with modifications, discredits the claims of the two brothers that they utilized engines of their own design for the 1903, 1904 and 1905 planes.

While traveling in a tramway going to the place near Dyton where the Wright brothers flew their planes, M. Weaver (a US journalist) and Orville Wright talked about the Sep. - Oct. 1905 flights and plane.
In a letter written on Dec. 6, 1905 to Frank S. Lahm (an American close to L'Aerophile), Weaver stated, amongst other things, that the plane weighted 925 lb and its engine, developing 12 - 15 hp, strongly resembled the motors used by Pope - Toledo cars, manufactured in Ohio (see: Pope Motor Car Co (http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Pope_Motor_Car_Co)).

"Lettre de M. Weaver à M. Frank S. Lahm. Mansfield, Ohio, 6 décembre 1905.
...
Pendant notre trajet en tramway, M. Wright m'avait brièvement raconté ce qu'ils avaient fait pendant la saison 1905, qui a été terminée brusquement, le 5 octobre, pour des raisons que je donnerai plus tard. Pendant la saison, ils avaient fait environ 50 vols ; les premiers, d'un succès relatif. Cependant, après des changements et des modifications successivement apportés à l'appareil, ils remarquaient, à la fin de chaque semaine, qu'il y avait des progrès importants. A partir du 15 septembre jusqu'à la fin de la saison, on n'a rien changé à l'appareil. Le châssis est fait en bois de larix ou mélèze (larch wood). La largeur d'un bout à l'autre est de 40 pieds. Le moteur à gazoline, d'une construction spéciale — fabriqué par eux-mêmes — présente une grande ressemblance avec le moteur d'automobile de la marque « Pope-Toledo » ; sa force est de 12 à 15 chevaux. Il pèse 240 livres. Le châssis est recouvert de mousseline ordinaire, mais de bonne qualité. Pas d'effort spécial pour arriver à construire légèrement, mais, au contraire, un véritable soin de construire solidement, de façon à supporter des chocs. L'appareil est muni de patins comme un traîneau, assez hauts pour protéger les hélices des chocs à l'atterrissage. L'appareil complet avec moteur pèse 925 livres."
Source: FRANÇOIS PEYREY, "Les Premiers Hommes=Oiseaux Wilbur et Orville WRIGHT", PARIS, Henry Guiton, Imprimeur - Editeur, 35, rue de Trévise,35, pag. 64-69, August 1908, https://archive.org/stream/lespremiershomm00wriggoog#page/n84/mode/2up

99Cruiser99

21st Jun 2014, 23:16

I have two questions relating to Gustave Whitehead being the first to fly.

#1. What happened to Number 22?

#2. If it were true that he flew in 1901, did Whitehead submit a bid to the December 23, 1907 US Gov't Board of Ordnance and Fortification solicitation for a flying machine? Why not?

99Cruiser99

21st Jun 2014, 23:51

A Pope - Toledo motor used by the Wright brothers

Flyer III 1905 weighted 925 lb and was powered by a 12 - 15 hp, 240 lb engine similar to the ones used by Pope - Toledo cars made in Ohio about that time!!

So what? Maybe they bought one and modified it. It is a well known fact the Wrights wrote several engine manufacturers trying to buy engines.

longer ron

22nd Jun 2014, 00:16

If you look carefully at my post 522 you will see that the 1905 Flyer was lighter than the 1904 Flyer because the Wrights removed 70 lb of ballast used in the nose of the 1904 Flyer to improve the C of G...

Hence...

The engine stayed the same as the 1904 aircraft and the weight was decreased to 860 pounds by eliminating the iron bars (70 lbs ballast in 1904 a/c) . The 1905 aircraft could be flown until the fuel tank was empty; staying in the air for more than a half hour, flying nearly 25 miles around Huffman's farm, executing turns and figure 8's, and flying more than 50 feet off the ground. The brothers now had a practical working airplane and began to market it to the War Department.

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

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

simplex1

22nd Jun 2014, 00:24

The Pope-Toledo engine used by Flyer III 1905 is not OK and strongly discredits the Wright brothers
see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-28.html#post8531778 (link to post 560)

eetrojan

22nd Jun 2014, 00:29

Simplex says -
... the use of a Pope - Toledo motor, even with modifications, discredits the claims of the two brothers that they utilized engines of their own design for the 1903, 1904 and 1905 planes.

In a letter written on Dec. 6, 1905 to Frank S. Lahm (an American close to L'Aerophile), Weaver stated, amongst other things, that the plane weighted 925 lb and its engine, developing 12 - 15 hp, strongly resembled the motors used by Pope - Toledo cars, manufactured in Ohio

First, Henry Weaver's 5 December 1905 letter to his brother-in-law Frank Lahm was preceded by a cable that said, "Claims fully verified, particulars by mail." Source - See "December 3" entry (http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Decade_After/Wake_Up_Call/Wake_Up_Call_1.htm)

Second, I can read and it appears, at best, that you have a bias and are being overzealous. The back-to-English translation of Lahm's French translation of Weaver's 1905 letter is below (emphasis mine).

Based on his own words, it's obvious that Weaver didn't see the engine and tell Lahm that he believed that it looked like a plagiarized copy of the Pole-Toledo engine. Instead, during their tram ride, Mr. Wright told Weaver that the Wright engine was of special construction and was manufactured by them. And, Mr. Wright told Weaver that the Wright engine resembled the Pope-Toledo engine.

You do see the difference, non?

English translation of letter excerpt:
During our tram ride, Mr. Wright had briefly told me what they had done during the 1905 season, which was ended abruptly, October 5, for reasons I will give later. During the season, they had about 50 flights; first, a relative success. However, after successive changes and modifications made to the device, they noticed at the end of each week, there was significant progress. From September 15 until the end of the season, we did not change anything to the device. The frame is made of wood or larch Larix (larch wood). The width from one end to another is 40 feet. The gasoline engine, a special construction - manufactured by themselves - has a great resemblance to the automotive engine of the "Pope-Toledo" brand; its strength is 12 to 15 horses. It weighs 240 pounds. The frame is covered with plain muslin, but good quality. No special effort to get to build slightly, but, on the contrary, a real task of building securely, so withstand shocks. The unit is equipped with pads like a sled, high enough to protect propellers landing shocks. The complete unit with motor weighs 925 pounds.

eetrojan

22nd Jun 2014, 00:37

I laughed out loud when I ran across this Dayton, Ohio web page that described the skeptical reaction of the members of the aviation committee of the Aero Club of France when Lahm read a French translation of Weaver's letter to them:

All conceded that Lahm’s friend Weaver had doubtless been sincere in what he wrote but they insisted that he somehow been fooled. They “knew” flight was impossible with a motor of only twelve horsepower.

Source (http://www.daytonhistorybooks.com/the_wright_brothers_11.html)

More than 100 years later, even though these fine men were in a much better position to delve into it while people were, you know, still alive, Simplex stills "knows" this too and carries on the torch of skepticism. :ugh:

longer ron

22nd Jun 2014, 00:49

If you compare pictures of the wright engine and that of any car engine it is obvious that the early Wright engines were 'homemade'

Quote from one of the Smithsonian sites...

The Wrights were only twice charged with having plagiarized others'
work, a somewhat unusual record in view of their successes, and both times
apparently entirely without foundation. A statement was published that
the 1903 flight engine was a reworked Pope Toledo automobile unit, and
it was repeated in an English lecture on the Wright brothers. This was
adequately refuted by McFarland but additionally, it must be noted, there
was no Pope Toledo company or car when the Wright engine was built.
This company, an outgrowth of another which had previously manufactured
one- and two-cylinder automobiles, was formed, or reformed, and a
Pope license arrangement entered into during the year 1903.

99Cruiser99

22nd Jun 2014, 01:31

The Pope-Toledo engine used by Flyer III 1905 is not OK and strongly discredits the Wright brothers
see: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908. (link to post 560) (simplex1)

since you give such strong credit to this statement in the letter written by Henry Weaver and accept it as fact then you must also believe and accept the second sentence of the same letter

Pendant la saison, ils avaient fait environ 50 vols (Henry Weaver) which translates to
"During the season, they had made about 50 flights"

Simplex1, are you now admitting that the Wright Bros. flew in 1905?

Because if you hold the first statement as evidence to discredit them, then you must also hold the second sentence from the same letter as evidence to their credit of flight.

simplex1

22nd Jun 2014, 02:13

It appears the Wright brothers paid the US army $ 2500 to gain only $ 25 000 in case a plane meeting some tough conditions had been delivered to the US government

In 1908, the US army simply accepted any plane offer coming from anybody that was capable to make a deposit amounting to 10% of the sum of money the US government would have paid to the constructor if the airplane, satisfying some conditions, had been delivered.

Once the plane accepted, the US army had the right to multiply it and do whatever it wanted to do with it without any further obligations regarding the inventor/constructor.

Basically the US government did not risk anything, did not pay anything in advance. The only ones who risked their money were the Wright brothers and the other candidates and all these just to get a prize no greater than the revenue a dentist made in 10 years.

"Le 10 février (1908) dernier, le correspondant de l'Auto, à New-York, télégraphiait à ce journal :

"L'armée américaine a commandé aux frères Wright, à M. Herring (de New-York), et à M. Scott (de Chicago), trois aéroplanes. Le premier sera payé 25.000 dollars (125.000 fr.), le second 20.000 (100.000 fr.), et le troisième 1.000 dollars (5.000 fr.). Le cahier des charges impose aux soumissionnaires certaines conditions de vitesse et de durée."

Complétons cette information sensationnelle : Les essais de recette auront lieu sous le contrôle du Signal Corps, au fort Myers (Virginie). Ils comporteront : (1) une épreuve de vitesse moyenne sur 5 milles aller (8 kil. 45 m.) et 5 milles retour, soit 10 milles au total (16 kil. 90 m.) ; (2) une épreuve d'endurance d'une heure de vol continu à la vitesse de 40 milles à l'heure (64 kil. 360 m.). L'aéroplane doit être monté par deux personnes.

Chacun des soumissionnaires peut faire trois tentatives dans chaque épreuve de recette. Si un appareil fait moins de 40 milles à l'heure, il est pénalisé, et le prix payé sera moindre que le prix demandé ; s'il fait moins de 36 milles à l'heure, il sera purement et simplement refusé ; s'il fait plus de 40 milles à l'heure, le prix convenu sera majoré suivant une certaine progression, et se trouvera presque doublé si la vitesse atteint 60 milles à l'heure.

En cas d'insuffisance de l'engin sur un point quelconque de ce programme rigoureux, la caution espèces — 10 % — ne sera pas remboursée.

Les cautions versées ont été de : 10.000 francs pour M. Herring ; de 12.500 francs pour les frères Wright, et de 500 francs seulement pour M. Scott, qui a peut-être simplement cherché une réclame peu coûteuse, car il est difficilement admissible qu'on puisse construire une machine volante automobile pour 5.000 francs.

Le prix convenu ne s'entend que de l'achat d'un appareil, sans aucune licence de brevet ni monopole de fabrication."

Source: FRANÇOIS PEYREY, "Les Premiers Hommes=Oiseaux Wilbur et Orville WRIGHT", PARIS, Henry Guiton, Imprimeur - Editeur, 35, rue de Trévise,35, pag. 31-32, August 1908, https://archive.org/stream/lespremiershomm00wriggoog#page/n38/mode/2up

Note: According to ( History Lesson -- 1908 (http://www.barefootsworld.net/history_lesson_1908.html) ), in 1908, the revenue of a worker ranged between 200 and 400 dollars/year and a dentist made 2500 $/year.

eetrojan

22nd Jun 2014, 02:32

Objection. Non-responsive. Random. Move to strike. Request sanctions. :)

FlightlessParrot

22nd Jun 2014, 05:06

@simplex1

Once the plane accepted, the US army had the right to multiply it and do whatever it wanted to do with it without any further obligations regarding the inventor/constructor.

Le prix convenu ne s'entend que de l'achat d'un appareil, sans aucune licence de brevet ni monopole de fabrication.

My French is admittedly not good, but I rather think the passage you quoted means the opposite of what you say:

"The agreed price only means/refers to the purchase of a single machine, without any patent licencing or monopoly of construction."

That is, the US Army is only buying an aircraft, not production rights.

You still haven't said why you really don't believe the Wrights, but maybe you could do this: in simple outline, please could you say what you regard as the major milestones in the development of powered flight (in the commonly understood sense) between, say, 1900 and 1910?

simplex1

22nd Jun 2014, 05:49

"Le prix convenu ne s'entend que de l'achat d'un appareil, sans aucune licence de brevet ni monopole de fabrication."
Yes, I have to admit the most likely interpretation of the phrase is that the US army was not entitled to make copies of the plane after buying it.

simplex1

22nd Jun 2014, 06:49

Noyade

22nd Jun 2014, 07:07

According to the "Signal Corps Specification No.486" each bidder was required to furnish a certified cheque representing 10% of the cost price. All the failed bidders had their cheques returned. In the case of the Wrights cheque, being the winner, the $2,500 cheque became a bond and kept until the aircraft was completed and handed over to the corps. Well, that's how I read it.

So, $25,000 plus $5,000 for exceeding the specification with regards to speed...

That's better than pulling teeth Simplex! :)

a prize no greater than the revenue a dentist made in 10 years.

http://i60.tinypic.com/xkn1uo.jpg

FlightlessParrot

22nd Jun 2014, 07:44

@simplex

I do not understand your post #570. I do not know what you are saying, perhaps because of double negatives or irony or something.

If not the Wrights, who did make the first powered flight?
Not that it is terribly important, but it seems to matter to you.

dubbleyew eight

22nd Jun 2014, 11:58

charlie taylor built the wrights engine.

just as an aside piper realised that the old charlie taylor working in their engine assembly plant was THE charlie taylor of the wright's fame.

it is said that they doubled his pay in honour of his achievements.

PPRuNe Pop

22nd Jun 2014, 13:14

Peoples!

I have asked simplex1 - thread starter - to re-size his pics because they are too large and causing the pages to spread laterally. In one case over half a page wider.

We do have a max size that we like you to use, which is 850x850.

So can you please remember to stick to that size. It is PPRuNe's global size so your help will be much appreciated. .

Its a great story - but I hear that some people are getting fed up with adjusting their pages.

Thanks,

PPP

simplex1

22nd Jun 2014, 13:37

All the new pictures will be maxim 850 x 850.

simplex1

22nd Jun 2014, 14:01

"En cas d'insuffisance de l'engin sur un point quelconque de ce programme rigoureux, la caution espèces — 10 % — ne sera pas remboursée."
This time the meaning of the clause is clear: "The 10% deposit will not be reimbursed if the plane fails to meet all the imposed conditions."

eetrojan

22nd Jun 2014, 17:25

I don't understand. Why do you think this information about the 10% deposit is important to the general topic of this thread?

FlightlessParrot

22nd Jun 2014, 22:48

What was the most important milestones in the development of powered flight?

Building a man carrying plane able to leave the ground under its own power.

Stable flight, sustain flight, flying in close circuit are important milestones but they come always after a plane is able to take off.

To be sure they will occupy the most important place in the history of aviation, the Wright brothers claimed all the milestones, major or minor, in the development of powered flight.

They are the first who flew more than 40 min, more than 1 hour, without or with a passenger, more than 1 hour and half, etc. but the rest, their formidable achievements from December 1903, 1904 and 1905 are just tales.

Excuse extensive quoting, but assuming there is no irony here, the claim is:

1. The Wright brothers were in fact very advanced pioneers in the history of flight (and, presumably, their 1908 demos were dinkum/kosher/straight up).

2. They were not the first to achieve powered flight, because powered flight (by stipulative definition) requires the ability to take off without any form of external assistance, including apparently a strong headwind (so, presumably, a PPL would be incomplete unless it included a demonstration of downwind take off).

3. Stronger than 2., and in apparent contradiction to it: the account the Wright brothers gave of their progress to the triumphant demonstration of 1908 is so full of lies and fables as to be radically unreliable.

1. is OK.
2. seems a bit nit-picky to me, but it's a point of view.
3. is radically incoherent with the rest of the argument, and it is hard to see how the Wrights could have got to 1908 without some sort of process of development very much like that in the standard histories (unless, of course, they had secretly bought a French aeroplane). 3. is incoherent because it both accepts the accounts of 1903-5 as describing what happened, but ruling them out because of assisted take off and simultaneously denies the truth of these accounts. In legal pleading I believe you can put an argument "without prejudice", that is "My client says not-A; but in the case that claim doesn't stick, we say "A, but not-B." But that's law logic, not normal, truth-focused logic.

simplex1, have I understood what you are saying?

Haraka

23rd Jun 2014, 05:47

. They were not the first to achieve powered flight, because powered flight (by stipulative definition) requires the ability to take off without any form of external assistance, including apparently a strong headwind (so, presumably, a PPL would be incomplete unless it included a demonstration of downwind take off).

Hi FP
Are we not talking here about the requirement for the aircraft , not the piloting ability?

Your understanding of of "law logic " does seem indeed to be the case , from personal experience.

FlightlessParrot

23rd Jun 2014, 06:32

Hi FP
Are we not talking here about the requirement for the aircraft , not the piloting ability?

Well, yes, you're right, and I should have said certification, but it was intended as a reductio ad absurdum of the claim that 1903 was not fair because the take off was made into a stiff breeze.

Haraka

23rd Jun 2014, 07:07

Hi FP
I think part of the unease with the stiff breeze point is that whilst the Wrights got airborne in 1903 in a stiff breeze , Clement Ader's getting airborne in 1890 was discounted as a flight (IIRC) because his aeroplane was "lifted by a gust of wind" .

As an aside ,if you look at the Dec 14th flight attempt by the Wrights , which was admitted as being down a slope, there is a visible concavity along the length of the launch rail.
There is a similar looking concavity on the famous Dec 17th picture.

simplex1

23rd Jun 2014, 07:28

Claimed flights at Huffman prairie, August 1904, no catapult was used:

"- 13th 1,304’ flight from 195’ track by Wilbur, first flight of 1904 by Wrights to exceed 852 ft. flight made 17 December 1903; front elevator assembly damaged on second flight; 640’ flight by Orville
- 16th 432’ flight from 160’ track by Orville; damage to front elevator assembly
- 22nd Three flights by Wilbur, one of 1,296’ from 160’ track; 1,432’ flight from 160’ track by Orville"
Source: 1904 - TRACK & DERRICK (http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/1904.html)

The Wight brothers took care and also claimed unaided takeoffs just to be protected in case somebody might have accused them of taking off by not using exclusively the on board means of the plane.

A headwind blowing along a flat surface would not have helped the plane to fly (at least in a first approximation) but just to roll a shorter distance on the ground.

Haraka

23rd Jun 2014, 08:07

A headwind blowing along a flat surface would not have helped the plane to fly (at least in a first approximation) but just to roll a shorter distance on the ground.

So Simplex would be appearing to support Ader's claim, remembering that a gust of wind blew the static 'Flyer' off of the ground later in the 17th Dec.

simplex1

23rd Jun 2014, 08:38

"M. Ader a construit un appareil dont les résultats sont inconnus"
Source: L'Aeronaute, pag. 175, August 1891, L'Aéronaute (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57000688/f5)

"Mr. Ader built a plane with unknown results."

So, in Aug. 1891, L'Aeronaute just knew that Ader had built a plane but nothing about what that flying machine really had done.

Haraka

23rd Jun 2014, 09:04

Simplex
There is an old adage:
"Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence"

simplex1

23rd Jun 2014, 09:32

The information that L'Aeronaute had in September 1891 was that a plane, powered by electricity and built by Clement Ader, had flown 300 - 400 m at a height of 20 m, in a perfectly controlled way.

This story is not credible. The batteries of the time could not have powered a man carrying plane. Also the performances of this plane are evidently superior to what the Wright brothers allegedly achieved on Dec. 17, 1903.

L'Aeronaute from Sep. 1891 quoting Le Petit Journal that appeared on July 14:

"Le Petit Journal du 14 juin. L'homme qui vole. M. Ader, le savant électricien, l'auteur du téléphone en usage en France, a inventé un appareil de vol dans lequel l'électricité joue le rôle de moteur. La première ascension a eu lieu dans le parc du château d'un grand financier français, aux environs dé Paris. Un élan vigoureux est tout d'abord imprimé sur un terrain solide, empierré ainsi que le font les acrobates dans l'exercice de la batoude, en bondissant comme sur un tremplin. L'appareil aviateur a parcouru ensuite de 3oo à 400 mètres, à une hauteur de 20 mètres environ, s'élevant, s'abaissant et se dirigeant parfaitement à volonté dans toutes les directions."

Source: L'Aeronaute, pag. 200, September 1891, L'Aéronaute (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5700069p/f6)

Haraka

23rd Jun 2014, 11:24

Simplex you have just demonstrated, by your own quotes, that that L'Aeronaute was, in fact, an inaccurate and contradictory source of reporting in Aug - Sep 1891.

"Mr. Ader built a plane with unknown results."

So , as evidenced by these two submissions, this report can thus be disregarded as an initial statement with any provenance.

Q.E.D.

simplex1

23rd Jun 2014, 17:23

The information published by L'Aeronaute in Aug.-Sep. 1891 highly discredits the flight(s) of Clement Ader who failed to present any evidence to a reliable person, Hureau de Villeneuve

L'Aeronaute (Aug.-Sep. 1891) does not appear at all to treat the subject "Clement Ader and its flying machine" with superficiality. On the contrary, Abel Hureau de Villeneuve (see: Abel Hureau de Villeneuve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel_Hureau_de_Villeneuve) ), a french aeronautical experimenter and editor of L'Aeronaute, visited Ader before June 18, 1891. He did not find him home but latter received a letter from Ader who told him he would be delighted to show his plane to Hureau de Villeneuve in a few days. All this information was reported by Hureau de Villeneuve at a meeting of the French Aerial Navigation Society that took place on June 18, 1891 and was published by L'Aeronaute in its Sep. 1891 number (see 2). At the same meeting, a June 14, 1891 article, which had appeared in "Le Petit Journal", describing a spectacular flight performed by the plane of Ader, was quoted (see 2). During that meeting, Hureau de Villeneuve also mentioned an older plane built by Ader which he had seen in 1876 in a hangar (see 2).

In its Aug. 1891 number, L'Aeronaute published an article titled "About the airplanes" authored by the same Hureau de Villeneuve who wrote there many things about various flying machines mentioning also that: "Mr. Ader built a plane with unknown results" (see 1, pag. 175) and that "A few days ago Ader filled all the journals with the description of his plane" (see 1, pag. 171).

In other words, by Aug. 1891 Hureau de Villeneuve had not seen yet the plane of Ader, despite the fact he had received a promise before June 18, 1891 directly from Ader that this inventor would show his flying machine to Hureau de Villeneuve in a few days.

The case "Clement Ader 1891" is quite similar to that of the Wright brothers in 1903, 1904, 1905. Information about claimed flight(s) was published but when reliable persons manifested their wish to see the planes Ader and the Wright brothers failed to show their flying machines.

(1) "Il y a quelques jours, M. Ader faisait remplir tous les journaux delà description de son appareil improprement nommé oiseau, puisque les ailes ne battent pas, et qui n'est encore qu'un aéroplane. (pag. 171)
...
M. Ader a construit un appareil dont les résultats sont inconnus (pag. 175)"
Source: ABEL HUREAU DE VILLENEUVE, "SUR LES AÉROPLANES", L'Aeronaute, pag. 171-176, read especially pag. 171 and 175, August 1891, L'Aéronaute (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57000688/f5)

(2) "SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE DE NAVIGATION AÉRIENNE

Séance du 18 juin 1891.

Présidence de M. WILFRID DE FONVIELLE, vice-président.

La séance est ouverte.
...
Une carte de M. Clément Ader, adressée à M. Hureau de Villeneuve, qui avait été rendre visite à l'inventeur, absent de chez lui a ce moment. M. Ader préviendra M. Hureau de Villeneuve dans quelques jours, quand son appareil sera monté de nouveau, et se fera un plaisir de le lui montrer.

Le Petit Journal du 14 juin. L'homme qui vole. M. Ader, le savant électricien, l'auteur du téléphone en usage en France, a inventé un appareil de vol dans lequel l'électricité joue le rôle de moteur. La première ascension a eu lieu dans le parc du château d'un grand financier français, aux environs dé Paris. Un élan vigoureux est tout d'abord imprimé sur un terrain solide, empierré ainsi que le font les acrobates dans l'exercice de la batoude, en bondissant comme sur un tremplin. L'appareil aviateur a parcouru ensuite de 3oo à 400 mètres, à une hauteur de 20 mètres environ, s'élevant, s'abaissant et se dirigeant parfaitement à volonté dans toutes les directions.

M. HUREAU DE VILLENEUVE. :— M. Ader a exposé autrefois un oiseau, sorte d'aigle de 10 mètres d'envergure, composé entièrement de plumes naturelles, au nombre de plus de 10.000, que j'ai été voir, en 1873, accompagné de Crocé-Spinelli, à La Villette, dans un hangar où il avait été déposé.
...
Le Secrétaire de la séance,
O. FRION."

"SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE DE NAVIGATION AÉRIENNE, Séance du 18 juin 1891", L'Aeronaute, pag. 198-210, read especially pag. 200, September 1891, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5700069p/f6

simplex1

23rd Jun 2014, 20:49

July 16, 1891 - Clement Ader had not shown yet his plane to reliable witnesses

"SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE DE NAVIGATION AÉRIENNE
Séance du 16 juillet 1891.
Présidence de M. le lieutenant-colonel P. TOUCHE.

La séance est ouverte.
...
M. le SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL. — ... M. Gaston Tissandier a publié, dans les Nouvelles scientifiques de la Nature (numéro du 11 juillet), un article, dont je vais donner lecture, sur l'oiseau de M. Ader, habile électricien, connu déjà par l'invention d'un appareil téléphonique et d'un ingénieux système de rails sans fin.

M. W. DE FONVIELLE. — On a dit que l'expérience de cet oiseau mécanique avait été faite, devant un petit nombre de personnes, dans un parc dépendant d'une propriété de M. Eugène Pereire, aux environs de Paris. Je ne sais pas si c'est vrai.

M. le SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL. — Il est vrai que M. Ader a construit un appareil d'aviation, mais les détails donnés par les journaux, concernant les expériences faites avec cet appareil, sont très peu précis. L'inventeur n'a pas voulu dévoiler le système de moteur qu'il emploie. La structure générale de l'appareil est conforme au dessin paru dans l'Illustration. L'oiseau est construit entièrement en bois creux et en soie. Dans le corps de l'animal sont placés l'homme qui dirige, et le moteur, qui actionne l'hélice. Les ailes ne battent pas. L'inventeur se propose de faire voir son appareil, actuellement démonté, à des hommes de science et à quelques amis. Il a besoin de capitaux pour construire un appareil plus parfait. Mais on ne peut tabler, quand il s'agit d'un appel de fonds, que sur un appareil marchant effectivement, tout au moins sur un modèle fonctionnant.
...
La date, pour l'ouverture de la prochaine session, est fixée au 1er octobre 1891.

Le Secrétaire de la séance,
O. FRION."

Source:
"SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE DE NAVIGATION AÉRIENNE, Séance du 16 juillet 1891", L'Aeronaute, pag. 222-237, read especially pag. 225, October 1891, L'Aéronaute (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5700070b/f7)

Noyade

23rd Jun 2014, 21:38

Another Wright catapult....

http://i62.tinypic.com/z5lp2.jpg

99Cruiser99

23rd Jun 2014, 21:58

Shouldn't the airplane being considered for first flight also be aerodynamically capable of first flight?

In the Ader example I would interpret the "gust of wind" to be strong enough to physically move the weight of the apparatus but if the airplane was not designed such to be "airworthy" then it could never be considered as first.

Regardless of how it gets into the air, the first flight airplane must be capable of sustaining itself in the air once it was there.

joy ride

24th Jun 2014, 07:39

It all depends how you want to define "flight"!

Lighter than air
Heavier than air
Glider or powered
Control by body weight/position
Control by mechanical means
How many/what type of Controls are required to define it as an "Aeroplane/Airplane"?
What is defined as "Controlled" i.e. does a fugoid wave and crash landing count?
What is the exact definition of "Sustained"?

Then you get on to matters which are harder to verify in retrospect, like "Assistance":

Was the take off location level? Who measured it and how accurate was the measurement? Was the measurement witnessed and verified?

Was the landing at the same level?

Could the plane take off and fly in absolutely still air? (i.e. no Wind Assistance)

Was there any manual or mechanical assistance to accelerate the plane?

Next you have to examine the testimonies of participants and their witnesses, and there ARE questions surrounding these on many early flights.

Next you have to define what "Practical" means when describing a plane, and here you can drive yourself mad, because any single definition excludes types which ARE "practical" in certain use; a Land Plane is not "practical" if its engine fails over the ocean! Are modern military jets "Practical" if their flight control computers fail?

This is why the debate continues!

longer ron

24th Jun 2014, 09:29

Well somebody has to be 'officially' first - the trouble is that the Wrights did it before there was an 'official' governing body so there could not have been 'official' observers !

Surely it is a case of 'reasonable doubt' - the Wrights took the trouble to take high quality photos to back up their journals/records,we can argue the semantics forever more about various people but I still maintain that nobody has the proof of flying powered and controlled before the Wrights and some of the other contenders mentioned on this thread could not possibly be considered because there is no photographic evidence and also their machines did not have all the aerodynamic design and flying control surfaces to be able to claim 'controlled'.

As I have said previously even if people are unhappy with the criteria for the 1903 flights - the Wrights 1905 flights were still way ahead of any others !

As to Simplex's accusations about the 1905 flights somehow being 'faked' I must point out that their is a huge fundamental difference between the early Wright a/c and the 1908 model :)

joy ride

24th Jun 2014, 13:16

bral, my first 3 definitions are just there to be inclusive of as many as possible ways of defining human flight, and I know for this debate they are easily defined, qualified and ticked off our list.

The rest are more difficult!

Haraka

24th Jun 2014, 15:31

As I have said previously even if people are unhappy with the criteria for the 1903 flights - the Wrights 1905 flights were still way ahead of any others !

They certainly were instrumental in bringing in roll control to add to pitch and yaw (over an, initially at least, unstable platform) vis a vis employing natural stability.
Then, it can be argued, development converged ,with the Wrights seeking more natural stability whilst others sought to employ more direct roll control post 1908 .
By around 1912 the balance of the two approaches seems to have matured, to finally allow a fairly maneuverable aircraft to comfortably be flown "hands off".

Enter the B.E. 2 :).

99Cruiser99

24th Jun 2014, 16:14

Then, it can be argued, development converged ,with the Wrights seeking more natural stability whilst others sought to employ more direct roll control post 1908 . Haraka

You must admit that it is extremely coincidental that real/meaningful advances by others didn't happen until AFTER the public flights of the Wright Bros. in 1908

Haraka

24th Jun 2014, 16:32

You must admit that it is extremely coincidental that real/meaningful advances by others didn't happen until AFTER the public flights of the Wright Bros. in 1908

:)

So no real/meaningful advances by others before the Wrights' public flights in 1908 then ?

simplex1

24th Jun 2014, 18:41

The alleged Flyer III 1905 and and the May 1908 plane were identical so the 1905 pictures showing Flyer III in flight could have been made after May 1908.

The site Home Page for the Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company and wright-brothers.org (http://www.wright-brothers.org) states that:

"When flying the Flyer III in 1908 with upright seating, the brothers had devised a new control system with three separate levers for wing warping, elevator, and rudder... ."
Source: 1907-1909 Wright Model A (http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Airplanes/Model_A.htm)

In conclusion, the May 1908 plane was the same machine as Flyer III with some minor modifications that could have been reversed anytime for a session of fake 1905 pictures.

If the Wright brothers flew the alleged 1905 plane in 1908, how can we be so sure the 1905 pictures (published for the first time in Sep. 1908) were really made in 1905 and not in 1908?

longer ron

24th Jun 2014, 18:54

But by your accusation - they must have also faked the 1903 flights as well...that was quite different in many respects...:)

99Cruiser99

24th Jun 2014, 18:55

prior to the Wright Bros. first public flights the progress of others were measured in meters and seconds. i.e. on July 4, 1908 Glenn Curtiss flies 1,550 m (5,090 ft) in 1 minute and 42 seconds
and
In January, 1908, Henri Farman making the world's first circular flight of at least 1 km (0,621 mile) in a Voisin 1907 biplane. In a flight of 1 minutes 28 seconds at Issy-les-Moulineaux, France

These two aviatiors are good representation of what was accomplished until then.

longer ron

24th Jun 2014, 19:07

It also had not one but two new control systems. When flying the Flyer III in 1908 with upright seating, the brothers had devised a new control system with three separate levers for wing warping, elevator, and rudder . Orville seemed to have no problem with them, but Will found them confusing. When he crashed the Flyer III on 14 May 1908, he blamed his inexperience with the controls. Later that year when Wilbur assembled a Model A the brothers had shipped to France, he replaced the controls with a system of his own devising. Orville stuck with the original 3-lever system when building the Model A he demonstrated later that year at Fort Myer, but made some improvements when he built his next airplane. The end result was that Wright airplanes manufactured in Europe generally had a "Wilbur" control system, while those made in America had an "Orville." For a short time, you could order Wright airplanes with either Wilbur or Orville controls, your preference.

Both types of controls featured two levers -- one to actuate the elevator and the other to warp the wings and move the rudder. The warp/rudder lever was between the two seats; the elevator levers were to the right of the right seat and the left of the left seat. If a pilot switched seats, he also had to "switch hands.

So Simplex - the 1908 Flyer already had two possible control system layouts :) and you are saying that the Wrights then reverted to the original control system as well - just to take hundreds of fake photographs and even going to the trouble of staging many crashes just to make it look realistic ....
It would make a great film but quite frankly they did not have the time to do all that in 1908,there are not many pilots who will purposely crash their aircraft and I would put money on the Wright brothers not wanting to hurt themselves on purpose LOL

longer ron

24th Jun 2014, 19:25

Simplex posted
The alleged Flyer III 1905 and and the May 1908 plane were identical so the 1905 pictures showing Flyer III in flight could have been made after May 1908.

So if they were identical - what stopped it flying in 1905 Simplex ? :ok:

eetrojan

24th Jun 2014, 19:46

Simplex says "... the 1905 pictures showing Flyer III in flight could have been made after May 1908

Ridiculous.

You contend that the Wrights were merely “gliding” in 1903 and 1904, and still weren’t flying from 1905 to 1908. Through speculation, and aggressive innuendo, you accuse the Wrights of modifying their 1908 flyer to take dozens of fake in-flight photographs so that, for some unspecified reason, they could contend that they were flying in 1905 even though they first began to fly at some unspecified time after 1905 and, apparently, closer to 1908.

Total hogwash.

The Wrights had negotiations from 1905 to 1907 with various governments, but due to their unwillingness to reveal their design in advance, none came to fruition.

In January of 1905, the Wright’s offered to fly for the British government if they would simply agree in advance to pay 500 British pounds per mile covered, and also made a similar proposal to the U.S. government. Neither government accepted. Must have been a "bluff."

On October 9, 1905, the Wrights wrote again to the U.S. Government and offered to demonstrate a flying machine that could fly for “one hundred miles” if the government would agree to compensate them based on performance. The U.S. did not accept. Must have been a "bluff."

Finally, on December 23, 1907, the U.S. government requested bids for a flying machine and offered to compensate the winning bidder based on superior performance. The government requested a $2,500 deposit to obtain only serious bids. Oddly, 41 proposals were received, but only 3 included the required deposit. In January 1908, the Wrights submitted a proposal, including the $2,500, drawings and a photograph of their 1905 flying machine (see proposal below). At public demonstrations from September 1908 to October 1909, the Wrights repeatedly set endurance records and ultimately earned a $30,000 bonus. (full disclosure: they also had a crash that was fatal to the passenger)

Nonetheless, in your view from prior posts, the Wrights were “bluffing” from 1905 to 1908.

Since you say “bluffing,” let’s have fun with a poker analogy.

The Wrights partially turned their cards over in their proposal to the U.S. on January 1908 and, they revealed their entire hand in September 1908 when they began to fly for great distances, on command.

If a poker player implies that he’s got a winning hand when he pushes his chips into the center of the table - but you call him with your weak little hand - and then he kicks your sorry rump with a Royal Flush, was he really “bluffing”?

If you contend that the poker player is a cheater because he did not really have that royal flush when he made his bet, and he made it appear from up his sleeve just in time for the showdown, you’d better have proof, not mere innuendo and speculation.

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_1908_Proposal.jpg

simplex1

24th Jun 2014, 21:25

Another myth: The Wright brothers could not have risked in 1908 or after to fly hundreds of times just to take hundreds of pictures and pretend they were made in 1905

There are about 21 pictures, showing Flyer III in 1905

- Oct. 04, 1905: 9
- Oct. 03, 1905: 1
- Sep 29, 1905: 7
- Sep 7, 1905: 2
- Sep 3, 1905: 1
- June 23, 1905: 1

With just 6 flights (at most) in 1908 or after, the Wright brothers could have got all the alleged 1905 pictures related to Flyer III. Obtaining those about 21 pictures was definitely worth the risk of max. 6 flights.

See: Search Results for "negatives wright brothers 1905" -- 1 - 20 of 31 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/collection/wilbur-and-orville-wright-papers/?q=negatives+wright+brothers+1905&sp=1)

In conclusion, with just a small number of flights done in 1908 and/or after the Wright brothers faked all the 1905 flights.

Flyer III as a real flying machine did not exist in 1905. Flyer III was flown, for the first time, in 1908.

eetrojan

24th Jun 2014, 21:30

Prove it.

.

longer ron

24th Jun 2014, 21:33

longer ron

24th Jun 2014, 21:35

There are about 21 relevant pictures, showing Flyer III in 1905

And the crashes ????? :)

Noyade

24th Jun 2014, 21:39

I thought this was interesting...

Unfortunately, it seems beyond dispute that Orville’s first flight on the 17th will probably continue to be seen to be The First Flight, although I do not believe that it should continue to be so honored. Orville Wright’s significant contributions in concert with Wilbur Wright’s remarkable, almost intuitive, grasp of aeronautical engineering, and their fascinating and roughly equal collaboration are well documented. Orville’s place in aeronautical history is quite secure. However, simply put, with respect to The First Flight, Wilbur is the right Wright and Orville is the wrong Wright.
GUSTAVE WHITEHEAD - What Did He Do ? (http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/flightandflying3.html)

Maybe history should concentrate more of Wilbur's fourth flight?

http://i59.tinypic.com/2qipvno.jpg

longer ron

24th Jun 2014, 21:39

In conclusion, with just a small number of flights done in 1908 and/or after the Wright brothers faked all the 1905 flights.

I have seen some stunning conclusions/statements on the internet over the years - that is the strangest one i have ever seen LOL

One might almost think you were French canadian :)

eetrojan

24th Jun 2014, 21:46

So if they were identical - what stopped it flying in 1905 Simplex ?

It's complete lack of existence, of course.

Don't you see the scheme? They completely designed the 1908 Flyer III in the four weeks between the U.S. government's 23 December 1907 request for proposal, and the submission of their 28 January 1908 letter that included one of their alleged 1905 photos. However, it was really just built during that short period of time in order to take that and all of the other "1905" photos. By labeling them all "1905," it looked like they'd had been in possession of the design for a long time which gave them a leg up on all the other successful bidders. Lucky thing it flew so well since they just whipped it together at the last moment. It's so simple.

99Cruiser99

24th Jun 2014, 21:56

those boys were truly genuis!

simplex1

24th Jun 2014, 22:39

Regarding the proposal addressed to General James Allen and made by the Wright brothers on January 27, 1908 ( see: http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_1908_Proposal.jpg ), where are that included photo of the 1905 Flyer and those drawings the Wright brothers wrote about in their letter?

eetrojan

25th Jun 2014, 02:26

Regarding the proposal addressed to General James Allen and made by the Wright brothers on January 27, 1908, where are that included photo of the 1905 Flyer and those drawings the Wright brothers wrote about in their letter?

I found the Wright proposal of January 27, 1908 in an article entitled "Wright Brothers' 1908 Proposal for a Heavier-Than-Air Flying Machine," on page 32 of an excerpt from the Spring 1999 edition of "Proposal Management," a professional journal of the Association of Proposal Management Professionals (APMP):

http://www.jaymesokolow.com/publications/Wright_Brothers_1908.pdf

Neither the referenced photo from 1905 nor the drawings are included in the article. The authors' bibliography (p.36) may give you some leads if you want to track them down.

longer ron

25th Jun 2014, 06:09

Simplex posted

There are about 21 pictures, showing Flyer III in 1905

The LOC has 300 Wrights images,but the thing is they would have had to fake all those other images from 1903 and 1904 as well - otherwise there would be no 'development' pictures - so we are not just talking 21 images - we are talking about a huge undertaking Simplex

An examination of the Library's collection of Wright glass plate negatives reveals that the brothers' documentation of their Kitty Hawk work began with only a few images of the 1900 glider. There are more photographs of the improved 1901 version, some of which show Wilbur actually gliding. And there are many more images of the larger and more capable 1902 glider--often showing both brothers in gliding or soaring flight. The photographs of the 1903-powered machine include the famous first flight image, but they are far surpassed in quantity by the large number of images that the Wrights took of their flights at Huffman Prairie in Ohio during 1904 and 1905. Digitization allows today's researchers to see technical details and hardware specifics that were formerly unclear.
Image caption following
An example of flood damage to the Wrights' collection of glass plate negatives. [Kitchen of the camp building at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, with neatly arranged wall shelves holding dishes, canned foods, and other provisions] [1902]. Glass negatives from the Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright,
Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress.
LC-W861-5

The Wrights' glass plate negatives show that the brothers used their camera to document other subjects besides their experiments. In fact, only about one-third of the more than three hundred photographs are images of their machines. Nearly two hundred photographs are of people and places, allowing a look at Kitty Hawk and the surrounding area as it was then and is no more: the open, honest faces of the hardworking men of the lifesaving crews; the Tate family up close; the interior and exterior of the brothers' Dayton home; the inside of their hangar/home at Kitty Hawk; and the members of their own family.

Haraka

25th Jun 2014, 07:22

"Yes, but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

simplex1

25th Jun 2014, 11:46

There are only about 12 pictures showing the alleged Flyer II 1904

- May 1904: 1, not in flight
- June or July 1904: 3
- Aug. 5, 1904: 1
- Aug. 13, 1904: 2
- Aug. 16, 1904: 1, not in flight
- Oct. 14, 1904: 1
- Nov. 9, 1904: 1
- Nov. 16, 1904: 1
- unknown month, 1904: 1
Source: http://www.loc.gov/collection/wilbur-and-orville-wright-papers/?q=negatives+wright+brothers+1904

These photos would have required max. 4-5 flights and not a tremendous effort like flying hundreds of times just to obtain fake pictures to present them as evidence for the 1904 flights.

As a note: There are 307 pictures in total (the negatives of the Wright brothers) but less than 45, allegedly made between 1903 and 1905, show Flyer I, II, III flying or resting on the ground.

simplex1

25th Jun 2014, 20:11

I added the source of the 1904 pictures I talked about in my previous post.

Regarding the gliding flights of the Wright brothers that somebody mentioned, there are three gliders, model 1900, 1901 and 1902. Pictures and/or drawings related to them were published before Dec. 1903. There are also witnesses. They glided, there is no doubt about this. If they really performed 700 - 1000 glides between 19 September and 24 October 1902 as they claimed is debatable because 700 divided by 36 days = 20 flights/day which appears to be too much. There are just a few pictures with the gliders of the two brothers in flight. We have to rely on them when they claim they flew hundreds of times in a little more than a month.

eetrojan

25th Jun 2014, 21:04

In the 1903 photo, you see a hill nobody else sees and pronounce it a "glide."

In 2003, the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' first powered flight NASA reissued Arthur G. Renstrom's "chronology" regarding the Wright Brothers and their flights. I believe it was first published in connection with the 75th anniversary, in 1978, but it may have longer roots.

The chronology is very detailed and interesting on its own, but it's also supplemented by a "flight log" that, through the author's careful review of the Wright brothers' lettered diaries (e.g. "Wilbur Wright's Diary A," etc...), provides a year-by-year list of a large number of the glides and powered flights, locations, distances flown, time aloft, and witnesses present.

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph32.pdf

Mr. Renstrom also assembled a set of Wilbur & Orville Wright Pictorial Materials, including actual citations, you can download here:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/wright_bros/WB_Pictorial-Materials.pdf

Note that while you seem to believe that the 300 or so photos in the U.S. Library of Congress are the entire constellation of photos, Mr. Renstrom tells us that nearly three thousand photographs are held by the Wright State University. They were donated to the University by the Wright heirs. Have you looked at their content? Were you aware that the Wright's numbered their glass plate negatives? Have you reviewed the Wrights photo logs?

You claim to study "primary sources", but you are treading on well-worn ground, behind real historians who actually looked at the real "primary sources" when making their conclusions. You also weren't the first Wright cynic, being about 100 years too late.

So, unless you get out of your computer chair and personally review the Wright diaries to gauge their progression, complexity, and overall authenticity, you have no valid basis for accusing the Wrights of fraud.

simplex1

25th Jun 2014, 22:59

There are less than 50 pictures allegedly made between Dec. 14 1903 and Aug. 7, 1908 and connected one way or another to Wright's powered machines. All of them are in the Library of Congress. Those "nearly three thousand photographs held by the Wright State University" are irrelevant, they do not bring new information regarding the claimed powered flights from 1903, 1904 and 1905.

eetrojan

25th Jun 2014, 23:04

Those "nearly three thousand photographs held by the Wright State University" are irrelevant, they do not bring new information regarding the the claimed powered flights from 1903, 1904 and 1905.

Have you seen these allegedly irrelevant photographs?

Have you seen the Wright's diaries and the entries regarding their flights and related photographs?

simplex1

25th Jun 2014, 23:59

Actually there is an interesting photo (see the image) held by the Wright State University which proves the Wright brothers were able or knew persons capable to fake pictures.

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms1_photographs/2699/preview.jpg
Description
Composite photograph of the Milton Wright family. Left to right: Wilbur Wright, Katharine Wright, Susan Koerner Wright, Lorin Wright, Bishop Milton Wright, Reuchlin Wright, and Orville Wright.

Publisher Repository
Special Collections and Archives; Wright State University Libraries
Source: "Composite photograph of the Wright family" (http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms1_photographs/1700/)

99Cruiser99

26th Jun 2014, 00:34

Chanute on the Wright Brothers' Achievement in
Aerial Navigation.
To the Editor of the Scientific American:
Upon my return last evening from a ten days' trip
to New Orleans I received your letter of 19th and
telegram of 29th instant, asking me for a verification
of the statement in the Illustrirte Aeronautische Mit-
teilungen, that I witnessed a flight of about half a
kilometer by the aeroplane machine of the Wright
brothers.
This is quite true. The Wright brothers have for
the past two years been in possession of a successful
flying machine driven by a motor, to my certain knowledge,
and have been gradually perfecting it.
On the 15th of October, 1904 , I witnessed a flight
of 1,377 feet performed in 23 4-5 seconds, starting from
level ground and sweeping over about one-quarter of a
circle, at a speed of 39 miles per hour. The wind
blew at some six miles per hour, but in a diagonal
direction to the initial course. After the machine had
gone some 500 feet and risen some 15 feet, a gust of
wind struck under the right-hand side and raised the
apparatus to an oblique inclination of 15 to 20 degrees.
The operator, who was Orville Wright, endeavored to
recover an even transverse keel, was unable to do so
while turning to the left, and concluded to alight.
This was done in flying before the wind instead of
square against it as usual, and the landing was made
at a speed of 45 to 50 miles an hour. One side of the
machine struck the ground first; it slewed around and
was broken, requiring about one week for repairs.
The operator was in no wise hurt. This was flight
No. 71 of that year (1904), and on the preceding day
Wright brothers had made three flights-one of 4,001
feet for less than a full circuit of the field, one of
4,903 feet covering a full circle, and one of 4.936 feet
over rather more than a full circuit, alighting safely.
The illness of a near relative, who had to be taken
to the seashore, prevented me from being present at
the greatly longer flights of September and October,
1905, but I visited Dayton in November, on my return,
and verified the absolute accuracy of the statements
which the Wrights have since made, over their own
signatures, to the Aerophile of Paris and to the Aero
Club of New York. There is no question in my mind
about the fact that they have solved the problem of
man-flight by dynamic means.
Believing that this solution had a money value, they
have, until recently, preserved whatever secrecy they
could, particularly when those who chanced to learn
of their experiments made inquiries as to the construction
and details of their apparatus; but since the
French papers have published that negotiations were
pending for the use of their machine, they have given
some particulars of their performances. As the first
use will be in war, it is my belief that the various purchasers
will desire to preserve such secrecy as may be
practicable concerning the further developments.
In addition to the great feat of inventing a practical
flying machine the Wright brothers have, in my judgment,
performed another improbable feat by keeping
knowledge of the construction of a machine, which
can only be operated in the open, from the incredu·
lous but Argus-eyed American press.
I send you a page cut from The Car of London,
which may prove of interest. The Aerophile of Paris
for December, 1905, and January, 1906, contains fuller
accounts. O. CHANUTE.
Chicago, Ill., March 31, 1906

FlightlessParrot

26th Jun 2014, 00:37

@simplex1

That sort of composite photograph (which is clearly NOT a "fake") was absolutely standard repertoire for a 19th c. photographer, just as no modern wedding photographer would survive without good knowledge of Photoshop.

You still haven't explained why you believe the Wrights did all this faking--I do NOT mean why, in your opinion, they did it but why you have that opinion, to motivate you to the sort of torturing of the evidence you are undertaking, which would be a bit strong even if done by a lawyer handsomely paid by G. Curtiss or G. Voisin.

It is pretty clear that the Wrights would be convicted in a modern court, to a criminal standard of proof, of having committed aviation between 1903 and 1905. The only interesting questions are about the relative priorities of the various groups (which is really vicarious willy-waving, a lot of the time), and much more interestingly, about how important the knowledge of the achievements (and failures) of the groups were to the rest of them.

I find it illuminating to discover just how meticulous the Wrights were in keeping records. Were any other of the pioneers this careful? You would expect Langley to have been careful, as a professional scientist, but he wasn't a professional experimentalist.

eetrojan

26th Jun 2014, 01:06

Actually there is an interesting photo (see the image) held by the Wright State University which proves the Wright brothers were able or knew persons capable to fake pictures.

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms1_photographs/2699/preview.jpg

Hopefully you're joking. While from a different era, that's not especially subtle :). Here, maybe you'll enjoy this Wright Brothers version of "US Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney is not impressed.":

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_McKayla_Maroney.jpg

eetrojan

26th Jun 2014, 01:29

99Cruiser99 quotes:

Chanute on the Wright Brothers' Achievement in
Aerial Navigation.

To the Editor of the Scientific American:

*** I received your letter *** asking me for a verification
*** that I witnessed a flight of about half a
kilometer by the aeroplane machine of the Wright
brothers.

This is quite true. ***

On the 15th of October, 1904 , I witnessed a flight
of 1,377 feet performed in 23 4-5 seconds, starting from
level ground and sweeping over about one-quarter of a
circle, at a speed of 39 miles per hour. ***
O. CHANUTE.
Chicago, Ill., March 31, 1906

Thanks. Seems pretty clear to me.

However, relative to an earlier letter from Octave Chanute regarding his observation of the same flight, our friend Simplex dismissed him as a credible witness, summarily asserting in post 245 that "It appears Chanute teamed up with the two brothers and he tried to give a plus of credibility to the lies perpetrated by the Wrights."

Noyade

26th Jun 2014, 01:45

Actually there is an interesting photo (see the image) held by the Wright State University which proves the Wright brothers were able or knew persons capable to fake pictures.Damn those cunning and conniving Wrights! Simplex, how are we gonna tell the fake photographs from the real ones mate?! I mean do ya have a plan? Is there some sort of "anti-fake" program we can apply to them?

If you have, here's one to test it out on....

http://i61.tinypic.com/w9taps.jpg

99Cruiser99

26th Jun 2014, 01:48

eetrojan,

Chanute continues his letter with details of three flight conducted the previous day. Do you interpret his comments as being present for those flights also?

99Cruiser99

26th Jun 2014, 02:02

In early September, 1906, Curtiss visited the Wright office and workshop. He was brought there by his friend, Captain Thomas S. Baldwin, a well-known aeronaut, who was giving exhibition flights in Dayton with his dirigible balloon on which he used a motor he had persuaded Curtiss to build for him. It was to make repairs on that motor that Curtiss had come to Dayton.

After that meeting, the four men, Curtiss, Baldwin, and the Wrights, were together much of the time for several days. When in response to questions about their work, the Wrights showed a number of photographs of their flights made at the Huffman pasture during the two previous years. Curtiss seemed much astonished. He remarked that it was the first time he had been able to believe anyone had actually been in the air with a flying-machine.

eetrojan

26th Jun 2014, 02:52

Chanute continues his letter with details of three flight conducted the previous day. Do you interpret his comments as being present for those flights also?

It certainly reads that way, but based on the flight logs assembled by historian Arthur G. Renstrom (link above in #622), it seems that Chanute was an eye witness to the one flight on the 15th of October 1904, but was reporting what he was told as to the three flights from the 14th:

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_Chute_Witness.jpg

simplex1

26th Jun 2014, 03:20

There is no doubt Octave Chanute teamed up with the Wright brothers and this fully explains why he said he had seen an alleged 1904 flight (see: The letter of Octave Chanute to the Scientific American, Volume 94, Number 15, pag. 307, April 14, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1906-04-14/scientific-american-v94-n15-1906-04-14#page/n5/mode/1up )

As can be remarked from the chronological list of events made by Arthur Renstrom, Chanute together with the Wright brothers were involved (in April 1906) in negotiations with a French commission, interested in buying the perfected plane the two brothers claimed they had.

"MARCH 20–APRIL 5. French commission, composed of Arnold Fordyce, the head, Commander Herni Bonel, Capt. Henry J. Régnier, Capt. Jules H. F. Fournier, and attorney Walter V. R. Berry, which was sent by the French War Ministry to negotiate changes in the contract signed with Fordyce, visits the Wrights but fails to reach agreement and option lapses.

MARCH 21. Wright brothers’ report of successful 1905 flights, submitted to Aero Club of America on March 2, is among articles included in cornerstone laid for new club house being built by the Automobile Club of America in New York.

APRIL 2. At request of Wrights, Octave Chanute comes to Dayton from Chicago to be present at conference with French military mission negotiating purchase of airplane.

APRIL 7. Scientific American publishes results of questionnaire sent to 17 eyewitnesses of the longer 1905 Wright flights, along with text of letter from one of them, Charles Webbert.

APRIL 14. Wrights address identical letters to German, Italian, Japanese, and Russian ministers of war, offering to sell airplane. Scientific American publishes letter from Octave Chanute dated March 31, which confirms report of successful flights by Wright brothers. The letter is in response to editor’s letter of March 19 and a telegram dated March 29 to Chanute seeking verification of a statement attributed to him which appeared in the Illustrierte Aeronautische Mitteilungen, February issue.

APRIL 20. Patrick Y. Alexander, on second visit to Dayton (first was December 24, 1902), is dinner guest at Wright home. The Wrights suspected that he came in the interests of the British government to ascertain if they had entered into a contract with the French.

MAY 8. In response to a communication of February 8, Wrights offer their flying machine to the British War Office."

Source: WILBUR & ORVILLE WRIGHT A Reissue of A Chronology Commemorating the Hundredth Anniversary of the BIRTH OF ORVILLE WRIGHT, AUGUST 19, 1871, By Arthur George Renstrom.

eetrojan

26th Jun 2014, 05:19

Let's recap once again. Thanks to Simplex, we have two viable, competing theories to "fully explain" why Chanute told others that he saw the Wright brothers plane fly 500 m on 15 October 1904:

(1) because he wanted to "team up" with the Wrights to meet with the French military representatives and try to sell them an aircraft that didn't work, and as it turns out wouldn't come close to working for several more years, until 1908 it seems (even though they didn't fly at all in 1906 or 07), and then as soon as they got it to work and were now celebrities and firmly in the public eye, sneak back to Ohio to quickly make dozens of fake photos, diary entries (Wilbur's, Orville's, fathers, etc.), and secure the cooperation of numerous false witnesses (family, friends, farmers, journalists, bee keepers, Surfmen, young boys, fathers, children, etc.), all to corroborate that one specific fake flight that Chanute lied about, and amaze everybody by falsely convincing them that that they were flying back in 1903, 1904, and 1905 ... when they really weren't.

or

(2) because he saw it.

Hmmm. If it's ok with you, I don't think #1 fully explains it.

I choose door #2.

simplex1

26th Jun 2014, 05:40

"After that meeting, the four men, Curtiss, Baldwin, and the Wrights, were together much of the time for several days. When in response to questions about their work, the Wrights showed a number of photographs of their flights made at the Huffman pasture during the two previous years. Curtiss seemed much astonished. He remarked that it was the first time he had been able to believe anyone had actually been in the air with a flying-machine."
Source: "The Wright Brothers: A Biography", by Fred Charters Kelly, pag. 288

This story, about the photos showing some flights allegedly presented by the Wright brothers to Curtiss in 1906, was spread by Fred Charters Kelly, a journalist born 21 miles from Dayton and friend of Orville Wright. He wrote a book about the two brothers, full of all kind of tales told by O. Wright. There is no independent confirmation Curtiss really saw those pictures in 1906.

longer ron

26th Jun 2014, 05:57

I like keeping things simple !

Simplex you have never answered my simple question from the previous page...

Simplex posted
Quote:
The alleged Flyer III 1905 and and the May 1908 plane were identical so the 1905 pictures showing Flyer III in flight could have been made after May 1908.

So if they were identical - what stopped it flying in 1905 Simplex ?

simplex1

26th Jun 2014, 07:00

It is quite clear Octave Chanute was ironic and did not believe the Wright brothers had flown a powered plane

"In addition to the great feat of inventing a practical flying machine the Wright brothers have, in my judgment, performed another improbable feat by keeping knowledge of the construction of a machine, which can only be operated in the open, from the incredulous but Argus-eyed American press."
(see: The letter of Octave Chanute to the Scientific American, Volume 94, Number 15, pag. 307, April 14, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi...ge/n5/mode/1up (https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1906-04-14/scientific-american-v94-n15-1906-04-14#page/n5/mode/1up) )

Octave Chanute, in his letter to the Scientific American, talks about two feats equally improbable: (1) creating a practical flying machine and (2) flying it in the open and in the same time succeeding in keeping the flights away from the eyes of the press.

There is only one plausible explanation to (1) and (2). The Wright brothers did not have any flight capable machine in 1903 - 1905 and this is the reason the press missed it.

simplex1

26th Jun 2014, 07:24

Santos Dumond was inspired by the 1902 Wright glider but also the Wright brothers studied the machine of the Brazilian and in 1908, when they really flew, they pushed the canard wing much further in front of the main wings building a relatively stable plane.

http://i.colnect.net/images/t/1108/725/ZAIRE-Le-conquete-de-l-rsquo-air.jpg
Santos Dumond's 14 Bis 1906
The alleged Flyer III 1905 or the Real Flyer Aug. 1908

simplex1

26th Jun 2014, 17:19

Dec. 1906 - The Scientific American seemed to have no doubt that Gustav Whitehead had made short powered flights in 1901 and that the Wright brothers had flown a plane equipped with a motor in 1903

In an article, from Dec 1906, about the Second Exhibition of the Aero Club of America (see the text), Gustav Whitehead is credited with short powered flights in 1901 and the Scientific American seems to have no doubt about the existence of these flights and also about a 1903 flight made by the Wright brothers. An apparently serious journal, teamed up with impostors like Whitehead and the Wright brothers making their stories credible and spreading the word about their alleged flights in the entire world.

"THE SECOND ANNUAL EXHIBITION OF THE AERO CLUB OF AMERICA.
...
The body framework of Gustave Whitehead's latest bat-like aeroplane was shown mounted on pneumatic-tired, ball-bearing wire wheels and containing a 3-cylinder, 2-cycle, air-cooled motor of 15 horse-power direct connected to a 6-foot propeller placed in front. This machine ran along the road at a speed of 25 miles an hour in tests made with it last summer. When held stationary, it produced a thrust of 75 pounds. The engine is a 4 1/4 x 4 of an improved type. Whitehead also exhibited the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels of his former bat machine, with which he made a number of short flights in 1901. He is at present engaged in building a 100-horse-power, 8-cylinder gasoline motor with which to propel his improved machine.
...
The Wright brothers' original motor, with which they made a flight three years ago, was much heavier than the new one. ..."

Source: Scientific American Volume 95, Number 24, pag. 447-449, December 15, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1906-12-15/scientific-american-v95-n24-1906-12-15#page/n5/mode/2up/search/wright

99Cruiser99

26th Jun 2014, 18:34

Can I block posts, emails and messages from specific users?

If there is a particular member that bothers you and you do not want to see their posts, then you can add this members to your 'Ignore List'. There are several ways to do this:

Through your User Control Panel: User CP, Settings & Options, Edit Ignore List. Then, type the name into the empty text box and click 'Okay'. (the above instruction has been modified by me from the forum FAQs)

There is a certain poster here that refuses to engage in a discussion, makes posts that inflame the existing discussion, ignores response, presents information out of context with a biased view and agenda.

The basis of the posters position is:
1. That's a lie
2. You can't prove it
3. Pictures can be faked
4. There was a conspiracy
5. Witnesses are unacceptable

While I find the discussion of early developments in aviation very interesting, I can find no valuable contribution on the subject by this poster. If this behavior continues I for one will use the "Ignore" option.

simplex1

26th Jun 2014, 19:01

Dec. 15, 1906 - The Scientific American showed a picture with a new motor of the Wright brothers presented as being able to power a plane capable to carry a man at 50 miles/hour for 500 mile, 10 hours of flight!!!

The performances of this engine (see the citation) were evidently highly exaggerated as long as the flight endurance record established 4 years latter, after a lot of development regarding the plane engines, was just 8h:12min:45sec on December 18, 1910. It is clear the Wright brothers were simply throwing inflated figures just to appear much ahead of other inventors connected one way or another to powered flying machines.

The engine also appears to have no exceptional feature. It looks like an ordinary automobile motor of that time.

http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/local--files/start/1906-Dec-15-Wright-Brothers-28-30-hp-Engine-Scientific-American.jpg
The 1906 Wright brothers' 4 cylinders vertical engine
Source: Scientific American pag. 449, December 15, 1906

There is another big problem with this engine because the Scientific American said it resembled the previous 16 hp motor in its general contour which is not true. The alleged 1903 had a completely different shape and general aspect. Most likely the 1903 engine has never existed. It was a latter creation of Orville Wright when he rebuilt that mythical Flyer I.
What is certain is that in 1906, the Wright brothers vaguely suggested that the older 1903 motor and the 1906 version were quite similar in their general contour.

Another reason the 1906 engine might have been no more than a pure bluff (a much inferior motor) is the fact that it was displayed with its crankcase opened which revealed all the constructive details to potential competitors that could have copied it in a matter of months at most and fly 10 hours with their planes, leaving the Wright brothers without anybody interested in buying their flying machines.

"The most interesting motor on exhibition was the new 4-cylinder, four-cycle, water-cooled engine built by Messrs. Orville and Wilbur Wright, of Dayton, Ohio, and intended for use on their new aeroplane. The cylinders of this engine are of cast iron and have a bore of 4% inches, while a 4-inch stroke is used. The engine weighs complete only 160 pounds. The cylinders are mounted upon an aluminium crank case, and are jacketed with sheet aluminium. The valves are located in the heads of the cylinders, the exhaust valve only being mechanically operated. The motor is fitted with make-and- break igniters operated by cams on a transverse shaft placed beside the heads of the cylinders, this shaft being driven by bevel gears from the cam shaft of the motor. The time of the spark can be changed by a small handle provided for this purpose. The connecting rods are made of hollow steel tubing. A solid flywheel of light weight is used. The engine looks much heavier than it really is, and one can hardly realize that it weighs but slightly more than 5 pounds to the horse-power. The Wright brothers' original motor, with which they made a flight three years ago, was much heavier than the new one, its weight complete being about 250 pounds. The valves were arranged in chambers upon the end of pipes that screwed into the cylinder heads. The valve chambers were not water-cooled, and it is probably due to this fact that there was a sudden loss of power after the motor had been run half a minute. The former motor developed but 16 horse-power. It was a 4-cylinder motor, water-cooled, and resembled the present motor in general contour. When used in the aeroplane, it is located in a horizontal position. The new motor
is sufficiently powerful to drive an aeroplane carrying two men a distance of 200 miles at 45' miles an hour, or one man can be carried 500 miles at 50 miles an hour."
Source: Source: Scientific American Volume 95, Number 24, pag. 447-449, December 15, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1906-12-15/scientific-american-v95-n24-1906-12-15#page/n7/mode/2up/search/wright

As a remark, the same Dec. 15, 1906 Scientific American shows a Curtiss 8 cylinder aviation V-Motor developed starting from the initial 2 cylinder V motors for motorbikes. At 30 hp for 125 pounds (4.16 pounds/hp) it was clearly superior to the 28-30 hp at 160 pounds (5.33 -5.71 pounds/hp) engine displayed by the Wright brothers.
http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/local--files/start/1906-Dec-15-Curtiss-30-hp-Whitehead-6-hp-Engine-Scientific-American.jpg
The 1906 Curtiss 8 Cylinders 30 hp V-Motor and the Whitehead 2 cylinders 6 hp engine
Source: Scientific American pag. 449, December 15, 1906

It is quite interesting that the engine of Whitehead (displayed together with that of Curtiss and the Wright brothers at THE SECOND ANNUAL EXHIBITION OF THE AERO CLUB OF AMERICA, 1906) had a weight per power ratio equal to 5.83 pounds/hp, roughly identical to that of Wright brothers' motor. In other words, four 2-cylinder motors built by Whitehead would have weighted as much as a Wright engine giving also the same total power.
Sure, the claims of Whitehead and the two brothers can not be trusted so we might never know how much their engines, presented at that 1906 exhibition, really weighted and how much power they could deliver.

Brian Abraham

27th Jun 2014, 02:56

The engine also appears to have no exceptional featureMy God simplex you're full of it. Their engines incorporated a number, for that time period, of unique features.

The Wright engines

The Project Gutenberg e-Book of The Wright Brothers' Engines and their Design; Author: Leonard S. Hobbs. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38739/38739-h/38739-h.htm)

simplex1

27th Jun 2014, 04:11

Those unique features belonged to the Manley-Balzer engine.
The text is a bit misleading but if you read it twice you will notice that it prizes, in fact, Manley's motor.

"Manly's task was to obtain what was for the time an inordinately light engine and, although the originally specified power was considerably greater than that of the Wrights, it was still reasonable even though Manly himself apparently increased it on the assumption that Langley would need more power than he thought. The cost and time required were very much greater than the Wrights expended. He ended up with an engine of extraordinary performance for its time, containing many features utilized in much later important service engines. His weight per horsepower was not improved upon for many years."
Source: The Wright Brothers' Engines and Their Design, by Leonard S. Hobbs. The Project Gutenberg e-Book of The Wright Brothers' Engines and their Design; Author: Leonard S. Hobbs. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38739/38739-h/38739-h.htm)

eetrojan

27th Jun 2014, 07:31

As usual, you miss the point while trying to support your own. Here are some other quotes the same author, Leonard S. Hobbs, in The Wright Brothers' Engines and Their Design:

The Wrights no doubt realized that a specially designed, relatively high performance engine in very limited hand-built quantities would not only be an expensive purchased article but would also take considerable time to build, even under the most favorable circumstances.

***

The situations of Manly and the Wrights differed, however, in that whereas the Wrights' objective was certainly a technical performance considerably above the existing average, Manly's goal was that of something so far beyond this average as to have been considered by many impossible.

***

Overall, the Wright engines performed well, and in every case met or exceeded the existing requirements. Even though aircraft engines then were simpler than they became later and the design-development time much shorter, their performance stands as remarkable. As a result, the Wrights never lacked for a suitable powerplant despite the rapid growth in airplane size and performance, and the continual demand for increased power and endurance.

The Wrights didn't want to wait to buy the world's best engine, didn’t try to build the world's best engine, and didn't try to obtain any engine patents.

I for the life of me cannot figure out why the hell you keep harping on the Wright engine as not being the best. The Wrights wanted fast delivery (built it themselves), smooth operation, and sufficient power. In essence, they understood that perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Wright flyer + Wright/Taylor engine >>> Langley “Aerodrome” + Manly engine

Haraka

27th Jun 2014, 16:21

99Cruiser99 ( 11 posts)
While I find the discussion of early developments in aviation very interesting, I can find no valuable contribution on the subject by this poster. If this behavior continues I for one will use the "Ignore" option.

The poster being the OP.

Cheerio :)

Haraka

27th Jun 2014, 17:19

Cheerio brai as well then
:)
I'm sure the rest of us can manage to continue this discussion without you guys .
Thanks for your input.

Noyade

27th Jun 2014, 23:08

Simplex.

which proves the Wright brothers were able or knew persons capable to fake pictures.Can you please post some of the Flyer photos which you believe are fake, doctored, re-touched or whatever they did back then. And maybe point out on the photo where and why you believe they're fake - you know, the shadow, perspective, background, that sorta thing.

Brian Abraham

28th Jun 2014, 03:03

Noyade, I believe he is busy helping these people out.After taking off conventionally, the B-2 has the option of switching to anti-gravity mode. It has been said that using it's anti-gravitic technology, the B-2 can fly around the world without refueling.

The F-117 stealth fighter also has hybrid propulsion and lift technologies which may be electro-gravitic systems. Utilizing conventional thrust for public take-offs and landings, switching to anti-gravity mode would allow an extended cruising range, lightning fast maneuverability, and for shrouding the airframe in invisibility (by having its local counter-gravity field bend light around the airframe)

AntiGravity Tech in B2 - Defense Technology & Military Forum (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/antigravity-tech-b2-1335/)

longer ron

28th Jun 2014, 05:09

I doubt many people on here who actually know anything about aircraft design/aerodynamics were ever 'taken in' by the simplex bullshirt,some weeks ago a friend and i had noticed that 'simplex' did not post in the usual pattern,and that either 'simplex' never sleeps or there is more than 1 simplex.
Funnily enough my admiration for the Wrights achievements has increased since the start of this thread because I have had to research them to answer the rambling/bizarre cr@p that 'simplex' has been posting.
The more observant will have seen that I never took any of it seriously anyway.

So my friend has broken down some of 'his' posting times as follows.....

1am - 6 posts * 2am - 1 post ( must be sleeping hour lol) * 3am - 3 posts * 4am - 4 posts * 5am - 6 posts * 6am - 7 posts *

7am - 4 posts * 8am - 13 posts * 9am- 3 posts * 10am - 6 posts * 11am - 3 posts * 12midday - 5 posts *

1pm - 2 posts * 2pm - 6 posts * 3pm - 5 posts * 4pm - 6 posts * 5pm - 11 posts * 6pm - 11 posts * 7pm - 4 posts *

8pm - 7 posts * 9pm - 8 posts * 10pm - 5 posts * 11pm - 7 posts * Midnight - 10 posts *

longer ron

28th Jun 2014, 05:13

I'm sure the rest of us can manage to continue this discussion without you guys .

Actually Haraka most people have already left the 'discussion' LOL

I will miss this thread as it has been my entertainment for weeks :ok:

longer ron

28th Jun 2014, 05:51

Youtube 2013 Interview with Jackson of Janes AWA and Brown the 'historian' - who obviously believes what he reads in newspapers LOL.
I watched this some weeks ago and came to the conclusion that Jackson never said anything stronger than 'could have' in support of the GW revisionists :)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqbSNiEBJ85g&ei=-lWuU4HXJYyV7AbcuoAg&usg=AFQjCNEfolYPepq8uZwkhNLEQg-CLbwVUw&sig2=A40Z9e05D5t8tevVB8U3Ag

Haraka

28th Jun 2014, 05:55

Can you please post some of the Flyer photos which you believe are fake, doctored, re-touched or whatever they did back then. And maybe point out on the photo where and why you believe they're fake - you know, the shadow, perspective, background, that sorta thing.

Now that would be using live ammunition!

longer ron

Like yourself , I've learned a lot during the rambling course of this thread and not just about the Wrights.
Joy ride I think has summed it up pretty well as we've been going along.

Something of substance might yet turn up ...........:)

FlightlessParrot

28th Jun 2014, 05:56

@longer ron (not forgetting your brother, shorter ron)
Funnily enough my admiration for the Wrights achievements has increased since the start of this thread because I have had to research them to answer the rambling/bizarre cr@p that 'simplex' has been posting.

Me too. And I must say that, although I think we have been trolled, I have also learned a lot about the early history of powered flight, and the extent to which there was an inevitability about eventual success.

Did any of the other pioneers keep such meticulous records as the Wrights? I've asked this before, but it might have seemed to have been directed at OP.

I assume that a lot of the pioneers favoured a canard elevator in part because their machines were marginal. With a canard, if you want to climb, the elevator produces increased lift (if I have got this right, and thinking of early 20th c. circumstances, when they couldn't increase power at will). This looks a lot more logical and efficient than the alternative, and presumably indicates that even the Wrights weren't at first fully aware of how critical controllability, and positive stability, were for successful flight. Does this seem plausible?

longer ron

28th Jun 2014, 06:22

@longer ron (not forgetting your brother, shorter ron)

It aint longer and my name is not ron :)

Did any of the other pioneers keep such meticulous records as the Wrights? I've asked this before, but it might have seemed to have been directed at OP.

I do not know the answer to that question but the Lilienthal brothers were very influential and left an impressive archive of photos and (being german) presumably kept meticulous records of their wing camber research !

The work with gliders in Germany by the Lilienthal brothers, Otto and Gustav (1849-1933), was, arguably, the most important aerial effort prior to that of the Wright brothers, Wilbur and Orville. Otto Lilienthal's numerous flights, over 2,000 in number, demonstrated beyond question that unpowered human flight was possible, and that total control of an aerial device while aloft was within reach.

rgds LR

joy ride

28th Jun 2014, 08:05

Despite Simplex's unique style of persuasion I have found this thread extremely interesting, and my respect for the Wrights has actually increased.

Partly this is because, as a self-employed craftsman, I find it amazing that from the proceeds of a bicycle business they managed to find so much spare time and so much money to purchase all the materials and tools needed, cameras, glass plates and film, chemicals etc.. We are used to the cheap prices of an international consumer market, many of their purchases would have been expensive, so hats off to them!

It seems to me that there was a lot of research and development long before the Wrights, with France being particularly credit-worthy in the development of "the plane", with UK (RAeS) and Germany also playing a huge part.

This led to the Lillienthal's making what I consider to be the most important individual steps in human flight, which showed the world that it really could be done.

Others around the world came up with control mechanisms and other refinements, and added knowledge and experience.

The next step was to add a motor. Everyone knew that steam engines had power-to-weight and efficiency problems and would have limited usefulness (with certain exceptions like Bessler).

When the Internal Combustion engine was developed (by several people and in several stages) it was clearly the right motor to achieve flight and it was obvious that flight would happen in the first decade of the 20th Century. The Wrights were not the only ones to see the potential. Even IC engines were not invented in a single "stroke"! For instance before Diesel invented the Diesel engine, Stuart invented the Diesel engine! Diesel refined Stuart's design and did not need pre-heating, so he has been universally credited as the inventor, but to me is is only part of the story; don't get me started on Mercedes Benz's dishonest claim to have "invented the car"!

My problem with the Wrights is that their supporters have tended to single them out for unquestioning and ill-informed adulation to the exclusion of other important pioneers. For instance, that University of Houston article (posted earlier) stating that the WBs certainly did "invent the airplane" is just plain WRONG ! Truly shocking that a University can publish a paper without even the most basic research into who invented the various parts of the aeroplane. This is the sort of simplistic hogwash that really annoys me, no matter who or where it comes from!

This obsession with "The First" is misguided and does not represent the reality of what was a continuous international process of development, invention, research and experimentation. Yes, someone was the first and probably it was the Wrights, but they were part of a process, not the whole process.

longer ron

28th Jun 2014, 08:28

Despite Simplex's unique style of persuasion I have found this thread extremely interesting, and my respect for the Wrights has actually increased.

Yes shame 'simplex' would not get into any 'discussion' but at least 'he' made some of us look more 'normal' LOL

I have always viewed the 'How we invented the Airplane' title as purely a commercial decision - a book entitled 'How we did not invent the Airplane' probably would not have sold so well :) - he was a businessman !

As I have said previously - the Wrights did not claim to be first at anything but they certainly were craftsmen and had to build most components etc from scratch at that time,the prop build was really impressive !

Haraka

28th Jun 2014, 09:09

FlightlessParrot

28th Jun 2014, 12:11

As a result of this thread, I am rereading some of my Wright material , including a series of articles by Dr. Richard P. Hallion.
I rather like his comment on the Wrights having " Taught the World to fly" as being perhaps better phrased as having "Taught the World to fly better".

Consensus emerges on the Wrights, I think, as important pioneers, and, as it happens, probably the first, but by no means the inventers.

I ask, how much did they actual teach the other pioneers? Obviously, they impressed in France, but were later developments dependent on knowledge gained by the Wrights, or were they rather a stimulus to the others to do better?

There are people here who could answer this question, I'm sure: it is a genuine question.

Haraka

28th Jun 2014, 14:23

FP
I think that the Wrights certainly brought in direct roll control as a demonstrable contribution to controlled flight. Indeed their aircraft were initially unstable in all three axes, requiring continuous control input all round and consequently making them very demanding to fly ( in contrast to the established "European" stable aircraft approach).
I see an exchange of knowledge in 1908 following Wilbur's visit to France. Voisin/Farman type aircraft began to adopt direct roll control, whilst the Wrights for their part moved to the more European influenced "Headless " Wright aircraft with increased natural lateral stability ( dihedral ), the front elevator moved to the rear and the Centre of Gravity brought forward. Also the Wrights finally adopted a wheeled undercarriage, initially wheels on the skids then a "European " type assembly - all moves toward a more stable and practicable aircraft.
Already though ,from 1909 , the Antoinette and other directly driven tractor propellered aircraft, featuring ailerons, a control column, a covered fuselage, separate tailplane and elevator, were demonstrating successful configurations that were pointing the way to the future.
Indeed the final Wright aircraft (the "L") , incorporated all of these "European" features when it appeared in 1916 , but by then was hopelessly far behind aircraft in squadron service in Europe and failed to go in to production.

simplex1

28th Jun 2014, 15:53

Email sent to Tom Crouch (senior curator, Aeronautics Department, National Air and Space Museum. A Smithsonian employee since 1974 and author of books and articles about the Wright brothers, see: Dr. Tom Crouch | National Air and Space Museum (http://airandspace.si.edu/staff/tom-crouch) ) and the answer received from him.

"Dear sir,

There is a clear slope, going down in front of the 1903 Wright Flyer, that can be clearly noticed on the large size digitized copy (TIFF 17.2 MB) of the original negative ( [First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina] (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652085/) ). The fact the plane had been brought up on a hill, before the picture was taken, was confirmed also, by the witness who took the photo, in a 1933 letter to one of his friends.

This picture together with the 1933 letter of John T. Daniels and the 1951 declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater might prove the two brothers just made powered assisted glides on december 17, 1903.

See also the topic (it can be found using Google) The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew a powered plane, for the first time, in 1908, http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a.html
June 26, 2014"

Answer received from Tom Crouch:

Crouch Tom, [email protected], Jun 26

"You are wrong. They flew from the sand flats. Drinkwater was not there that morning. Look at the other two pictures taken that morning. This is so well documented that it is not worth arguing about.

Tom Crouch

Sent from my iPhone"

Basically, Tom Crouch is in denial!

Haraka

28th Jun 2014, 16:17

I think it was good of him to reply at all.

eetrojan

28th Jun 2014, 16:37

...This is so well documented that it is not worth arguing about.

I suppose that it's open to interpretation (cough...), but I think he politely called you an idiot.

simplex1

28th Jun 2014, 16:50

Tom Crouch replies to the majority of people. Try to send him an email and you will get an answer from him.

Honestly I would have preferred him to study that picture ([First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina] (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652085/)) carefully and think about it instead of quickly answering, directly from his mobile phone (no urgent answer was needed), "You are wrong".

The picture of the "first flight" is not something that can be analyzed on the screen of a mobile phone.

Tom Crouch takes good money from the government of US, he earns a salary without doing anything excepting acting as the official lawyer of the Wright brothers. I am also not convinced Tom Crouch really believes the Wright brothers flew a powered plane in 1903, 1904 and 1905. He acts just as a well paid propagandist.

The story of the Wright brothers has so many holes, detectable in (all 1903 - 1907) primary sources, like: people seeing the Wright flyer flapping, witnesses declaring the plane was pushed by hand to help it take off, the plane displayed in newspapers with a propeller underneath, huge stability problems discovered by Fred Culick, etc., that no serious researcher, historian can draw the conclusion the two brothers flew a plane before 1908.

eetrojan

28th Jun 2014, 17:18

Laughable.

simplex1

28th Jun 2014, 19:50

I assume that a lot of the pioneers favoured a canard elevator in part because their machines were marginal. With a canard, if you want to climb, the elevator produces increased lift (if I have got this right, and thinking of early 20th c. circumstances, when they couldn't increase power at will). This looks a lot more logical and efficient than the alternative, and presumably indicates that even the Wrights weren't at first fully aware of how critical controllability, and positive stability, were for successful flight. Does this seem plausible?Canard configuration is bad and should be avoided
It is not just a simple coincidence that the majority of planes do not have canard wings. Some early inventors and plane builders adopted in 1906, 1907 the canard wings likely under the influence of the noise made by the wright brothers regarding their 1902 glider. Most of them quickly dropped either the canard configuration or the pusher propeller.
Santos-Dumont renounced the canard wings in the beginning of 1907, Bleriot dropped them in spring 1907, even the Voisin brothers finally gave up canards.

Important disadvantages of canard wings:

- "if the canard is controllable and provides pitch control, it cannot be allowed to stall before the wing stalls. In order to accomplish this, normally the travel of the control surface is limited. This noticeably reduces effectiveness in the landing flare, requiring higher approach airspeeds and longer landing distances."
Source: Effect of CG (http://www.westwingsinc.com/cgeffect.htm) , see also the pictures.

- "Finally, and perhaps most importantly, canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. By choosing a canard which is somewhat too big or too small the aircraft performance can be severely affected. It is easy to make a very bad canard design."
Source: Canard Advantages and Disadvantages (http://www.desktop.aero/appliedaero/configuration/canardProCon.html)

FlightlessParrot

28th Jun 2014, 21:55

Still here, simplex1?

I should, perhaps, have said that the canard looked logical at first, despite the fact that a conventional tail-plane was the way forward, as we now know. They had to find that out, but a canard must have looked appealing for essentially independent workers like the Wrights and Santos Dumont both to choose it.

18-Wheeler

28th Jun 2014, 22:11

99Cruiser99 you are correct. Time to block.

First blocking for me on Pprune.

Oh my this thread looks so much better now without Simplex1, thanks.

Noyade

28th Jun 2014, 23:24

Honestly I would have preferred him to study that picture ([First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina] (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652085/)) carefully and think about it instead of quickly answering, directly from his mobile phone (no urgent answer was needed), "You are wrong"Mate! It's a conspiracy - what did you expect? He was never going to agree with you.

But I am looking closely at the photos....

Now, with that famous one - do you believe the wings are parallel to the shoreline? Is that in fact the shoreline? Wave crests? A ship on the horizon?

http://i57.tinypic.com/16c2mbl.jpg

simplex1

28th Jun 2014, 23:31

Book "Aérostation, aviation", (Paris), 1914. A lot of tractor monoplanes and not so many canards.

see: Max de Nansouty, "Aérostation, aviation", Boivin (Paris), 1914,

- 1. Aérostation, aviation, par Max de Nansouty,... (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6574482t/f721.planchecontact)
- 2. Aérostation, aviation, par Max de Nansouty,... (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6574482t/f759.image)

Noyade

28th Jun 2014, 23:50

Brian posted some good photos of the site a ways back and I'm trying to sort out the flight paths with this image. The flights followed the red line, not the green? Where did that 852ft flight end up? Must have been close to the water?

Look at the other two pictures taken that morningWhich two photographs is Tom referring to Simplex?

http://i61.tinypic.com/10psoib.jpg

Noyade

29th Jun 2014, 00:01

And go back to your post #530...

There is a picture, allegedly made on Aug. 13, 1904, showing four people, one piloting the plane (Wilbur Wright), the other at some distance apparently running behind the plane and two people in the background in a vehicle drawn by one horse.There's a fifth person (or Bigfoot) standing next to a tree....

http://i62.tinypic.com/2celu1g.jpg

simplex1

29th Jun 2014, 00:26

The picture ([First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina] (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652085/)) does not appear show too much shoreline and what seems to be waves is in reality small sand dunes, but again you have to study the entire large size 17.2 MB TIFF and not the small formats or just cropped images because they can be misleading.

What I see on the large format picture is, from left to right,: (1) large distant sand dunes, the horizon line is not visible, (2) a zone that appears to end at the horizon, a lot of small sand dunes, like waves, can be seen stretching from relatively close to the foot of the hill to the horizon line, there can be water in the distance, it is not clear, (3) an area of sand that ends in a long dune situated far away close to the horizon.

That thing that looks like a possible ship on smaller pictures is in fact placed on that long sand dune (3) so, most likely, it is a building or a tree.

The Atlantic ocean would have been about 2.5 km away (see: http://goo.gl/maps/d76bt ) supposing the place, where the photo was made, was correctly located many years after the event and the two brothers flew in the direction indicated by the alley.

simplex1

29th Jun 2014, 01:55

Harry P. Moore, a journalist, talked by phone with one of the Life Savers and he was told that the Wright brothers' machine, piloted by Orville, "after it glided down a hill on a wooden track, it went up"

One of the Life Savers, it is not clear if he was John T. Daniels, told by phone Harry P. Moore, on Dec. 17, 1903, that the plane went up after going down a hill on a wooden track. So it is clear the plane was aided by gravity to leave the ground, the airplane being launched using an incline.

However, despite talking by phone with one of the witnesses, finally Harry Moore ended up by writing an article titled: "Flying machine soars 3 miles in teeth of high wind over sand hills and waves at Kitty Hawk on Carolina coast" that appeared on the Virginian-Pilot on the December 18, 1903 and evidently was a clear lie.
One thing is sure, the 1933 letter of John T. Daniels and the 1951 declarations of Harry P. Moore, both, placed the Wrights' plane on a hill before its first take off on Dec. 17, 1903.

"Harry P. Moore, a 19-year old freelance cub reporter, was sitting in a Norfolk restaurant when he overheard a man from the Outer Banks say that “two crazy loons” were in Kitty Hawk, attempting to fly. The man—whom Moore would later describe as garrulous—told Moore that he was a member of the U.S. Life-Saving Service and had come to Norfolk to buy a barrel of oysters for the inventors: “They wanted to get some Lynnhaven Oysters before they die, and I came [here] to get them,” he explained. At the time, Moore was trying to get a full time job with the Virginian-Pilot. He had written a number of stories about the Life-Saving Service along the Outer Banks, and enjoyed good relations with many of the men who worked for the U.S. government agency, which grew out of private and local humanitarian efforts to save the lives of shipwrecked mariners and passengers. The Life-Saving Service began in 1848 and was merged into the U.S. Coast Guard in 1915.
Following up on the Lynnhaven oyster tip, Moore made several visits to Kitty Hawk in the ensuing months. William “Will” O. Dough and John T. Daniels, both attached to the Kitty Hawk Life-Saving Station, introduced Moore to the Wright brothers as their friend. The Wrights trusted the men from the Life-Saving Service, and though they were intent on secrecy, they did not suspect he was a newsman. Moore actually observed several glider flights and was able to write a description of the Wright Flyer from observing it in its hanger. He was also able to get a commitment from Dough and Daniels, who agreed “to keep him advised about developments, and if the Wrights did succeed in flying they were to telegraph me at Norfolk,” Moore told the Charlotte Observer in 1951.
<i>The Life-Saving Service men kept their word. Moore said that he got a telegraph “less than twenty minutes after the first flight was made.” The telegrapher at the Norfolk weather bureau, Charles C. Grant, delivered the message in person to Moore at his home in Norfolk <b>at about 11:4

eetrojan

29th Jun 2014, 01:58

Dear Mr. Simplex -

Here's a USGS topographical map of the area with 5 foot contour intervals (click on it for a larger version). I made it just for you.

As you can see, all of the Dec. 17, 1903 flights, including the longest 852 foot flight shown by the red arrow, started and ended in the middle of a very large planar area located between the 10' and 5' contour lines.

I accept your apology.

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_Topo_Small.jpg (http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_Topo_Big.jpg)

Noyade

29th Jun 2014, 03:23

Thanks for the map! :)

So once away from that hill, there's not much of an incline at all. Interestingly, I thought they headed straight for the ocean, but it's at an angle...

Cheers.

eetrojan

29th Jun 2014, 03:30

Now that you mention it, the long rectangle is the current runway so that appears to confirm the prevailing winds.

Brian Abraham

29th Jun 2014, 03:41

So it is clear the plane was aided by gravity to leave the ground, the airplane being launched using an incline.eetrojan, I think that we can expect simplex to now tell us that the hill has been moved. That's the only way they could have launched on the 17th using an incline.

simplex1

29th Jun 2014, 04:46

The 1988 topographical map of the area where the Wright brothers allegedly flew in Dec. 1903 is irrelevant because sand dunes move in time.

Even in 1928, when the location was found based on all kind of quite dubious data (see the quoted text), the landscape was significantly different of what was there in 1903. Supposing the Wright brothers had recorded the precise latitude and longitude coordinates of their flights, after 25 years the slope where they took off from could have transformed in a flat stretch of sand.

Also the National Aeronautical Association would not have had any interest to establish the location, where the claimed first flight started, on a hill. It is self evident this organization did everything possible to move the so called historical flight over flat terrain.

"In 1928, The National Aeronautical Association wanted to suitably mark the spot where Orville Wright first began to move along the ground when the first flight was made.

The Association asked Bill Tate to assemble the eyewitnesses to the event for the purpose of agreeing and marking the spot.

The eyewitnesses were:
Adam Etheridge, John Daniels, and Will Dough from the local lifesaving station, and W.C. Brinkley, a local lumber buyer from Manteo, and Johnny Moore, a young man who lived with his mother in a shack in Nags Head woods.
Tate was able to find Dough, Etheridge, and Moore to perform the task. Daniels and Orville Wright were not able to attend. The others were deceased.

The task was not easy because the landscape had significantly changed since 1903. Getting the correct spot was important because the association was planning to erect a monument at the spot and they did not want any future disputes over the location.

Here are the exact words (misspellings and all) of their finding:

“Beginning with the site of the building which housed the Wrights’ plane at the time, distinctly remembering the wind direction at the time, and that the track was laid directly in the wind, collaborating our memory on these facts by the records of the Weather Bureau, remembering that we helped bring the machine from the building and placed it on the track, referring to distances laid down in feet in Orville Wrights article, “How We made our first flight.”
“We proceeded to agree upon the spot, and we individually and collectively state without the least mental reservation, that the spot we located is as near correct as it is humanly possible to be with the data in hand to work from after a lapse of twenty five years. We marked the spot with a copper pipe driven into the ground.”
In 1932 at this location, The American Aeronautical Association placed a large granite boulder containing a commemorative plaque consisting of the pictures of Orville and Wilbur and a statement that reads, “THEY TAUGHT US TO FLY.”"

Source: Finding the Location of the First Flight in 1928 (http://wrightstories.com/finding-the-location-of-the-first-flight-in-1928/)

eetrojan

29th Jun 2014, 05:43

The Dec. 17, 1903 flight was witnessed, among others, by Adam Etheridge, John Daniels, and Will Dough.

Simplex, you reference "The Wright Stories" website regarding how, in 1928, Etheridge, Daniels, and Dough identified the spot from where the first flight was made. However, you focus on language like "the task was not easy" and the "landscape had significantly changed" to suggest that it was an endeavor entirely without merit.

The more important parts of the quote are emphasized here, by me:

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

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

My dear Simplex, the building is still there. Think about it. It served as a monument in time - as an unyielding reference point. And, starting from the building, they jointly agreed upon their memories of the launch spot being at a location that is about 80 feet west of the building. Yes, feet.

Yet you seem to have concocted some "tinfoil hat" scenario where they were wandering mindlessly over an area of several square miles, while avoiding nearby sand dunes to do their part for the conspiracy.

The launch spot they identified is inherently accurate to within several feet.

Also, please note that while the launch spot is about 80 feet away from the building, the building is about 1,500 feet away from the BASE of kill devil hill.

Google Earth is your friend.

eetrojan

29th Jun 2014, 06:10

Simplex, please at least try to be consistent.

While nobody else can see what you see, you have repeatedly contended that the famous 1903 photo “clearly” shows a slope in front of the plane such that it was aided by land that dropped away as it moved forward.

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_1903-12-17.jpg

Channeling Inspector Clouseau, and based on your detective-like "observation" of this slope, you contend that its "clear" that the Flyer merely glided. There are probably dozens of examples, but the following two should suffice:

In Post 169, you contended that “the slope in front of the plane revealed itself in its entire splendor.”
In post 666, you emailed the Smithsonian’s aeronautical curator, Tom Crouch, and asserted the same fantasy-based contention that “[t]here is a clear slope, going down in front of the 1903 Wright Flyer…” (emphasis original). He bluntly replied, “You are wrong.”

You have repeatedly contended that the land mass on the whole was sloping down. Now - faced with the fact that the 2013 topo map shows that the area is flat as a pancake, you grasp at straws, suggesting that between 1903 and 1928, when the witnesses identified the launch spot, that “the slope where they took off from could have transformed in a flat stretch of sand.” Hogwash.

First, you haven't been contending that the Wright's stood on an ethereal pimple of a sand dune. You contended there was a "slope," a permanent geographic feature.

Second, it was flat in the 1903 picture above, and it's flat now.

Here is another USGS topo for your viewing pleasure. This one is from 1940, i.e. from over 60 years ago. Notice that the flat topography from 2013 was still flat in 1940 and, it follows, was also flat in 1903.

You take care now.

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_Topo_1940_Small.jpg (http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_Topo_1940_Big.jpg)

Haraka

29th Jun 2014, 06:45

You have to differentiate between utilising "canard " elevators and canard configuration i.e. "canards" ,in which the canard wing normally provides an element of total lift and there is no horizontal stabilising or otherwise surface to the rear of the main wing (i.e. as in the so called "three surface" configuration).
As far as I know the Voisin bothers only built one series of canard winged aircraft, as late as around 1910, predominantly as seaplanes.
Contrary to Simplex1's assertion, Maxim's aircraft was not a canard.

longer ron

29th Jun 2014, 07:22

These guys are being very patient with you Simplex
As I said before please remember that there are aviation professionals on these forums...
I have been an aircraft engineer for over 40 years and in the past I have been a power pilot and glider pilot...

It is up to you if you want to continue trolling on this forum - and if you are not trolling you can get help for obsessional behaviour !

I have only replied to your rambling and illogical posts because I do not like to see aviation professionals discredited and also do not like to see people misled by misinformation on the internet :)

Simplex posted

Tom Crouch replies to the majority of people. Try to send him an email and you will get an answer from him.
Honestly I would have preferred him to study that picture ([First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina]) carefully and think about it instead of quickly answering, directly from his mobile phone (no urgent answer was needed), "You are wrong".

He did not need to carefully study 'your' photograph - he knows these pictures very well and therefore he knows that that particular part of the coastline is flat....give it up my friend you are looking very foolish :ok:

simplex1

29th Jun 2014, 07:25

If one studies a bit the wiki site of the Wright brothers he quickly notices that it is simpy infected with the name of Crouch that is quoted more than 30 times.
see: Wright brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers)

longer ron

29th Jun 2014, 07:41

And if one uses wiki as a reference/source then one is going to continue to look foolish :)

Dan Winterland

29th Jun 2014, 08:20

The argument of the slope on the beach is going to be inconclusive, Anyone who has lived next to a beach will know that the size and slope will change under wind, drift and tidal influences and these changes can take place in quite short time scales. I fully suspect that the cartographers didn't show contours on a beach as they may have changed even by the time the map is printed.

longer ron

29th Jun 2014, 08:32

But it is a flat area Dan - 'Simplex' is saying that all the wright flights were from a slope - that is when he is not saying that they were all faked anyway!
But being as there must be more than one 'simplex' to keep up the previous posting rate - then we draw our own conclusions :)

Fantome

29th Jun 2014, 08:42

If nothing else, this protracted 'debate' has presumably enabled a lot
of readers to gain an understanding, they may not have previously had,
of the genius of Wilbur and Orville Wright. Even to see slurs caste upon the name and reputation of Tom Crouch has an upside when the refutations come hard and fast. Those who would blacken leave many a grubby hand print.

Haraka

29th Jun 2014, 09:25

Indeed Fantome, and if your moniker is named after the Fairey product you would indeed appear to be a person of taste! :)

PPRuNe Pop

29th Jun 2014, 13:00

I am seeing a case here of if it 'ain't want I (ME) believe' it cannot be right. That is clearly crass. Not even Mr Crouch who has been close enough to the facts, the site, and with the history in written terms before him and, who knows, other factors that the photographs prove to be inconclusive - though others don't

The one above shows that the horizon is not 'level' - it shows that the wings are not level. Both allow for deceptive matters to creep in. Little, but then photographs do lie!

Whatever. This subject is going round in circles with simplex1 almost insisting that his take is spot on. I don't agree and neither does Mr Crouch. It is, therefore, a matter of what the museum thinks of it and I know who my money is on.

It is a matter of corroborated record of what happened so who are we to try and change history.

The matter is over gentlemen. The end was in sight some days ago and that is where it stops. Thanks all the same.

usbhub

22nd Feb 2020, 00:05

The Wright brothers’ patents and their low importance for aviation (http://wright1903dec17.altervista.org/Wright-patents.htm)

The Wright brothers were two American inventors who claimed they built and piloted powered heavier-than-air flying machines in 1903, 1904, 1905 and May 1908 and really flew planes in front of numerous witnesses, including personalities of the aeronautic world, starting with August 8, 1908, when Wilbur, the elder of them, was seen up in the air above the Hunaudières racecourse near Le Mans, France. The article “Le premier vol, en France, du premier homme oiseau” by François Peyrey (L’Auto, Paris, August 9, 1908, col. 1-2, p. 5) gives a detailed record of the flight performed the previous day and also mentions the names of a few eyewitnesses: Ernest Zens, who timed the flight at 1 minute and 45 seconds, Paul Zens, Ernest Archdeacon, Louis Blériot, René and Pierre Gasnier, Captain Léonide Sazerac de Forge, Count Henri de Moy, all members of the French Aéro-Club.

No technical drawing, detailed description or clear picture showing a Wright plane, on the ground or in the air, were made available to the general public before August 8, 1908, so none of the powered apparatuses constructed and flown before the above mentioned date, according to what the two inventors pretended, could have been a source of inspiration for other aviation pioneers because nobody knew exactly what those machines looked like. The French newspapers started to show pictures of Wilbur’s biplane on August 12, 1908.

The first planes were officially witnessed taking off, under their own power, in France on September 13, 1906, and October 7, 1906, piloted by Santos Dumont and Traian Vuia, respectively. The aviation evolved rapidly and on January 13, 1908, Henri Farman already flew one kilometer in a circuit. Orville Wright even witnessed Farman flying on November 18, 1907, as can be seen from the article “Mr. Orville Wright Sees Mr. Henry Farman Compete for Deutsch-Archdeacon Prize” (New York Herald, Paris, November 19, 1907).

Pictures claimed by Orville Wright as made between December 17, 1903, and October 5, 1905, and showing three different planes (the 1903, 1904 and 1905 models) first appeared in print quite late, in “The Wright Brothers’ Aeroplane” by Orville and Wilbur Wright (The Century Magazine, New York, September 1908, Vol. LXXVI, No. 5, pp. 641-650).

The only thing the two brothers from Dayton, Ohio, showed, before August 8, 1908, was a series of kites and gliders. These unpowered machines are the only ones that could have inspired the inventors who built planes and performed witnessed flights, beyond any doubt, from September 13, 1906 to August 8, 1908.

The two brothers also filed 5 patents between March 23, 1903, and July 15, 1908, but their importance for aviation is close to zero as long as these documents present just gliders and their main objective is how to stabilize by hand, or using complicated mechanisms, extremely unstable unpowered apparatuses in pitch and roll. In fact, it was already known that heavier-than-air flying machine could be made naturally stable and the ailerons the two brothers claimed as their invention were in reality patented in 1868.

Download link for The Wright brothers’ patents and their low importance for aviation (http://wright1903dec17.altervista.org/Wright-patents.htm)

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/326x422/the_wright_brothers_patents_8efc4b44994e432561260a2493220886 39d659c3.jpg (http://wright1903dec17.altervista.org/Wright-patents.htm)
The book contains the patents of the Wright brothers in full.

Question: What exactly does each of the Wrights’ patents claim as invented?

Answer:
- The US patent no. 821,393, granted on May 22, 1906, and its foreign versions, claim: (1) the method of wing warping, in particular, and the ailerons (already invented in 1868 by M. P. W. Boulton), in general, for stabilizing an aeroplane type machine in roll, (2) a movable vertical tail aimed at counteracting the adverse yaw generated by twisting the main wings, (3) a flexible front elevator for maintaining the pitch stability of the same machine, (4) various constructive details.
- The French patent no. 384.124, published on March 30, 1908, and its foreign versions, claim two more vertical rudders, placed in front of the main wings, one fixed and the other mobile. They were aimed at better counteracting the adverse yaw.
- The French patent no. 384.125, published on March 30, 1908, and its foreign versions, claim two additional vertical rudders, placed close to the tips of the main wings. Their purpose was also for eliminating the adverse yaw.
- The US Patent no. 1,075,533, granted on October 14, 1913, and its foreign versions, claim automatic stabilization mechanisms: in roll, driven by a pendulum, and in pitch, governed by wind vanes (two models are proposed). None of these stabilization devices can work because the so called principles of physics they rely on are just misconceptions.
- The US patent no. 908,929 - “Mechanism for Flexing the Rudder of a Flying Machine or the Like”, granted on January 5, 1909, and its foreign versions, claim systems aimed at flexing the rudders of an aeroplane type machine for the purpose of modifying their lift.