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

[simplex1]

The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew a powered plane for the first time in 1908.

I know that books teach us the Wright brothers were the first to fly a heavier than air machine but, if one starts to study primary sources, documents of the time, he finds absolutely no serious evidence the two inventors really flew in 1903, 1904 or 1905.

There are many technical problems with "Flyer I 1903". The plane was unstable, underpowered and had propellers that appeared only in 1908, exactly in the same year when the Wright brothers flew for the first time in front of credible witnesses, beyond any doubt, using planes built in France in 1908 with french engines (Bariquand & Marre) and french propellers.

Beside the technical aspects (see the internet address I attached to this text, for a detailed analysis) which demonstrate "Flyer I 1903" was unflyable, there is also the declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater, telegraph operator, who clearly said:

"the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908"

"Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with making their first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine on Dec. 17, 1903. But Alpheus W. Drinkwater, 76 years old, who sent the telegraph message ushering in the air age, said the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908, he said." Source: New York Times, Dec. 17, 1951.

Another witness, John T. Daniels, in a 1933 letter addressed to a friend, wrote he had seen the plane being carried up on a hill twice. In one picture, Daniels claimed he had made himself (see image 1), the slope going down in front of the airplane, that had just taken off, is visible. Another picture, with the plane landed, displays a big sand dune in the background as if the plane came from it.

For more details and evidence see:

http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com

and read it with care before making comments.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/attachment.php?attachmentid=167938&d=1400942912
1) Detail from the well known picture showing "Flyer I 1903" taking off on Dec. 17, 1903. The slope going down in front of the plane is clearly visible.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/attachment.php?attachmentid=167939&d=1400942935
2) "Flyer I 1903" on the ground (just landed) after its last (59 seconds) alleged flight performed on Dec. 17, 1903. A big sand dune can be seen in the background as if the plane came from it.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/attachment.php?attachmentid=167937&d=1400942879
3) The declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater: "the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908".

[dubbleyew eight]

stop being stupid and look at your own evidence.
look at photo 1
when the aircraft reached the end of the takeoff track it was how high in the air?
look at your own photo for the evidence.
look also at the propeller which can be seen running.

the wright brothers aren't remembered as the fathers of flight because they were the first to fly. they weren't. but they were the first to perfect controllable flight.
all subsequent aviation became possible because flight in the air could be controlled.

next you'll show photos "proving" that mankind hasn't been to the moon....:mad:

[simplex1]

when the aircraft reached the end of the takeoff track it was how high in the air?The plane is below the level of the point where it left the ground.
The speed of the headwind was 22 miles/hour = 35 km/h, (see: L'Aerophile, January 1904, L'Aérophile (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6553581w/f23.image.r=wright%20brothers) ). At such a strong wind, blowing along the slope, uphill, the plane received a considerable lift. Without engine and propellers Flyer I would have taken off and glided a long distance!!
Just because the propellers were running it does not mean they generated enough thrust. A power assisted descent is not a real powered flight.

the wright brothers aren't remembered as the fathers of flight because they were the first to fly. they weren't. but they were the first to perfect controllable flight.
all subsequent aviation became possible because flight in the air could be controlled.The Wright brothers are claimed as the first to fly. There is no other inventor that can seriously pretend he flew a powered plane before Dec. 17, 1903.

Regarding the priority of the Wright brothers, in being the first to perfect controllable flight, this is the most ridiculous claim aviation history books have perpetuated. "Flyer I 1903" was incredibly unstable as a few aviation experts have noticed:

Piloting "Flyer I 1903" is "like balancing a yardstick on one finger, two at one time. If you lose it, it goes — quickly, said Fred Culick …"

(1)"EL SEGUNDO, Calif. (AP) — Aviation experts … have found the Wright stuff — in the hands of modern pilots … — is a little wrong."
(2)"I'd say it was almost a miracle they were able to fly it, said Jack Cherne"
(3)"Using that data, they created a computer flight simulator that shows the plane to be so unstable, it is nearly impossible to fly."
(4)"It's like balancing a yardstick on one finger, two at one time. If you lose it, it goes — quickly, said Fred Culick …"
(5)"Every pilot, his first try, crashed the simulator. It took less than a second, said Capt. Tim Jorris".
(6)"I thoroughly cannot imagine the Wright brothers, having very little experience in powered aircraft, getting this airborne and flying, said Major Mike Jansen. "My respect for what they did went up immediately the first time I took the controls.""
(7)"Modifications will include … . A computer feedback system will assist the pilot. We want the experience, but we don't want to kill ourselves, Cherne said."
see: USATODAY.com - Wright Flyer a handful for today's pilots (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/astro/2001-07-05-wright-flyer.htm)

The 2003 replica of "Flyer I 1903" couldn't fly more than 115 feet (35 m)

The 2003 accurate replica (http://www.wrightexperience.com) of the Wright brothers' plane (tested on December 17, 1903) was not able to do more than short flights (using a more powerful engine than the original). None of its takeoffs came close to the claimed 852 feet, 59 seconds best flight performed on December 17, 1903. What the 2003 experiment really showed was that the 1903 airplane could have been theoretically able to take off and fly chaotically for 100 - 115 feet, no more. "Flyer I" was uncontrollable and not capable to execute a sustained 59 sec. flight.

1) "On November 20, 2003, Dr. Kevin Kochersberger piloted the 1903 Wright Experience Replica Flyer. With 15-18 mph winds he flew a distance of nearly 100 feet."
see video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU

2) "December 3, 2003 test flight of the Wright Experience 1903 Wright Flyer Replica. Dr. Kevin Kochersberger was at the controls and piloted the Flyer for a distance of 115 feet. Slight cross wind after initial rotation which is compensated with slight wing warp."
see video:
Wright Experience 1903 Replica Second Test Flight - YouTube

People (ex., Henri Farman) flew stably, in close circuit, for about 19 minutes, without Wing Warping or any kind of aileron, before Aug. 8, 1908 the day when the Wright brothers showed their plane and performed their first public flight (1 min and 45 sec). All the things the Wright brothers claimed as their invention, in the patent they finally got on May 22, 1906, were simply non essential for stable flight or controlling the trajectory of planes.

[simplex1]

Wing Warping as an effective method to steer a glider (plane) can not be considered the invention of the Wright brothers
Mouillard and Octave Chanute have a clear priority

There is the US patent No. 582,757 of 1897 by Mouillard and Octave Chanute (see: https://www.google.com/patents/US582757 ) which describes a glider equipped with flexible wing tips. The deformation level of the wings extremities is controlled by the pilot with the main goal to steer the plane to the right of left efficiently.

Excerpt from the US patent No. 582,757 by Mouillard and Octave Chanute (a professor the Wright brothers knew before they built their first gliders):

"In order to provide for the horizontal steering of the apparatus-that is, the guiding it to the right or left--I substitute for the ordinary rudder a novel and more effective arrangement. A portion (J) of the fabric at the rear of each wing is free from the frame at its outer edge and at the sides. It is stiffened with suitable blades or slats (N), of flexible material, and normally rests up against the netting. Cords (O) are attached to the rear edge of the portion (J') and pass forward to rings (P), where they unite and run to the handles (Q) near the inner ends of the wings. A pull upon one of these handles causes the portion (J') to curve downward (as shown in fig. 10), and thus catch the air, increasing the resistance upon that side of the apparatus and causing it to turn in that direction. Any other equivalent device for creating at will an additional resistance to the air on either side of the apparatus may be employed, and I do not limit myself to the one shown and described....

"The horizontal steering is effected by the downwardly movable rear portion (J') of the fabric in the manner already described. When both sides are pulled down together, they serve as an effective brake to cheek the speed."

As a note: The Wright brothers have a patent published on May 22, 1906 also for a glider not a powered plane (same as Mouillard). The brevet, amongst other things, claims Wing Warping (deforming the wing tips) as a method for effectively steering a glider.

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/mouillard_1897_1.jpg
L. P. Mouillard's glider with flexible wing tips.

[BEagle]

And how is Elvis these days?

:rolleyes:

[simplex1]

"Flyer I 1903" had a propeller placed underneath that revolved horizontally!!, according to an article signed Wilbur Wright and published in Feb. 1904

"One of the propellers was set to revolve vertically and intended to give a forward motion, while the other underneath the machine and revolving horizontally, was to assist in sustaining it in the air. … After the motor device was completed, two flights were made by my brother and two by myself on December 17th last."
Source, "The Experiments of a Flying Man", author Wilbur Wright, The Independent, Feb. 04, 1904, pag. 246, internet address The Experiments of a Flying Man [Wilbur Wright, Independent, February 1904] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001173/#seq-4)

Definitely, the flying machine W. Wright talked about in the article is not the one with two pusher propellers, well known from pictures published for the first time in September 1908 in "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane" that appeared in The Century Magazine (see The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-1) , page 644 ).

In conclusion, two different articles, written by the same Wright brothers and published more than four years and half apart, talk about two distinct airplanes (two different Flyer I) as flying on Dec. 17, 1903. The brothers definitely lied in one of the two texts. There is no way they could have told the truth in both articles.

"Flyer I" with a propeller beneath appeared in numerous publications as late as May 1906 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-58) ).

[Sir George Cayley]

Quiet day in Alaska?

[simplex1]

IT WAS A POWERED FLIGHT (4 flights actually). IT started from level without a catapult. Members of the UNITED STATES LIFE SAVING SERVICE were witnesses. (the life saving service was the start of the coast guard, SEMPER PARATUS) They also helped in moving the plane.
The only witness that said something helpful about the alleged powered flights performed on Dec. 17, 1903 was John T. Daniels who in a letter addressed to a friend, 30 years after the events, wrote:

"Manteo NC, June 30 —- 1933,

Dear friend,
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 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 …
Sincerely,
John T. Daniels, Manteo NC, Box 1W"

Source: Eyewitness Account of First Flight by John Daniels (http://wrightstories.com/eyewitness-account-of-first-flight-by-john-daniels)

John Daniels talks about two, not four flights, and clearly specifies the plane was carried up on a hill before each flight.
Engine assisted descents in strong headwinds do not qualify as true powered flights.

WING WARPING was not the EUREKA MOMENT of the WRIGHT's. IT WAS THE RUDDER which, when coupled to the movement of the WING WARPING overcame what the WRIGHT's called, "WARP DRAG" and what we now call adverse aileron yaw.The Wright brothers had this idea to couple the movements of the rudder with those of the Wing Warping ailerons by using a mechanism but soon they realized they had made a mistake and came back to separate controls for the rudder and ailerons.

[Dash8driver1312]

I'm still trying to figure out your angle in all this. I've recently finished Assassins Creed IV, tell me, you wouldn't happen to have one blue eye and one brown?

The engine sustained the Flyer, and although a modern pilot with training on modern aircraft have trouble handling the Flyer, the brothers Wright had experience with their design style already.

In the words of the Ice Queen, Let it go, let it goooo...

[simplex1]

How could an unqualified man have designed and built an engine in 6 weeks?!

About the engine that powered "Flyer I 1903" various authors said that:

"The Wrights wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight power-plant. They turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers."

The article about Taylor ( Charlie Taylor (mechanic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Taylor_%28mechanic%29) ) also does not bring more light saying just that Taylor was a mechanic hired by Wright brothers to repair bicycles and "He designed and built the aluminum water-cooled engine in only six weeks, based partly on rough sketches provided by the Wrights."

It is not uncommon for a mechanic to adapt a ready made engine to a specific purpose, but to design it from scratch and build it in 6 weeks is simply incredible.

[Dash8driver1312]

Incredible but not impossible. My grandfather, god rest his soul, was 'only' a techy with GEC Marconi. But he had also been a Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineer corporal during National Service. When it came to anything with an engine, you could trust him to take care of the issue or have a contact who could.

Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't.

I posit again, what is your angle and beef? Who are you touting as the true first pilot? Ikarus does not count and da Vinci is out of the running also.

[simplex1]

Incredible but not impossible. My grandfather ...
Did you grandfather design and build an original plane or a car engine in 6 weeks? If not the example is irrelevant.

[simplex1]

although a modern pilot with training on modern aircraft have trouble handling the Flyer, the brothers Wright had experience with their design style already.1) Kevin Kochersberger, the one who piloted the 2003 replica of Flyer I, beside his experience as a pilot, practiced, before flying the actual plane, on a Flyer I simulator. (The Wright brothers had just the gliding experience.) see: http://www.wrightexperience.com/edu/...ml/9284966.htm (http://www.wrightexperience.com/edu/12_17_03/html/9284966.htm)

2) Replicas of the gliders built by the Wright brothers were flown without problems by many people. Flyer I, despite the fact it resembles the gliders, behaves quite differently. It is a different machine.

3) Apart from Kevin Kochersberger and his team there was a group of pilots who tried to fly a Learjet 24D programmed to behave like the original Flyer I and they failed.

"The exercise also humbled experienced Air Force test pilots.
"Every pilot, his first try, crashed the simulator. It took less than a second," said Capt. Tim Jorris, one of a small group of pilots at Edwards Air Force Base who tried the simulator.
The pilots eventually took to the skies in a Learjet 24D programmed to fly like the original Flyer. Most had to rely on a computer-assisted stability system to keep the jet aloft.
"I thoroughly cannot imagine the Wright brothers, having very little experience in powered aircraft, getting this airborne and flying," said Major Mike Jansen. "My respect for what they did went up immediately the first time I took the controls.""
Source: USATODAY.com - Wright Flyer a handful for today's pilots (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/astro/2001-07-05-wright-flyer.htm)

In conclusion, the modern pilots trained and already knew how to handle Flyer I before taking the controls.

[glendalegoon]

simplex you are a revisionist crank and are deluding yourself and wasting pprune space.

1. 30 years AFTER the fact, daniels writes a little note. You do not know the state of mind he was in when (and if ) he wrote the note. He may have been a victim of disease, drugs, or booze. AND NO ONE ELSE of the company of men who watched the flights was contacted or questioned.

IF there was any question about the flight, it would have to have come to light within 10 years of the flight to have any real meaning. I am using 10 years as the time frame because it was during Wilbur's life and would have come up in patent battles in court. BUT IT DID NOT>

REally, how hard was it to build a crude engine? They had a mechanical shop, and could easily get supplies. I'll bet you don't even know what a "make and break" ignition system is. Automobiles were relatively new then and engines were as easy to make as a trip to a computer store was 30 years ago. Provided you had the place to make it (and they did).

Wondering if you even know that Orville built a wind tunnel to test the designs of the wings? Engines, Wind Tunnels , and what have you made simplex?


While it is true that the Wrights did go back to separate rudder and wingwarping/aileron controls, I will remind you that an award winning plane many years later used the same idea of an interconnected rudder and aileron system (ercoupe).

BUT what they did figure out was that you needed RUDDER to overcome warp drag (adverse aileron yaw).

YOU SIR are sadly misinformed.

MODS, please close the thread unless this person has personal information gleaned from direct , empiric observation.


OH and computer simulations of airplanes? Unless they were multi million dollar high quality, airline type , simulators, I can't fly the little computer simulations either. but don't tell all those people sitting behind me, and the flight attendants and my copilot!

I am amazed at your poor analysis. I am amazed at your gullibility in this matter.

REVISIONIST CRANK and a poor one at that.

LOCK IT UP MODS! Over and Out.

[Brian Abraham]

A big sand dune can be seen in the background as if the plane came from it.Should you ever visit Kill Devil Hill you will see that the flight commenced from the foot of the hill. ie the flights were over level ground from beginning to end. The start point is at the end of the pathway (just to the right of the hangar) the children in the foreground are walking down.

http://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/photogallery/akr/park/wrbr/FE27AFFE-1DD8-B71C-0786F7ADC1BE30A5/FE27AFFE-1DD8-B71C-0786F7ADC1BE30A5-large.jpg

The following video gives some idea of the elevator/pitch stability and control. This film was taken in Italy on April 24, 1909. It is the first time a motion picture was ever shot from a plane in flight. The footage shows what it was like to fly on one of the early Wright craft, with Wilbur at the helm.

https://ia600700.us.archive.org/29/items/FirstInflightFilmFootageFromWrightFlightInItaly1909/Wilbur_Wright_onboard_flight2C_Italy_1909.mp4

[glendalegoon]

IF you look carefully at the video, you can see the tiny bit of yarn used as an angle of attack gauge.

The Wrights were not just bicycle mechanics, they put a huge amount of scientific effort into their work. In fact, they discovered that lillienthal's equations for flight were in error.

Octave Chanute by the way was very impressed with the Wrights and even joined them one summer at Kitty Hawk with his own glider. Chanute wrote very positively about the Wrights and the US govt took notice.

OF COURSE Chanute was there and simplex1 is still pretty far away from Kitty Hawk,Nc

[Guam360]

Curtis was the better mechanic and aviator, he in fact did design the aileron.

[simplex1]

30 years AFTER the fact, daniels writes a little note. You do not know the state of mind he was in when (and if ) he wrote the note. He may have been a victim of disease, drugs, or booze. AND NO ONE ELSE of the company of men who watched the flights was contacted or questioned.John T. Daniels repeated the things he had written in that letter from 1933, two years latter, in 1935, in the presence of another eye witness, A. D. Etheridge, who confirmed he had also seen the same things as Daniels.

In a statement made 32 years later on 12 March 1935, Mr. J. T. Daniels, then a member of the Nags Head Coast Guard Station, stated: "Orville Wright made the first flight in the plane with the power in it, between then and eleven o'clock, the 17th of December, 1903, and he went some 100 feet. Then we carried it back on the hill and put it on the track and Mr. Wilbur Wright got in the machine and went about one half mile out across the beach towards the ocean. Then we carried the machine back to camp and set it down and the wind breezed up and blew it over and just smashed it to pieces with me hanging on to it. The way they decided who was to make the first flight was as they were talking, Wilbur and Orville walked aside and flipped a coin, and Orville won the toss and he made the first flight."
Mr. A. D. Etheridge who was at the Nags Head Lifesaving Station on March 12, 1935, gave a few more details on the preparation for the flight in 1903 when he was stationed at the Kill Devil Lifesaving Station:"We assisted in every way and I hauled the lumber for the camp. We really helped around there hauling timber and carrying mail out to them each day. It would come from Kitty Hawk by patrol each night. In pretty weather we would be out there while they were gliding, watching them. Then after they began to assemble the machine in the house, they would let us in and we began to become interested in carrying the mail just to look on and see what they were doing. They did not mind us at all because they knew where we were from and know us. We inquired what day they expected to fly. Finally they told us the day. Finally, on this day, the 17th of December, Daniels, Dough and myself were out there helping to get the machine out of the camp out on the track. They started the motor, testing it out for quite a while. Finally, they got to talking about getting together about flying and got it ready to turn loose. Finally, they decided to try the flight and then they went on just about the way you have been told by Daniels. They talked matters over---how delighted they were in what they had done in their flights and were expecting to try it---the machine---over and they gave up right then an packed up and went home. They said they were very well satisfied with what they had done. At that time they assembled everything they wanted to take away. They said they were going to take the engine back with them and the wings of the plane they left with me. Later I got a letter from a man in Philadelphia telling that Wilbur had written and told him that I had the old plane and that he wanted to buy it if I would dispose of it; so I wrote him a letter that I would sell it to him for $25.00. He sent me a check for it, and it is right here that I lost a fortune if I had kept it."

Source: USCG: Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/Wright_Brothers.asp)
The 1935 declaration of A. D. Etheridge contains another big trouble for the Wright brothers' credibility. Etheridge said the two inventors had taken just the engine back with them while the plane remained with Etheridge who latter sold it for 25$ (big money for 1903).

The story of Orville Wright is that he and his brother took the remains of the 1903 plane back with them and latter Orville rebuilt the plane which reached England, remained there till after WWII and finally returned in US, being displayed now in a museum.

[glendalegoon]

about curtiss, the man who stole patented material from the wrights.

yes, he was a heckuva mechanic. but to be sure, the aileron (french for small wing) was part of alexander graham bells business. bell, trying desperately to save the reputation of langley, paid curtiss to come up with a plane.

bell wanted curtiss to prove that langley's aerodrome could fly, but curtiss was more interested in "THE WRIGHT WAY" to fly.

amazingly enough, wright became a company that built engines, curtiss built airframes and curtiss wright became one.

[simplex1]

OH and computer simulations of airplanes? Unless they were multi million dollar high quality, airline type , simulators, I can't fly the little computer simulations either.A multimillion dollar serious and accurate Flyer I simulator was used.

"The pilots eventually took to the skies in a Learjet 24D programmed to fly like the original Flyer. Most had to rely on a computer-assisted stability system to keep the jet aloft."
Source: USATODAY.com - Wright Flyer a handful for today's pilots (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faviation-history-nostalgia%2F540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fusatoday30.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fscience%2F astro%2F2001-07-05-wright-flyer.htm&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostre ply%26amp%3Bt%3D540496)

[GWFirstinFlight]

I have to say that in studying the Wrights for over thirty years, using primary source documents that rarely have seen the light of day, their true story is far from that which we have been spoonfed. First of all, the "evidence" for what occurred on Dec. 17, 1903, is based entirely on the stories told us by the Wrights themselves, who had just a "wee" conflict of interest at the time of the first tellings. Orville was trying to capture the limelight even while Wilbur was alive - his stories increasingly gave himself credit he didn't deserve (and admitted to this in the earlier years). Reading their letters at the Library of Congress, and rarely seen files at Smithsonian attest to this. But there is far more!

For instance, we have been bamboozled for well over a century about who was "first in flight". It was necessary for the Wrights to claim being first in flight in order to expand their patent rights as pioneer inventors. While they deserve credit for their development of the art, there is at least one other who flew before them and Curtis, who also further developed the art. There are those who contributed to what we use today who also deserve credit. But after Wilbur died (in 1912, during the patent wars), Orville, known as "the lesser brother", did a poor job with the Wright Company and had to sell it, then devoting his life to immortalizing himself for that which he did not do. During their shared lifetimes, Wilbur was the one who was considered to have flown "successfully" on Dec. 17, 1903, even though the flights were all out of control and the last one (the longest, Wilbur's) crashed into the sand. They took off from a rail and required a headwind that was not present during the Centennial celebration in 2003, when all the world saw the Flyer reproduction fail to fly. When Orville died in 1948, his executors arranged for an Agreement (known by most as "the Contract" to be signed by the Smithsonian crediting Orville as "first in flight" even though he wasn't, if it was between the two brothers, it was Wilbur on that date. As Orville and the executors and Orville's closest friends knew, Gustave Whitehead of CT had an existing claim to that title, over two years before (in 1901). In fact, Whitehead had flown in Pennsylvania and crashed, in 1899 (since crashing and being out of control apparently is ok). What the Smithsonian got from that deal was the Wright Flyer for $1. Under the terms of the Contract, the Flyer will revert to the heirs if Smithsonian or any of its nearly 200 affiliates or research facilities recognizes anyone else as first in flight or any other airplane.This was, indeed, "history by contract", and a sorry mess it has caused. Currently, Gustave Whitehead, with his 18 witnesses who watched him fly with power ahead of the Wrights, from 1899-1902, has been recognized (as of March 2013) as "first in flight" by Jane's All the World Aircraft (the bible of aviation history) and by the state of CT. The state of NC is giving up its slogan "first in flight" as a result and adopting another shortly. The Wrights were a wily pair, don't forget they not only waited 5 years to show they could fly, and to produce the photo of Orville's FAILED flight, but they pulled many legal tricks to try to sue all other inventors and aviators, to control world aviation and profit whenever anyone flew or sold a plane for profit. They trotted their invention around to sell to European countries on the brink of war, knowing full well what their planes could be used for. In their own time, they were not known to be saints, this is a fact. And in fact, they were not. Ultimately, Orville stole the title of first in flight posthumously acquired through his closest friends and family, this was the dream of his life and they gave it to him. So don't be so sure you know history if you haven't read the documents. Go to www.gustavewhitehead.info (http://www.gustavewhitehead.info) for more information on this topic. :ok:

[Dan Winterland]

An interesting discussion - which seems to be generating some passionate responses! And a topic connected to some research I had been doing for an article. According to the FAI, the body which is the keeper of such records, the Wrights are credited with "The first sustained, controlled, powered heavier-than-air manned flight". The question that has to be asked was what was different about their achievement which gives it the distinction.

Their flight was the culmination of a long development of flying machines which properly stated with George Cayley in the UK who was the first to appreciate birds flew due to the shape of their wings and not because of flapping. He also identified stability as a factor for flight and devised a control system. it was proved when his coachman (Cayley was not prepared to try it himself) was the first man to fly a controllable heavier than air machine in 1853. The problem with flight was power and 19th century experiments with steam engines produced powered short hops with one 3hp powered aircraft achieving an altitude of 6 inches.

The Wright brother's real achievement was developing an engine with sufficient power and to realise that sustained flight would require a control system. They had done a lot of research in their own wind tunnel and come up with a system which emphasised control but lacked stability. The engine produced 16hp at peak, but this was barely enough to get the flyer airborne. When they tried to fly subsequent versions without the strong winds of Kittyhawk, they needed a catapult assist, despite the engine having five more horse power. Only when they obtained 30hp could they achieve take off from level ground without assistance. By then, other people had achieved successful powered flight with different designs - largely due to the Wright's vigorous enforcement of their wing-warping patent. Ailerons (which had been first patented in England by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1886) had become the standard, and with better stability characteristics.

There have been other claims to the title including Gustave Whitehead's, but it is the Wright's which is officially recognised. And that is important - just as Chuck Yeager's supersonic flight is recognised as being the first despite quite clearly not being so. (Big can of worms opened here!)

[simplex1]

The following video gives some idea of the elevator/pitch stability and control. This film was taken in Italy on April 24, 1909. It is the first time a motion picture was ever shot from a plane in flight. The footage shows what it was like to fly on one of the early Wright craft, with Wilbur at the helm.
https://ia600700.us.archive.org/29/i...Italy_1909.mp4 (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faviation-history-nostalgia%2F540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a.html&out=https%3A%2F%2Fia600700.us.archive.org%2F29%2Fitems%2FFir stInflightFilmFootageFromWrightFlightInItaly1909%2FWilbur_Wr ight_onboard_flight2C_Italy_1909.mp4&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faviation-history-nostalgia%2F540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-2.html) The plane that flew in Italy on April 24, 1909 was similar (according to the Wright brothers, there is no independent confirmation) to the last version of Flyer III which allegedly flew in 1905 (see the picture). There is a significant difference between this 1905 model and the 1903 plane. The stability in pitch increased significantly. The 1909 (1905) airplane had also dihedral stability (auto roll control) while the 1903 machine did not have. We talk about two sensible different airplanes having two totally different engines. Just because the 1909 model was flyable it does not automatically mean the 1903 plane could take off and fly stably.

http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Decade_After/Landing_Without_Crashing/Landing_Without_Crashing_images/1903-04-05_Comparison_Side_View.jpg

[simplex1]

Their flight was the culmination of a long development of flying machines which properly stated with George Cayley in the UK who was the first to appreciate birds flew due to the shape of their wings and not because of flapping.Not because of flapping?! I do not belieave George Cayley could have said such an enormity. Maybe he said "not only because of flapping" which is something totally different.

The problem with flight was power and 19th century experiments with steam engines produced powered short hops with one 3hp powered aircraft achieving an altitude of 6 inches.It would be curious to read a few more details about that mysterious plane. Was it a heavier than air man carrying flying machine?

[joy ride]

I accept that Ader probably did hop into the air in his steam powered planes, but these had no means of 3 Axis control. By some accounts his hop was longer and better witnessed than the Wrights' first flights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cl%C3%A9ment_Ader

Maxim's experimental steam powered plane is reported to have been deliberately prevented from flying by its guide rail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Maxim

Lillienthal made many successful flights in gliders, and by the end of the 19th century it was clear that petrol engines would make heavier than air, powered, sustained and controlled flight inevitable, probably within the first decade of 20th century.

I believe that Percy Pilcher was getting very close to full flightl but was killed in a gliding accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pilcher

Chanute studied Cayley and the Wrights learned from Chanute.

[John Hill]

Richard Pearse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse)


Click here for a big picture..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Pearse_aeroplane_replica%2C_South_Canterbury_Museum-1.jpg/1600px-Pearse_aeroplane_replica%2C_South_Canterbury_Museum-1.jpg

Richard Pearse built an aeroplane in 1903 (or 1902 or 1904 depending on who you are talking to).

His aircraft had ailerons, rudder and elevator. It also had a two cylinder double acting four stroke engine (i.e. four combustion chambers).

Unfortunately for him he did not have effective airfoil shape and his propeller was not up to much either.

[Haraka]

Actually Hiram Maxim's aircraft ( minus some of its wing panels) generated so much lift that it actually broke its restraining rails. A very much underrated engineer in popular literature.
Surely the real issue is the evolution of the practicable aircraft.
Well over a decade after the Wrights' experiments, during the first World War the U.S.A. was still incapable of generating any significant indigenous aviation product, having to rely almost totally on European engines and airframes for its front-line aircraft.
Even by 1908, at the Le Mans meeting, European aircraft were freely taking-off and landing on wheeled undercarriages. The Wrights were using ground support in the form of a primitive falling weight catapult to get airborne and were still basically landing on skids.

[longer ron]

Yes this gentleman has been spouting on the key forum as well,seems to have an angle/grudge against the Wrights,I am sure the Wrights would agree that the 1903 Flyer was not perfect but one of their flights on dec17 1903 has been deemed by the FAI as the first controlled/practical power flight (or similar wording).
He was even casting doubts on their 1905 Flyer - which was a much improved aircraft...somebody has to have been first and even if you didnt like the 1903 Flyer - then the 1905 one should help redress the balance by flying for 30 mins (from memory) ... still far ahead of any other contender.
The Wrights tackled the whole thing in a much more scientific and common sense way than any other team/person.
Sure they were not perfect and got too embroiled in legal cr@p and were slow to adopt wheels but other than that they ended up with a very practical flying machine by 1905 !

[longer ron]

There is a significant difference between this 1905 model and the 1903 plane. The stability in pitch increased significantly. The 1909 (1905) airplane had also dihedral stability (auto roll control) while the 1903 machine did not have. We talk about two sensible different airplanes having two totally different engines. Just because the 1909 model was flyable it does not automatically mean the 1903 plane could take off and fly stably.




No 5hit 5herlock...it is called development...funnily enough this is still going on in aircraft design...the perfect aircaft has still not been built and even in fairly recent times the first flight of an aircraft has been a fairly fraught affair :)

I am sure the Wrights would agree that the 1903 Flyer was imperfect...which is why they redesigned/improved it for the 1905 flights,they did have a self built wind tunnel - and remember not many people at that time knew much about stability etc

[VX275]

Its interesting that the Wright's were slow to fit wheels to their aircarft considering they made a living as bicycle manufacturers.
This is all the more intriguing when its realised that the tensioned wire spoked wheel (universally known these days as a bicycle wheel) was the invention of Sir George Cayley who had realised that a light weight wheel was needed for his flying machines.

[Haraka]

Perhaps they knew they couldn't.
With wheels on skids, in rough pasture with an aircraft unstable in pitch and with marginal excess power available, the catapult and rail was maybe a better option for getting airborne within a reasonable distance in still air.

[longer ron]

Perhaps - but they had greatly improved pitch stability by 1905,I would go more along the lines of trying to keep weight/drag down and also maybe partly a throwback to starting out on sand - where wheels would not have been good :).
By the time they were flying at Huffman in 1905 they could have incorporated wheels and still used the catapult launch but maybe they were more interested in the pure flight characteristics/aerodynamics/stability etc ... whatever the reason -I would have thought it would have been written down somewhere !

[dubbleyew eight]

Simplex, instead of posting alaskan nutter dribble I'd suggest you read two texts.

"Sir George Cayley's Aeronautics 1796 - 1855" by C.H. Gibbs-Smith.
published by HMSO in 1962.

"Kill Devil Hill, the epic of the wright brothers 1899-1909" by Harry B. Combs with Martin Caidin.
published by Secker and Warburg, London. 1980.

both texts are exceptionally well researched.

btw Harry Combs was the president of Gates Learjet.

[simplex1]

The Wright brothers bought french engines Bariquand & Marre to power the planes they finally flew in front of credible witnesses starting with Aug. 8, 1908

The articles, "Aviation in US. Seven french engines for the Wright brothers, L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127" (see: L'Aérophile (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f137.image.r=wright%2040%20CV.langEN) ) which says that the french company "Barriquaud-Mare" had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and "Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23, 1908 (see: Progress of the Wright Aeroplane Experiments [Scientific American, 1908] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001208/) ) that also talks about french engines, demonstrate, both of them, that the brothers needed in May 1908 (at Kitty Hawk in strong headwinds) far more powerful engines for far less spectacular flights than the ones allegedly performed in 1905 (atHuffman Prairie, over a flat pasture, without significant winds).

Also on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers using same french engines flew only 1 min and 45 sec in France, far from the claimed record 24.5 miles (39.4 km), 38 minutes flight in Dayton in 1905 when a considerable weaker engine was used. These brothers have simply no credibility and only their officially witness flights can be trusted. The rest is their own fiction.

[Haraka]

Anyone for

“History by Contract” by O’Dwyer and Randolph :E

(This brought about by the mention of Charles Gibbs-Smith)

[simplex1]

I do not rely on aviation history books about the Wright brothers. They are highly inaccurate and basically repeat the brother's own version of events, published in Sep. 1908 (see: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-1) )

I always go to primary sources (especially old articles that can be found at the Library of Congress but also in L'Aerophile collection) to find serious evidence about the powered flights the brothers claimed they had achieved in 1903 - 1905. I have found nothing reliable.

Serious articles - before Dec. 17, 1903
The articles (about the Wright brothers' gliders) written before Dec. 17, 1903 are reliable, illustrated with credible pictures and drawings.

Examples:
- "Daring Men Make Notable Success of Aerial Navigation Experiments", The Dayton Daily News, Jan. 25, 1902 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-6) )
- "Some Aeronautical Experiments", Scientific American, Feb. 22, 1902 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-7) )
- "Gliding Machines. The Latest Aeronautical Experiments.", The Illustrated Scientific News, Feb. 1903, pag. 73 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-8) )
- "Aerial Locomotion in United States", Le Monde Illustre, Paris, 28 March 1903, pag. 293 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-9) )

Not serious articles - between Dec. 17, 1903 and 1908
After Dec. 17, 1903 what was published about the two inventors diverges considerably from the official story the Wright brothers and history books have tried to accredit. (This is the official version of events: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-1) )

Examples:
- "Airship that Flew in North Carolina and Its Inventors", Sunday Tribune, Chicago, December 20, 1903 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-14) ) - One propeller is placed underneath the plane!!
- "The Machine That Flies", New York Herald, Jan. 17, 1904, pag. 3 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-18) ) - Same, a big propeller appears under the plane.
- "Real Story of the First Real Airship Flight Ever Made", New York Herald, May 19, 1907 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-66) ) - The Wright brother's plane is shown with a single propeller placed in front of the wings!! The plane also does not have a front elevator!

[Haraka]

I do not rely on aviation history books about the Wright brothers. They are highly inaccurate and basically repeat the brother's own version of events, published in Sep. 1908 (see: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress )


Yup! It's called circular reporting.

Keep going!

[simplex1]

In May 1904, the Wright brothers just glided in front of journalists according to their own September 1908 account.

The brothers also said the newspapers in May 1904 "in kindness, had concealed" the reality, they had lied!

This is what the Wright brothers themselves declared in 1908 about their witnessed flight attempts in 1904:

"In the spring of 1904 … the new machine was heavier and stronger … When it was ready for its first trial, every newspaper in Dayton was notified, and about a dozen representatives of the press were present. … When preparations had been completed … The machine, after running the length of the track, slid off the end without rising into the air at all. Several of the newspaper men returned the next day, but they were again disappointed. The engine performed badly, and after a glide of only sixty feet, the machine came to the ground. The reporters had now, no doubt, lost confidence in the machine, though their reports, in kindness, concealed it. Later, when they heard that we were making flights of several minutes' duration, knowing that longer flights had been made with air-ships, … they were but little interested."
Source: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, The Century Magazine, Sep. 1908, pag 649, columns 3 and 4, The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-5)

And here you find what the newspapers wrote in May 1904:

"Flying Machine. Given a Successful Test by Messrs. Wright This Afternoon. Rose Twelve Feet in the Air and Sped Along a Distance of Twenty-Five Feet..Propellers Broke.", Dayton Press, May 26, 1904 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-26) )

Did the brothers glide 60 feet in May 1904 or fly 25 feet?

Also in the Sep. 1908 article, the Wright brothers claimed that "when they (the journalists) heard that we were making flights of several minutes' duration, knowing that longer flights had been made with air-ships, … they were but little interested." which is a big lie. They pretended the journalists had not been interested and this was the reason there was no serious witness for their flights in 1904 - 1905 when it was known the two inventors had refused systematically to show their planes or made public demonstrations before Aug 8. 1908.

[glendalegoon]

I looked up the synonyms for glide. remember folks, flying as we know it today did not have the terms we use today.

one of the synonyms for glide is: FLY

another: WING

so, if someone said : glide , he could have meant FLY, like we use the term today.

AS someone who dealt with many famous news organizations I can tell you that even today, some of the stuff is just made up. AND imagine, how would someone (a reporter/writer) know what to write to describe flight, in 1903?

Quick Jimmy, write something about the wrights and their flying machine. we have to have it ready for the type setter in 10 minutes.

In 1903 the aviation reporters of the day were even more poorly informed than Richard Quest is today!

THE WRIGHTS invented and perfected 3 axis control with rudder countering the effect of wing warp drag. this was the key to the turn. cannonballs have been flying pretty straight for years before the wrights, but they really couldn't do a 360, now could they? The WRIGHTS taught the world to fly airplanes.

Orville wright was given pilot license number1
His godson, Bob Cummings (whom orville taught to fly( became the first licensed flight instructor in the USA

Courts gave the wrights the patent after lengthy hearing. Don't you think that someone on curtiss's side would have found people to prove the wright's hadn't flown?

AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT THEN, not 30 years later, or 100 years later.

[simplex1]

I looked up the synonyms for glide. remember folks, flying as we know it today did not have the terms we use today.
one of the synonyms for glide is: FLYSynonyms are not words with the same meaning 100%.

The verb "to glide" is clearly explained in the dictionary
see: Glide - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glide)
and means "to fly without engine power", "to descend gradually in controlled flight"

Regarding the meaning of "glide" in 1904-1905, it was the same as today.

Talking about the Wright brothers, a certain Amos I. Root wrote in January 1905:

"I shall have to apologize a little, friends, for giving a picture of the gliding-machine instead of a flying-machine" (Source: NOVA | Wright Brothers' Flying Machine | The First Reporter | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wright/reporter.html) ). Root made a clear distinction between gliding and flying.

[Noyade]

An interesting discussion - which seems to be generating some passionate responses!It certainly is mate!

I checked out a few Wiki sites - and noticed the one devoted to the Wright Brothers is locked to prevent "vandalism"...

I wonder why? :)

http://i60.tinypic.com/33trneq.jpg

[18-Wheeler]

Richard Pearse built an aeroplane in 1903 (or 1902 or 1904 depending on who you are talking to).

His aircraft had ailerons, rudder and elevator. It also had a two cylinder double acting four stroke engine (i.e. four combustion chambers).

Unfortunately for him he did not have effective airfoil shape and his propeller was not up to much either.

Yes, and on 11th May 1903 he was able to fly about 900 yards with it.

[simplex1]

"THE WRIGHTS invented and perfected 3 axis control with rudder countering the effect of wing warp drag. this was the key to the turn. cannonballs have been flying pretty straight for years before the wrights, but they really couldn't do a 360, now could they? The WRIGHTS taught the world to fly airplanes."Henri Farman flew without ailerons of any kind for up to 42 km, in close circuit. It is a myth that Wing Warping, or ailerons in general, were essential for making turns.

- January 13, 1908---the first complete circuit of 1000m, 1:28 min.
- March 21---DURATION AND DISTANCE RECORD flight of 2004.8 m in 3:31 min.
- July 6, 1908---At Issy, Farman flew 20 km in 19:6 min.
- September 29, 1908---42 km in 43 min. at Mourmelon.
- September 30, 1908---34 km in 35:36 min. at Mourmelon.
- October 2, 1908---40 km in 44:32 min. at Mourmelon.
- October 28, 1908---M. Painleve carried about two km and other flights made up to 40 km. Ailerons put on.
Source: Very Earliest Early Birds (http://earlyaviators.com/eearlhis.htm)

[Noyade]

And it seems the only winners back then were the Lawyers...

Wright brothers patent war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war)

http://i61.tinypic.com/1zg3pr7.jpg

[simplex1]

I checked out a few Wiki sites - and noticed the one devoted to the Wright Brothers is locked to prevent "vandalism"...
I wonder why?Just take a look at the Talk Page and you will find the explanation.
see: Talk:Wright brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wright_brothers)

Wiki editor Binksternet, a great fan of the Wright brothers, locked the page being afraid the truth about the Wright brothers will spread quickly if it appears on their Wiki site.

[FlightlessParrot]

An earlier poster said:

He was even casting doubts on their 1905 Flyer - which was a much improved aircraft...somebody has to have been first

In this case, as in many other inventions, NOBODY was first because you have to define what "powered, controlled flight" means before you can say who was first at it, and the definition doesn't just fall neatly and precisely out of the facts.

But it looks like, amongst all the great pioneers, the Wrights were very early in bringing the things together, through patient research and studying the findings of others, but the "controlled" part took them a long time to get right. The modern experience suggests that in 1903, to maintain control, they had to be ahead of the aeroplane to a paranormal extent.

Turning it into "who was first" just makes it a p1ssing contest. And then trying to win that contest by denying that they did what they did is to miss the point twice.

Parallel case: who invented printing with movable type? Gutenberg actually invented a nifty way of casting type; that brought together a whole lot of stuff, all of which was needed, and which started with the development of alphabetic writing 2000 years before Gutenberg.

[Brian Abraham]

Its interesting that the Wright's were slow to fit wheels to their aircarft considering they made a living as bicycle manufacturers. That was down to the engine not producing enough power, and is also the reason they had to resort to catapult assist for take off in light/no wind. It was not until the engine was further developed and produced more power that they were then able to fit wheels.

The original engine was rated at 8 to 16 HP, whereas that in the 1910 Model B Flyer, which introduced wheels, was rated at 28 to 42 HP.

Details on the various 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)

Details on the Model B 1910-1914 Wright Model B (http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Airplanes/Model_B.htm)enjoy your mental masturbation all you likeCould you tone it down and stop being such an obnoxious prat.

[glendalegoon]

brian

that's a quote from "SEINFELD". I just assumed most people had seen "seinfeld" enough to appreciate it. and since it was ok for major network television, I thought it would be ok for you.

revisionist crank is from "silver streak".

and I would rather be an obnoxious pratt than an obnoxious rolls.

[longer ron]

NOBODY was first

Officially - the FAI might disagree with you there !They defined it :)

Turning it into "who was first" just makes it a p1ssing contest.

Please note simplex :ok:

Perhaps it should be remembered that the Wrights were the subject of a campaign by some prominent american scientists to discredit their achievements,and also that during their patient and rational research they found that much of the accepted scientific 'knowledge' about aerodynamics was deeply flawed.They approached the subject in a logical and practical manner or if you prefer - a much more structured manner than others at that time.

[dubbleyew eight]

one of the very great things that the wright brothers did was to stop using their bodily senses to understand flying and to objectively measure with instruments the forces in wind tunnels.

just everyone has poked their hand out the window of a car, curved their hand and "felt" the lift forces.

but what have they actually felt? the nerves in your skin only react to heat, pinch and cold. you simply don't sense a lot of the pressure variations and forces.
only by measuring with instruments (no matter how crude) will you ever uncover what the forces actually are.

crap on all you like about the wrights but they are acknowledged as the "fathers of flight" for the sum total of their achievements. you can't change that.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

AND imagine, how would someone (a reporter/writer) know what to write to describe flight, in 1903?

Considering that many things had flown before the Wrights, including gliders, birds and pterodactyls and Otto Lilienthal and seeing as 'glide' and 'fly' are both words in use since the 15th century I imagine they'd know pretty well.

[simplex1]

Perhaps it should be remembered that the Wrights were the subject of a campaign by some prominent american scientists to discredit their achievements,and also that during their patient and rational research they found that much of the accepted scientific 'knowledge' about aerodynamics was deeply flawed.They approached the subject in a logical and practical manner or if you prefer - a much more structured manner than others at that time.1) What prominent American scientist did try to discredit the Wright brothers and when?

2) What accepted scientific 'knowledge' about aerodynamics was found by the Wright brothers as being deeply flawed? Are you talking about Smeaton coefficient?

Note: I was quoted as saying "Turning it into "who was first" just makes it ...". A different user said it not me.

[Noyade]

Hi simplex.

If you're disagreeing with the Wrights claim, then who are you advocating for to take their place instead?

[Noyade]

A little on the aileron saga...

http://i60.tinypic.com/243grk2.jpg

[Haraka]

only by measuring with instruments (no matter how crude) will you ever uncover what the forces actually are.

On Hiram Maxim's propeller and wing dynamic measuring rig.

"Maxim knows we'll have to separate the wing from the propeller. So he's built a central tower with a 32-foot rotating arm to measure the effectiveness of propellers and wing surfaces. A steam engine drives the arm. At the end of the arm is a propeller with a streamlined engine pod and a short section of a wing. That test configuration circles the tower at speeds up to sixty miles per hour, while an electric motor inside the pod drives the propeller. The apparatus offers means for measuring power input to both the propeller and the rotating arm.
Maxim's instruments let him separate out lift, thrust, and drag. He finds that, at sixty miles per hour, the propeller might use sixteen horsepower to lift the wing and another 35 horsepower to overcome drag and its own inefficiency. With such detailed preliminary work on flight, Maxim had done superb work on the power inventory of flight"

Ref: The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916) (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/maxim.html)

This was about a decade before the Wrights' small wind tunnel.

[dubbleyew eight]

This was about a decade before the Wrights' small wind tunnel.

so what.

the wrights were the first to put it all together in an aircraft that could be successfully flown in a figure of 8 flight path.

lightweight multi bay truss wings. control of roll, pitch and yaw. a workable aerofoil that performed according to measured experimental data.
stuff me they even had the first aviation fatality.

just as an aside. charlie taylor's engine was 200 cubic inches, developed 12 hp and could probably run for 20 minutes before it seized.
within 40 years continental had a 200 cubic inch engine that could develop 100hp and run continuously for 2,000 hours. amazing technological progress.

[Haraka]

lightweight multi bay truss wings

Stringfellow's working model steam triplane shown and flown at Crystal Palace in 1868 had parallel chord 2 bay strutted and wire cross- braced wings. ( It was sketched by Octave Chanute incidentally.) This was the same decade in which Matthew Piers Watt Boulton another English contemporary of Stringfellow patented the Aileron.


control of roll, pitch and yaw.

Boulton's flight control device, first described in his short 1864 pamphlet "On Aerial Locomotion", was publicly praised by the pioneering U.S. aeronautical engineer Charles Manly. While addressing the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1916, Manly referred directly to Boulton's invention, telling his audience

"...the system of lateral balancing or control now so universally used; [is] that of supplementary planes, now called ailerons. The description he gave of these in his British patent was thorough and clear. It is the first record we have of appreciation of the necessity for active lateral control as distinguished from the passive lateral equilibrium secured by having wings set at a dihedral angle. With this invention of Boulton's we have the birth of the present-day three torque method of airborne control. The only thing then lacking [in 1868] to enable man to learn to operate flying machines was the one great organ – a suitable engine."



stuff me they even had the first aviation fatality.

Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier (30 March 1754 – 15 June 1785) was a French chemistry and physics teacher, and one of the first pioneers of aviation. He and the Marquis d'Arlandes made the first manned free balloon flight on 21 November 1783, in a Montgolfier balloon. He later died when his balloon crashed near Wimereux in the Pas-de-Calais during an attempt to fly across the English Channel. He and his companion, Pierre Romain, became the first known fatalities in an air crash.

[simplex1]

The much celebrated 66% efficiency of the 1903 propellers not confirmed by wind tunnel tests

"Flyer I 1903" used anachronistic propellers!!

In a March 6, 1903 note, with calculations regarding the efficiency of their propellers (see Local Hangar: Wright Flyers (Demo Site) - Picture Page (http://www.localhangar.com/cgi-bin/clubs/pictures_pages.pl?POP=yes&CLUBNO=6&reason=show_page&PAGEID=116) ), the Wright brothers just applied a known elementary relation:

Efficiency_propeller = Thrust * Plane_speed / Power_available

66%=90lbf*24mph/8.73HP

They simply needed a 90lbf propeller at 24mph considering a 8.73HP engine was available and they calculated that their propeller should be at least 66% efficient otherwise the required 90lbf thrust to keep the plane aloft would not have been reached.

Their calculations show just how great the performance of the propeller should have been not how great it really was.

This efficiency was never obtained by people from the Wright Experience project. The site Mechanical Engineering "100 Years of Flight" supplement, Dec. 2003 -- "Prop-Wrights," Feature Article (http://archive.today/0pne0) says that many tests were effectuated and efficiencies between 75% and 82% were obtained, which is not 66%. They also say they reconstructed, with the help of computers, the propellers using badly damaged parts of the originals. However, in their reconstructions, they acknowledged they had made some assumptions that could have alter the efficiency. In conclusion that 66% efficiency is not confirmed. When a team wants to replicate the results or predictions of some inventors the team has to obtain exactly the same results not much better!

In the article "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, O. and W. Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908, pag. 648-649, The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-5) ", the Wright brothers wrote:

"Our first propellers, built entirely from calculations, gave in useful work 66 per cent. of the power expended. This was about one third more than had been secured by Maxim or Langley."

The text is clear, based on calculations the two brothers built a 66% efficient propeller, a claim not backed by that March 6, 1903 note (66%=90lbf*24mph/8.73HP).

An advanced high efficiency propeller, made by Lucien Chauviere, can be seen in L'Aerophile from May 15, 1908, pag. 182 (see L'Aérophile (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6550620m/f192.image.r=helice.langEN) ). It is above the propellers presented by the brothers starting with Aug. 8, 1908 and clearly made before their propellers became known. Definitely, Europeans did not learn from the Wright Brothers how to make efficient propellers. The opposite seems to be true.

Basically, the two brothers came in Aug. 1908 with propellers of a type already existent since 1907 and claimed they had invented them in 1903. The existence of these propellers in pictures allegedly made in 1903 increases the number of doubts the photos were made in that year indeed.

[GWFirstinFlight]

The credit for "First in flight" has been assigned for various reasons by the gov't. The United States of America itself is on the Contract with the Wright heirs which requires Orville and the Flyer to be recognized as first in flight, in order for the Smithsonian to obtain the coveted Wright Flyer and keep it. It is not just the Smithsonian who must adhere to that Contract. So don't be so sure that any pronouncement by any federal agency or entity is based on accuracy or an evaluation of the criteria - they have a heavy conflict of interest that prevents unbiased determinations, at this time. It is still both financial and heavily political. By Orville Wright's own account, and the documentation of both brothers, the four flights were not "in control" on Dec. 17, 1903 (http://www.faa.gov/education/educator_resources/curriculum/wright_brothers/media/flight.pdf), as they dashed into the sand. From page 16 of "How We Made the First Flight" by Orville Wright describes the flight he is now credited with as being first, sustained, and with control:
"The course of the flight up and down wasexceedingly erratic, partly due to the irregularity of
the air, and partly to lack of experience in handling
this machine. The control of the front rudder was
difficult on account of its being balanced too near the
center. This gave it a tendency to turn itself when
started; so that it turned too far on one side and then
too far on the other. As a result the machine would
rise suddenly to about ten feet, and then as suddenly
dart for the ground. A sudden dart when a little over
a hundred feet from the end of the track, or a little
over 120 feet from the point at which it rose into the
air, ended the flight."
The flights were not necessarily from level ground, either, this is easy to ascertain from the photo and the accounts of the witnesses.

The Wrights trotted around and studied all available resources and inventions before they had their engine built for them. They visited Gustave Whitehead in his shop at Bridgeport, CT, according to multiple witnesses. Chanute recommended that they take a look at his lightweight engines. Whitehead's flights and accomplishments, including statements about his two opposing propellers and his self-built lightweight, powerful engines had been covered in the national media, the Scientific American, and trade journals. So it is not surprising that some of the elements Whitehead had used successfully in flight at least for the past four years had turned up on the Wright Flyer of 1903. Wilbur admitted that they were using ideas from others in a letter to Chanute. The issue of who was first was a non-issue at the time. It was "who could make a practical airplane". Only much later was there incentive to be called "first". This occurred during the patent trials and later, during skirmishes with Smithsonian due to Orville's intense craving for fame and long-lasting recognition. His friends and relatives finished up the job by making sure a legal contract bound Smithsonian to recognizing Orville. (http://gustavewhitehead.info/smithsonian-conspiracy-to-deny-whitehead-flew-first/)Wilbur had been dead since 1912, and the 1948 Contract completely ignored the fact that his flight had been considered the only successful one of the day, up through 1913, and by Orville's own admission (back then). Facts, particularly historical facts, can be "fluid", as we gain more information about what really happened over time. We should not simply "follow the leaders", as in this case, they are shoving the real history over a cliff, for profit (the Wright Flyer, National Monument at Kitty Hawk). Critical thinking calls for true evaluation of the evidence - through primary sources. Jane's All the World Aircraft now recognizes Whitehead (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Aviation-bible-Whitehead-first-to-fly-4348050.php) as first in flight, with very good reasons (http://gustavewhitehead.info/gustave-whitehead-flight-witnesses-powered-flights/). It should be noted that the evidence they based this on was researched by Maj. William J. O'Dwyer (USAF retired) and Stella Randolph, two tireless researchers. Their research was then summarized and presented to Jane's by an Australian who came upon it in Germany. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly (http://www.gustavewhitehead.info).

[Dan Winterland]

We had a Wright flyer prop displayed on the wall of the crew-room when I was a student at the Central Flying School. It didn't look like it would have been very efficient.

[Haraka]

Not a problem with Maxim.
Spent a day in South Kensington in the Science Museum with Haraka Snr. in 1979 measuring and profiling up one of the props off of his machine.
Great fun, way up on ladders over the entrance to the aviation gallery, measuring up all the stations!

[joy ride]

I recall that the Science Museum in London was also involved in controversy over the Wright Brothers, but I cannot remember details. In those days the US Patent Office had VERY different standards and practices to what we would expect today, and Edison was one of many people who was able to exploit this to enormous personal gain.

I am naturally suspicious of any attempt to revise history and accepted wisdom, but I do have significant doubts about the the Wright Brothers claim.

[Haraka]

joy ride:
See your P.M.s
Haraka

[Brian Abraham]

The much celebrated 66% efficiency of the 1903 propellers not confirmed by wind tunnel testsWell these people disagree.

http://www.wrightexperience.com/indepth/pdfs/props.pdf

A pity you don't understand what is written in the references you yourself use, which saysThese data show that the 1903 Wright propeller had a maximum efficiency of 82 percent.

Based on Wilbur Wright's notes on the fourth flight of Dec. 17, 1903, the Flyer had an estimated forward speed of 31 mph during the steady flight portion of its path and the propellers were turning at 379 rpm, which yields an advance ratio of 0.85. Hence, the 1903 Wright propellers were operating at a mechanical efficiency of slightly over 75 percent during steady flight.

I see you're giving it a thrashing here as well http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71304

[longer ron]

There are obviously many people around with a personal ax(e) to grind vis a vis the Wright Brothers.
I really do not think that the Wrights claimed to be first at anything,sure they filed patents and also probably made themselves unpopular with quite a few people with the legal wrangles - but I do not think there is much doubt about who tackled the question of powered flight in a structured and 'scientific' way.
I personally would not use journalistic articles as a primary source for anything - even after over 100 years of flight they still very rarely get anything correct.
As to 'proving' anything - I cannot do it from where I am at present - and I am always cautious about using internet articles as any Tom,Dick or Harry can write articles claiming it to be the 'truth' (as can be seen by the 2 main doubters on here !)
Were the Wrights perfect ? -No (who is?)
Were the Wrights liars ? ...... I doubt it !
I have been involved in aviation for over 40 years and I see no reason to doubt much about the Wrights 1903 or 1905 flights - they never tried to hide the damage caused during the landing in 1903 and also admitted that the aircraft was unstable in pitch...which is why they redesigned it for 1905...as I said previously - that is development !!
If one reads carefully - the dec 17 flights were on fairly flat ground and not as the op claimed 'glided'...sure they were a little short of power - and as to copying or looking at others engines - there is no reason to reinvent the wheel - technical details are 'copied' much of the time but in the wrights case they would have been dumb not to look at others engines if given the opportunity.Just to be able to design and build a fairly lightweight engine giving 12 hp in 1903 was clever enough !

[simplex1]

The case of Gustav Whitehead as the first man to fly a powered plane is hopeless. His propellers had an efficiency of 237%! Impossible!

By applying the well known relation:

Efficiency_propellers = Thrust_propellers * Speed_plane / Power_engine

to the particular parameters of Gustav Whitehead's alleged No. 22 airplane:

- max_Thrust_propellers = 508 pounds
- Speed_plane = 70 miles/hour
- Power_engine = 40 HP

(read the article "The Whitehead Flying Machine" (attached) )

the efficiency of the propellers results as being 237%. Impossible! Case closed!

Demonstration:
508pounds * 70miles/hour / 40HP = 237%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"American Inventor Magazine, 1 April 1902

The Whitehead Flying Machine

Has the End been Finally Attained, and is the Dirigible Balloon to Go?

Editor, American Inventor

Dear Sir: Replying to your recent letter, I take pleasure in sending you the following description of my flying machine No. 22, the latest that I have constructed:

This machine was built in four months with the aid of 14 skilled mechanics and cost about $1,700 to build. It is run by a 40 horse-power kerosene motor of my own design, especially constructed for strength, power and lightness, weighing but 120 pounds complete. It will run for a week at a time if required, without running hot, stopping, or in any possible manner troubling the operator. No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. It requires a space 10 inches wide, 4 feet long and 10 inches high.

The flying machine proper is built like my machine No. 21. of which I send you photographs, only instead of using acetylene gas for driving purposes I use the kerosene motor described above. Machine No. 22 is made mostly of steel and aluminum. There is a body 10 feet long, 3-1/2 feet wide and 3-1/2 feet deep, shaped like a fish, and resting on four automobile wheels, 13 inches in diameter. While standing on the ground the two front wheels are connected to the kerosene motor and the rear wheels are used for steering. They can be easily moved by the aeronaut. The body is well stayed with steel tubing and braced with steel piano wire. It is covered with aluminum sheeting and made so it will float like a boat in the water. On either side are large wings or aeroplanes shaped like the wings of a flying fish or bat. The ribs are of steel tubing in No. 22 instead of bamboo as in No. 21 machine, and are covered with 450 square feet of the best silk obtainable. In front of the wings and across the body is a steel framework to which is connected the propellers for driving the machine through the air. The propellers are 6 feet in diameter and have a projecting blade-surface of 4 square feet each. They are made of wood and are covered with very thin aluminum sheeting. The propellers run about 600 revolutions per minute under full power and turn in opposite directions. When running at full speed they will exert a thrust of 508 pounds. I measured this thrust by attaching the machine to a post by means of a dynamometer and running the engines at full speed. There is a mast and a bowsprit braced something like a ship's rigging to hold all parts in their proper relations to each other. In the stern of the machine there is a 12-foot tail, something similar to a bird's tail, which, like the wings, can be folded up in half a minute and laid against the sides of the body. An automatic apparatus serves to keep the equilibrium in the air.

This is illustrated in the diagrams, in which similar letters refer to similar parts in both the top and side views. H is the body of the machine containing the motor (not shown), and the wheels, II, on which it rests on the ground and supporting the tail, K. F is the bowsprit on which is mounted the lever C, supporting the small aeroplane E. The lever C is connected by the rod G to the pendulum B, which has at its lower end the weight A. It is obvious that the weight A will tilt the aeroplane E if the machine drops her bow. The leverage gained from the end of the bowsprit to the center of the machine is so great that the least change in the position of the aeroplane is instantly effective. By means of the handle D, such changes are under the immediate control of the aeronaut. I have not shown the wings in these diagrams.

In order to start flying, the motor is set in motion, and then connected to the front wheels which drive the machine forward at fearful speed. When ready to go up, a spring is released which stretches the wings and the propellers are started by means of a lever which stops the ground wheels and turns the power into the propellers. It takes about 20 yards run with the extra weight of a man (about 180 pounds) before the machine leaves the ground.

This new machine has been tried twice, on January 17, 1902. It was intended to fly only short distances, but the machine behaved so well that at the first trial it covered nearly two miles over the water of Long Island Sound, and settled in the water without mishap to either machine or operator. It was then towed back to the starting place. On the second trial it started from the same place and sailed with myself on board across Long Island Sound. The machine kept on steadily in crossing the wind at a height of about 200 feet, when it came into my mind to try steering around in a circle. As soon as I turned the rudder and drove one propeller faster than the other the machine turned a bend and flew north with the wind at a frightful speed, but turned steadily around until I saw the starting place in the distance. I continued to turn but when near the land again, I slowed up the propellers and sank gently down on an even keel into the water, she readily floating like a boat. My men then pulled her out of the water, and as the day was at a close and the weather changing for the worse. I decided to take her home until Spring.

The length of flight on the first trial was about two miles, and on the second about seven miles. The last trial was a circling flight, and as I successfully returned to my starting place with a machine hitherto untried and heavier than the air, I consider the trip quite a success. To my knowledge it is the first of its kind. This matter has so far never been published.

I have no photographs taken yet of No. 22, but send you some of No. 21, as these machines are exactly alike, except the details mentioned. No. 21 has made four trips, the longest one and a half miles, on August 14. 1901. The wings of both machines measure 30 feet from tip to tip, and the length of the entire machine is 32 feet. It will run on the ground 50 miles an hour, and in air travel at about 70 miles. I believe that if wanted it would fly 100 miles an hour. The power carried is considerably more than necessary.

Believing with Maxim that the future of the air machine lies in an apparatus made without the gas bag, I have taken up the aeroplane, and will stick to it until I have succeeded completely or expire in the attempt of so doing.
As soon as I get my machine out this Spring I will let you know. To describe the feeling of flying is almost impossible, for. in fact, a man is more frightened than anything else.
Trusting this will interest your readers, I remain, Very truly yours,
Gustave Whitehead

Bridgeport, Conn.
The Editor, hardly able to credit the account above given that a man has actually succeeded in flying: in a machine heavier than air, wrote again to Mr. Whitehead for confirmation. Mr. Whitehead's reply follows.

Editor, American Inventor
Dear Sir: Yours of the 20th received. Yes, it was a full-sized flying machine, and I, myself, flew seven miles and returned to my starting point.
In both the flights described in my previous letter, I flew in the machine myself. This, of course, is new to the world at large, but I do not care much in being advertised except by a good paper like yours. Such accounts may help others along who are working in the same line. As soon as I can I shall try again. This coming spring I will have photographs made of machine No. 22 in the air and let you have pictures taken during its flight. If you can come up and get them yourself, so much the better. I attempted this before, but in the first trial the weather was bad, some little rain and a very cloudy sky, and the snapshots that were taken did not come out right. I cannot take any time exposures of the machine when in flight on account of its high speed.
I enclose a small sketch showing the course the machine made in her longest flight. January 17. 1902.
Trusting this will be satisfactory, I remain, yours truly.
GUSTAVE WHITEHEAD

Bridgeport, Conn.
Newspaper readers will remember several accounts of Mr. Whitehead's performances last summer. Probably most people put them down as fakes, but it seems as though the long-sought answer to the most difficult problem Nature ever put to man is gradually coming in sight. The Editor and the readers of these columns await with interest the promised photographs of the machine in the air. The similarity of this machine to Langley's experimental flying machine is well shown in the accompanying illustration, reprinted from a previous issue. Mr. Langley, it will be remembered, was the first to demonstrate the possibility of mechanical flight. Ed."
Source: Whitehead News Articles (http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Whitehead_Articles.htm)

Original article:

"The Whitehead Flying Machine", American Inventor Magazine, 1 April 1902

First page) http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Gustav_Whitehead_images/American-Inventor-1April1902-Whitehead-Letter-to-Editor-re-No-22-p1.jpg

Second page) http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Gustav_Whitehead_images/American-Inventor-1April1902-Whitehead-Letter-to-Editor-re-No-22-p2.jpg

[simplex1]

In the article, Evolution of Wright Flyer Propellers between 1903 and 1912
By Robert L. Ash, Stanley J. Miley, Drew Landman (see http://www.wrightexperience.com/indepth/pdfs/props.pdf ), the authors, components of the Wright Experience team that replicated Flyer I 1903, wrote:

"However, their methodology is not even mentioned in contemporary literature, even though they (the Wright brothers) were achieving propeller performance levels by 1905 that were only achieved by others after World War I."

The citation is another argument the two brothers lied about the performance of their 1903 - 1905 propellers as long as after Aug. 8, 1908 their planes and propellers became known, they even started to sell them. Despite many plane builders being able to study these miraculous propellers nobody was able to replicate their claimed high efficiency till after WWI! This is ridiculous.

[Brian Abraham]

max_Thrust_propellers = 508 pounds
- Speed_plane = 70 miles/hour
- Power_engine = 40 HP

the efficiency of the propellers results as being 237%. Impossible! Case closed!
You got those numbers so wrong as to be laughable, and I'm not giving you the correct figures. Hint - Attend a physics lesson and learn the correct formula. I'm coming to the distinct impression that glendalegoons assessment of you was correct, as have the pilotsofamerica.

[longer ron]

Yes, it was a full-sized flying machine, and I, myself, flew seven miles and returned to my starting point.



And then he woke up ... FFS

[simplex1]

Brian Abraham,

The propellers the Wright brothers said they had built in 1903 should have had an efficiency a bit over 75% to keep "Flyer I 1903" aloft during flight No. 4 on Dec. 17, 1903. This come in contradiction with the 66% efficient propellers the brothers claimed they had used in 1903. This is one discrepancy noticed by the team "Wright Experience"!

Another problem, I already mentioned, is that the efficiency obtained by the Wright Experience, for the alleged 1903 66% efficient propellers, varied between 75% and 82%. The team could not get that 66%.

"These data (the experiments done by the team Wright Experience) show that the 1903 Wright propeller had a maximum efficiency of 82 percent.

Based on Wilbur Wright's notes on the fourth flight of Dec. 17, 1903, the Flyer had an estimated forward speed of 31 mph during the steady flight portion of its path and the propellers were turning at 379 rpm, which yields an advance ratio of 0.85. Hence, the 1903 Wright propellers were operating at a mechanical efficiency of slightly over 75 percent during steady flight.

This was a remarkable feat, considering the state of propeller knowledge prior to World War I.

Since Wilbur estimated their propeller performance to be 66 percent in March of 1903, we found the results of our experimental tests to be quite surprising."

Source: (The Wright Experience; By Robert L. Ash, Colin P. Britcher, and Kenneth W. Hyde, Mechanical Engineering "100 Years of Flight" supplement, Dec. 2003 -- "Prop-Wrights," Feature Article (http://archive.today/0pne0) )

[Brian Abraham]

is that the efficiency obtained by the Wright Experience, for the alleged 1903 66% efficient propellers, varied between 75% and 82%. The team could not get that 66%.What don't you understand? The Wrights figured 66%, yet the team achieved 75 - 82. When I did maths 75 - 82 was greater than 66. That is, the props were more efficient than the Wrights believed with their 66%. :ugh:

[simplex1]

"- max_Thrust_propellers = 508 pounds
- Speed_plane = 70 miles/hour
- Power_engine = 40 HP

the efficiency of the propellers results as being 237%. Impossible! Case closed!"

Comment by Brian Abraham,

You got those numbers so wrong as to be laughable, and I'm not giving you the correct figures. Hint - Attend a physics lesson and learn the correct formula. Brian Abraham, you are discrediting yourself trying to discredit me with cheap jokes!

My calculations are correct!

Here you find the formula I applied:
Propeller Performance: An introduction, by EPI Inc. (http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_technology/selecting_a_propeller.htm)

Of course I transformed the thrust from pounds to newtons, the speed from miles/hour to meters/second and the power from horsepower to watts. Of course I did not do 508*70/40 = 889! Because this is what you believe I did. You should have calculated first to convince yourself my 237% efficiency is correctly obtained, based exactly on the data provided by Gustave Whitehead, and it proves he lied about his flights on Jan. 17, 1902.

[simplex1]

What don't you understand? The Wrights figured 66%, yet the team achieved 75 - 82. When I did maths 75 - 82 was greater than 66. That is, the props were more efficient than the Wrights believed with their 66%.The Wright brothers did not just believe or just calculated their propellers might be 66% efficient. They built them and measured their efficiency as being 66%.

In the article "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, O. and W. Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908, pag. 648-649, The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-5) ", the Wright brothers wrote:

"Our first propellers, built entirely from calculations, gave in useful work 66 per cent. of the power expended. This was about one third more than had been secured by Maxim or Langley."

[eetrojan]

simplex 1 said: The propellers the Wright brothers said they had built in 1903 should have had an efficiency a bit over 75% to keep "Flyer I 1903" aloft during flight No. 4 on Dec. 17, 1903. This come in contradiction with the 66% efficient propellers the brothers claimed they had used in 1903. This is one discrepancy noticed by the team "Wright Experience"!

Another problem, I already mentioned, is that the efficiency obtained by the Wright Experience, for the alleged 1903 66% efficient propellers, varied between 75% and 82%. The team could not get that 66%.

What? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that YOU calculated from other Wright brother estimates re forward speed and RPM that the propellers needed to be 75% efficient. OK, let's accept that for a moment.

Even if it's true that the Wright brothers estimated that their propellers are 66% efficient, when in fact they were 75% efficient, why doesn't this simply suggest that they were a little off on their 66% estimate or in any one of their underlying estimates re speed or RPMs.

With all due respect, this is evidence of your current bias, not evidence of anything sinister from 110 years ago.

[Brian Abraham]

Efficiency_propellers = Thrust_propellers * Speed_plane / Power_engineMy calculations are correct!

Here you find the formula I applied:
Propeller Performance: An introduction, by EPI Inc.Your calculations are incorrect because you are not using the correct formula, even though your reference gives the correct information. You better sign up quick for physics 101.

[simplex1]

Even if it's true that the Wright brothers estimated that their propellers are 66% efficient, when in fact they were 75% efficient, why doesn't this simply suggest that they were a little off on their 66% estimate or in any one of their underlying estimates re speed or RPMs.
Please read again my post from here:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-4.html#post8498210
Do I have to repeat 100 times that the Wright brothers claimed they had obtained 66% efficient propellers, they built them at this efficiency. They did not just estimate a 66% efficiency for their propellers!

[simplex1]

Your calculations are incorrect because you are not using the correct formula, even though your reference gives the correct information.Why don't you have the courage to say where the mistake is? I know, you are afraid you will say a foolish thing.

Unless you prove the propellers of Whitehead increased their thrust at least 2.37 times at 70 mile/hour as compared to the static thrust your accusations are baseless.

The dynamic thrust for the same engine power can increase a bit as the plane gain speed but not 237%.

"Static Thrust of Propellers
The thrust of a propeller is not constant for different flight speeds. Reducing the inflow velocity generally increases the thrust. A reduction of the aircraft speed down to zero tends to increase the thrust even further, but often a rapid loss of thrust can be observed in this regime."
Source: Static Thrust of Propellers (http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/prpstati.htm)

[longer ron]

Why all this activity across different forums ?
Somebody writing a book ?

I am still laughing at the idea of putting a propeller under the aircraft to help it stay airborne :)

[eetrojan]

Please read again my post from here:
The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908. (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-4.html#post8498210)
Do I have to repeat 100 times that the Wright brothers claimed they had obtained 66% efficient propellers, they built them at this efficiency. They did not just estimate a 66% efficiency for their propellers!

I re-read your post and it is very difficult to understand. Please re-explain it to me like I am a very teachable 5th grader.

[Allan Lupton]

Quote

I am still laughing at the idea of putting a propeller under the aircraft to help it stay airborne

Almost as ridiculous as hanging the whole machine from a large propellor and leaving the wings off.;)

I was not going to get involved in this long and largely impossible thread, so I shall just say that if the OP really believes that propellor thrust does not vary with speed that is his/her own problem and we may as well give up trying to use engineering principles to counter his/her assertions.

But then, those who hide behind pseudonyms are bound to have to work harder to be taken seriously than those who post in their own names.

[Haraka]

"Static Thrust of Propellers
The thrust of a propeller is not constant for different flight speeds. Reducing the inflow velocity generally increases the thrust. A reduction of the aircraft speed down to zero tends to increase the thrust even further, but often a rapid loss of thrust can be observed in this regime."
(Included by Simplex - the OP, in his post #80)

I was not going to get involved in this long and largely impossible thread, so I shall just say that if the OP really believes that propellor thrust does not vary with speed that is his/her own problem and we may as well give up trying to use engineering principles to counter his/her assertions.

( Alan Lupton above)

??????????

[longer ron]

I am still laughing at the idea of putting a propeller under the aircraft to help it stay airborne



Almost as ridiculous as hanging the whole machine from a large propellor and leaving the wings off.;)


Thats on top - so ok ! :)
But I was chuckling at visualising the Flyer with a large prop mounted horizontally below the aircraft and then having to mount the whole thing on a launching rail :)
Then of course would be the fun of trying to drive that prop from a horizontally mounted engine and bending the chain drive through 90 deg !
Also then having someone lying under the aircraft to swing that prop for engine start !

Much more challenging than having 2 pusher props turning nice and slowly,and even having them contra (counter) rotate so there is no turning/torque moment on the airframe,now that was good design philosophy in the early 1900's.

rgds LR

[Haraka]

having 2 pusher props turning nice and slowly,and even having them contra (counter) rotate so there is no turning/torque moment on the airframe,now that was good design philosophy in the early 1900's.

........although the idea was even then at least over 50 years old: for example see Stringfellow's flying model of 1848 amongst other pioneers.

[Haraka]

I think T.O.M. Sopwith's comments on examining a Wright ( a "B"?) aeroplane in the USA in 1911 are interesting:

"Speaking from a mechanical standpoint, I think the Wright machine is a monstrosity. I don't see how it could be any worse and still it seems to fly reliably. As you say in this country it seems to get there, but that chain from the motor to the propellers is a very bad arrangement. The chain is the worse feature of the Wright machine, but the slow motion of the propeller makes up for it at least partially.
If you can get the power from a propeller making 500 revolutions per minute you will get about 75 per cent efficiency out of your machine. If the propeller makes 1,200 revolutions per minute you can only get about 50 per cent efficiency. That is what gives the Wright machine an advantage. With its two propellers it gets power without making as many revolutions as where a single propeller is used, and I think the advantage in efficiency more than makes up for what it loses by having that horrid looking chain"

Quote from "Sopwith - The Man and the Aircraft" by Bruce Robertson 1970

[simplex1]

Patent for Three Axis Control, published May 26, 1903, filled Sep. 24, 1901
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US728844-0.png

Not only the patent had been filled long before the Wright brothers decided to apply for a brevet but it contains the same idea of connecting roll and yaw the two brothers had in their patent published on May 22, 1906 (see: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US821393.pdf).

"The rudder, hinged to the rear end of the deck, is controlled by cords or ropes, extending to the drum and attached to and reversely wound therein. It will thus be seen that the rudder is simultaneously moved with the up-and-down transverse movement of the aeroplane. When one side of the plane is moved downward, the rudder is caused to swing toward the same side, and when the opposite side of the aeroplane is moved downward the rudder swings toward this side. Hence there is a mutual cooperation between the aeroplane and rudder with reference to controlling the sweep, lateral swirling, or circling of the ship."
Source: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US728844.pdf
(Note: aeroplane, plane mean control surface, wing).

[simplex1]

1) Picture - The alleged Flyer I 1903:
http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Airplanes/Wright_Airplane_images/1903_Flyer_I/1903_Flyer_Side.jpg

2) Video - A replica of Flyer I 1903 (Wright Flyer 1st Full Taxi test at Flabob Airport, Published on Sep 21, 2012, Pilot at the Controls Fred Culick):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZqIpay-8
(see min 1:44)

It is quite evident from (1) and (2) that the so called replica has the front elevator placed at a visible greater distance from the wings than in the case of the original. The bars linking the main wings and the front elevator are arranged in such a way that the replica seems similar to the 1903 Flyer. In reality the reproduction has the elevator as distant from the wings as in the case of latter planes which flew starting with Aug. 1908. They altered the pitch stability. They are not building a Flyer I but a kitsch.

[Haraka]

Simplex,
Can you elaborate on the provenance of the item hanging up in the Smithsonian ( ex- U.K.Science museum ) which masquerades as the 1903 Flyer and by some seemingly verifiable accounts at least, apparently clearly isn't?

[longer ron]

having 2 pusher props turning nice and slowly,and even having them contra (counter) rotate so there is no turning/torque moment on the airframe,now that was good design philosophy in the early 1900's.

........although the idea was even then at least over 50 years old: for example see Stringfellow's flying model of 1848 amongst other pioneers.

There is very little in the world that is new :)
The best designers usually collect all the good ideas together and make them work.

But seriously - all I meant was that the prop drive design suited the Wrights aircraft very well !

rgds LR

[longer ron]

Haraka...

The chain is the worse feature of the Wright machine, but the slow motion of the propeller makes up for it at least partially.
If you can get the power from a propeller making 500 revolutions per minute you will get about 75 per cent efficiency out of your machine. If the propeller makes 1,200 revolutions per minute you can only get about 50 per cent efficiency. That is what gives the Wright machine an advantage. With its two propellers it gets power without making as many revolutions as where a single propeller is used, and I think the advantage in efficiency more than makes up for what it loses by having that horrid looking chain"

Interesting quote from Sopwith !
Of course the other real advantage of the orrible looking chain drive is that it was relatively easy to change sprocket sizes etc and therefore be able to fine tune the prop RPM if required !

rgds LR

[Haraka]

Hi LR,
As I hope you can see, we are in total agreement on the Wrights' prop configuration being very well matched to what they were attempting to achieve.
Haraka
( I'm not qualified to comment on Sopwith's mechanical comments!)

[eetrojan]

1) Picture - The alleged Flyer I 1903:
http://www.wright-brothers.org/Infor...Flyer_Side.jpg

2) Video - A replica of Flyer I 1903 (Wright Flyer 1st Full Taxi test at Flabob Airport, Published on Sep 21, 2012, Pilot at the Controls Fred Culick):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZqIpay-8
(see min 1:44)

It is quite evident from (1) and (2) that the so called replica has the front elevator placed at a visible greater distance from the wings than in the case of the original. The bars linking the main wings and the front elevator are arranged in such a way that the replica seems similar to the 1903 Flyer. In reality the reproduction has the elevator as distant from the wings as in the case of latter planes which flew starting with Aug. 1908. They altered the pitch stability. They are not building a Flyer I but a kitsch.

It's not clear whether you're trying to impugn the Wright brothers, or the replica makers with wrightflyer.org, or both. It is clear, however, that you're trying to "scientifically" compare distances based on wild extrapolations from differently foreshortened images. You're comparing apples and oranges.

In particular, the 1903 photo has a completely different perspective than the video view at 1:44. You can easily see this is so by looking at the vertical spacers connecting the upper and lower wings.

Moreover, if you compare the 1903 photo with a video frame that acutally has a similar perspective, you can see that the two flyers appear to have the same dimensions. The video frame at 1:48 isn't perfect, but it's a MUCH fairer comparison than the frame at 1:44.

Here, just to make it clear, I made an animated GIF just for you. Have a look:

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Flyer_Compare.gif

[longer ron]

Hi Haraka
Yes I do see :) No arguments with you at all !
rgds LR

[simplex1]

Can you elaborate on the provenance of the item hanging up in the Smithsonian ( ex- U.K.Science museum ) ... as the 1903 Flyer ...?The eye witness, A. D. Etheridge, who was at the Nags Head Lifesaving Station on March 12, 1935, amongst other things, said:

"They (the Wright brothers) said they were going to take the engine back with them and the wings of the plane they left with me. Later I got a letter from a man in Philadelphia telling that Wilbur had written and told him that I had the old plane and that he wanted to buy it if I would dispose of it; so I wrote him a letter that I would sell it to him for $25.00. He sent me a check for it, and it is right here that I lost a fortune if I had kept it."
see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a.html#post8494651

The official story is that Orville Wright rebuilt the 1903 Flyer, the first time in 1916:

"Orville first rebuilt the Flyer in 1916 with the help of Jim Jacobs of the Dayton-Wright Company. Many of the parts had been broken in the tumble across the sand following the fourth flight in 1903. Others had been used and broken in the tests of the 1904 airplane. All were replaced in the reconstruction. Many of these replaced pieces still exist. The most significant losses were the engine, the fabric, and the propellers. The crankcase and legs were broken off in 1903 and the engine was never used again. The fabric was stored separately and given to the Wright family upon Orville's death in 1948. Other pieces, like the hub to the dolly and the propeller shaft sprockets also exist. Most of these survivors are in the collection of the National Park Service."
Source: In Depth: The 1903 Flyer, Part I (http://www.wrightexperience.com/edu/1903a/EandE/WBstory.htm)

In conclusion, the 1903 Flyer was sold by A. D. Etheridge to someone in Philadelphia and its engine, despite being carried back home by the Wright brothers has not survived. It is also known the brothers did not have drawings for their initial plane. The 1903 Flyer is an airplane that vanished completely and latter replicas are just claimed to be reproductions of the original.

[longer ron]

Meanwhile - back in reality :)

The photographs taken on December 14 and 17, 1903, were shot using Orville Wright’s “Series V Korona” dry-plate camera. The images used in this article were taken from the Library of Congress collection of Wright brothers negatives and are free of copyright restrictions; the images were cropped and enlarged, with improved levels, contrast and brightness, but were otherwise unaltered, with spots, scratches and other imperfections left intact.


http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/SeriesvKorona_zps374cd00b.jpg

[GWFirstinFlight]

Re: the comment:<< the brother's own version of events, published in Sep. 1908 (see: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001574/#seq-1) )>>

This article was actually written by Orville without Wilbur. He fashioned the article to give himself the credit for first flight. It was written by Orville with Katherine's (his sister's) help. Wilbur was abroad at the time and had left instructions for the lesser brother, Orville, to follow for the article. These were ignored. The article was published before Wilbur could object. The LOC Letters of Wilbur and Orville Wright clearly show this.

It is an example of more to come, Orville, far less talented, was always trying to upstage Wilbur and did this for the rest of his life. He also worked hard to upstage other aviators and inventors, such as Whitehead.

[GWFirstinFlight]

The historic record does show that the Wrights have been mis-portrayed for political and financial gain. As an example, read Smithsonian conspiracy to deny Whitehead flew first now provable (http://gustavewhitehead.info/smithsonian-conspiracy-to-deny-whitehead-flew-first/). The original documents are contained therein. This has been about MONEY as in financial gain, from the very beginning. Then you can add power and influence. Mix those together and you have "History by Contract" by O'Dwyer and Randolph, courtesy of the Smithsonian.

[longer ron]

An original Wright photo and a pic taken at NASM for comparison (this probably has a little lens distortion).
Both pics emphasizing the rather frail construction,I can see why the Wrights liked to fly in a reasonable wind - to keep the groundspeed (and hence landing speed) down to a minimum!
Any frail wooden aircraft that is 'rebuilt' will be largly a replica anyway !



http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/1903_Flyer_Side_zps3a2b6cef.jpg



http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/WrightFlyer1_zpsd0ee2579.jpg

[simplex1]

This replica does not agree with that 1903 lateral view photo of Flyer I. The distance between the main wings and the front elevator was visibly increased.
http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/local--files/start/WrightFlyer1stFullTaxiTestAtFlabobAirportFredCulickPilotPost ed-21-Sep-2012.jpg
A replica of Flyer I 1903 (Wright Flyer 1st Full Taxi test at Flabob Airport, Published on Sep 21, 2012, Pilot at the Controls Fred Culick).
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZqIpay-8

[evansb]

The original post was clearly trolling for a controversial reply. Ponder the results..!

[longer ron]

I will not comment on any of the modern replicas !

AFAIK there were no engineering drawings for the 1903 Flyer so it may have been impossible (even for Orville's 'rebuild') to get every detail correct.
Any slight or even subtle difference can have a huge effect on flying qualities etc
And as for the modern replicas - any current pilot is going to struggle to fly an aircraft like the Wright Flyers etc - it is difficult to 'unlearn' modern flying/handling qualities !

[Allan Lupton]

No Hanaka, I was not saying that the OP did not say that propellor thrust did not vary with speed - it was his/her use of a measured static thrust of 508 lbf in the following:

- max_Thrust_propellers = 508 pounds
- Speed_plane = 70 miles/hour
- Power_engine = 40 HP

Yes the arithmetic is fine (don't bother with all those irrelevant SI units)

(508 * 70 *(88/60))/550 = hp

but the 508 lbf assumption is wrong.

As I wrote before, I was not going to get involved in this thread which advances a theory, based on a single unverifiable assumption, as truth.

[eetrojan]

This replica does not agree with that 1903 lateral view photo of Flyer I. The distance between the main wings and the front elevator was visibly increased.

This really makes me question everything you say

I still don't understand if you're attacking the Wright brothers, the replica makers, or both. But, it doesn't matter because...

... you're making a ridiculous off-the-cuff comparison of length by eyeballing a photo taken with a 1903 lens, and a 2012 video of a replica taken with a different lens and from a different distance.

Even worse, you're cherry picking the video frame that gives you the angle that let's you see what only you want to see. .

Here, let me make it a little clearer for you (click for larger version):

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_Fantasy_01.jpg (http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_Fantasy_02.jpg)

[simplex1]

I have to admit I made a mistake:
Unless you prove the propellers of Whitehead increased their thrust at least 2.37 times at 70 mile/hour as compared to the static thrust your accusations are baseless.See: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-4.html#post8499180

It is not increased as I wrote but "decreased their thrust at least 2.37 times at 70 mile/hour".

508pounds * 70miles/hour / 40HP = 237% (if the propellers keep their static trust at 70 mph).
If at 70 mph the thrust decreases from 508 pounds to 214 pounds then the efficiency of the propellers would have been around 100%. As max. efficiencies attained in 1901-1902 were ~ 50% then that static 508 pounds thrust would have had to go down to about 107 pounds at 70 mph.

107pounds * 70miles/hour / 40HP = 50%

Only if the thrust had dropped 4.75 times (508 pounds / 107 pounds) the plane would have attained 70 mph with 50% efficient propellers, available that time.

It appears the propellers of Gustav Whitehead were terrible unoptimized for flight speeds giving high trust at low speeds, where they were not used (the plane accelerated with the propellers unpowered and the engine coupled only to the wheels), and quite poor thrust in flight. It is not impossible. It is plausible.

[Haraka]

I was actually working on what eetrojan has so nicely shown in his GIF animation.
Do notice the increased angle of incidence on the "replica" which I think tends to support "longer rons" caution on reading across.
Please note that I am not "Wright bashing' on this point, it applies to many later "lookalikes", that actually aren't on closer examination.

[glendalegoon]

I recall a quote, but I will paraphrase, of one of the wright's.

of all the birds in the animal kingdom, the parrot is the best talker, but the worst flyer.

TO SIMPLEX I SALUTE YOU AS A GREAT PARROT.

The Wrights were right and did the first real flight.

'nuff said.

[simplex1]

Gustav Whitehead the inventor of the lightweight Diesel Engine?!

This German inventor claimed his No. 22 plane, that allegedly flew on Jan. 17, 1902, was powered by a 40 HP, 120 pounds, kerosene engine with ignition by compression (a lightweight reliable diesel engine, an impossibility for 1902, even for 1922!).

"It is run by a 40 horse-power kerosene motor of my own design, especially constructed for strength, power and lightness, weighing but 120 pounds complete. It will run for a week at a time if required, without running hot, stopping, or in any possible manner troubling the operator. No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. It requires a space 10 inches wide, 4 feet long and 10 inches high."
(Source: "The Whitehead Flying Machine", American Inventor Magazine, 1 April 1902", http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/#Gustav-Whitehead ).

All known diesel engines existent in 1902 were heavy stationary machines. The first powered diesel ship appeared in 1903 and the first diesel road vehicle, a tractor, in 1922 (see, Diesel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine)).

A 1902 reliable, ignition by compression engine, working with kerosene, weighting just 120 pounds and delivering 40 HP is simply anachronistic, a thing that, in reality, appeared decades latter.

[simplex1]

Regarding the GIF animation from here:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-5.html#post8500075

Just look at the angles of one of the right triangles of bars that connect the main wings with the front elevator. The replica and the 1903 original Flyer have different such angles. The replica has isosceles right triangles while the 1903 plane right triangles that have the horizontal chateaus visibly shorter than the vertical one.

[simplex1]

The Wrights were right and did the first real flight.
This picture contradicts you.
http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Doers_and_Dreamers/Doers_and_Dreamers_images/Langley/Langley_Aerodrome_5_6May1896.JPGThe launch of Aerodrome No. 5 on the Potomac River on 6 May 1896.

[glendalegoon]

simplex 1


and where is the pilot? a MODEL does not count the same as the Dec 17, 1903 controlled powered flight including a human pilot.

SIMPLEX1. Perhaps you are bored? Perhaps you are lonely? Perhaps you are really pretty dumb? BUT foisting off a model without a pilot as YOUR evidence against the WRights is really pretty bad.

FOR all practical purposes the Wrights Invented the airplane as we know it and flew the first flight (human, powered, controlled etc). Others invented the prop, or the engine, or even sewing thread. But the wrights put it together, overcame warp drag and gave mankind the airplane.

Now, if you want to go back to Daedalus, that's fine.

And as far as really piloting a plane with anhedral and not being stable, I will remind you that most pilots today do not learn to fly while laying down in a hip cradle. The Wrights were amazing. SIMPLEX, you are not.

[Brian Abraham]

You're confusing your firsts simplex. Wrights were the first manned. Langley had his first genuine success on May 6, 1896, with his Aerodrome Number 5. It made the world's first successful flight of an unpiloted, engine-driven, heavier-than-air craft of substantial size. It was launched from a spring-actuated catapult mounted on top of a houseboat on the Potomac River near Quantico, Virginia. Two flights were made on May 6, one of 1,005 m (3,300 ft) and a second of 700 m (2,300 ft), at a speed of approximately 40 kph (25 mph). On both occasions, the Aerodrome Number 5 landed in the water, as planned, because, in order to save weight, it was not equipped with landing gear.

[longer ron]

The world is not short of conspiracy theories etc but generally speaking the truth is far more mundane than many people would like to think.
Simplex - I am still not sure exactly why you are trying so hard to discredit the Wrights - I am trying to reply to you in a helpful and practical way !

I would hazard a guess that the dimensions of the 1903 Flyer were constrained by the width of their Shed at KDH,which is possibly why it ended up looking very 'short' - because stability and control for aircraft was in its infancy then the Wrights would probably not have realised that having the Elevator 'close coupled' (ie only a short distance from the wing) would make the aircraft very sensitive in pitch + also by their own admission they had the elevator hinge wrongly positioned which I assume made it very 'twitchy' (overbalanced) !

If anybody subsequently built a 'replica' -they would have to make the elevator further out (further forward) for flight safety/stability/control !

[simplex1]

Another inconsistency, an eye witness is quoted as talking about flapping propellers that equipped one of the Wright brothers' planes

There is a large size article, "Fly Over St. Louis at 50 Miles an Hour.", Sunday Magazine - St. Louis Post Dispatch - April 21 1907, Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-65) ", containing (amongst other things) a short witness account in its end (bottom right):

"Like a locomotive
By A. I. Root, Medina, O., Who Witness Several of Wright Brothers' Flights.

It was one of the grandest sights of my life. I stood in front of the machine as it came around a curve. Imagine, if you can, an aluminum locomotive, without wheels, but with 20-foot wings and big, flapping propellers, climbing up into the air right towards you. Such a tremendous flapping and snapping. Everyone was excited except the two Wrights. ...".

First of all, none of the known airplanes made by the Wright brothers resembles an aluminum locomotive and secondly they were not equipped with flapping propellers.

Amos Ives Root (a real person) is quoted as claiming he witnessed a flying machine that never existed. The entire article has the appearance of an investment scam. Most of the newspaper clippings ( see Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/item/wright002799/) ) collected by the Wright brothers, especially those between Dec. 17, 1903 and Aug. 8, 1908, look like unreliable articles one can find in tabloids.

[Haraka]

Dan Winterland wrote # 24 The problem with flight was power and 19th century experiments with steam engines produced powered short hops with one 3hp powered aircraft achieving an altitude of 6 inches.

Simplex1 asked:
It would be curious to read a few more details about that mysterious plane. Was it a heavier than air man carrying flying machine?

I think Dan may be referring to the aircraft built by Thomas Moy and R.Schill which is said to have risen a few inches of the ground at the Crystal palace in 1875. The "Aerial Steamer" was a biplane "with the wings arranged in tandem" fitted with an engine of 3 h.p. and weighed 80lb, including radiator and water and was mounted on a wheeled undercarriage.
from "Aerial Wonders of our Time " Ed. Sir John Hammerton.
More about it on Google inc. photo and illustrations
( Doesn't sound like it actually became a man carrier :) )

[Allan Lupton]

Simplex, when you read:
No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used.

why do you jump to the conclusion that a (so-called) diesel engine is implied?
A moment's research into early IC engines will tell you that what we now refer to as "hot tube" ignition was widely used and that the engines so equipped were slow-turning. I doubt it would have used kerosene as we now know it, but once running and with the tube up to operating temperature I expect it could have done so.

As I wrote before, I was not going to get involved in this thread which advances a theory, based on a single unverifiable assumption, as truth and why have I even bothered to read this thread.
However you seem to have expanded your argument to include anything you personally don't immediately understand as evidence in favour of your theory.

[simplex1]

About the 1875 plane of Thomas Moy, Octave Chanute wrote in 1892:

"the machine (which was only a large model and could not carry an engineer) being wholly propelled by the action of the aerial wheels upon the air, acting only as driven.
The utmost speed attained was 12 miles per hour, while 35 miles an hour was required to cause it to leave the ground."
( see: Chanute, Octave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_Chanute) (November 1892), "Progress in Flying Machines: Aeroplanes, Part IV" (http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Chanute/library/Prog_Aero_Nov1892.html). The Railroad and Engineering Journal, Progress in Flying Machines: Aeroplanes, November 1892 (http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Chanute/library/Prog_Aero_Nov1892.html) )

The 1875 plane of Moy did not fly at all and it was not a man carrying machine. This airplane was about three times below the takeoff speed. It was far from achieving even the shortest, smallest hop possible.

Honestly I do not find any credible man carrying plane, powered by steam, that really hopped a bit (took off under its own power) before 1906.

[Haraka]

Maxim's twin engined Naptha/Steam machine ( in only a test-rig configuration) in 1894 generated so much lift in a trial run ( estimated at between 3000 and 10,000 lb)that it inadvertently broke its restraining rails and travelled a considerable distance through the air with four on board.
In this configuration it was not intended to fly. The planned configuration for this included additional wing panels , powered flying controls and a gyroscopically governed autopilot.
Maxim ran out of money on this project and lost interest, probably because he was coming to the realisation that the internal combustion engine made smaller machines more practicable.
Unlike the Wrights 1903 engine, one of Maxim's engines ( of 180 hp incidentally) is fortunately still with us and is in the bowels of the U.K. Science Museum. At least it was in 1978.
The other engine Maxim consigned to the Smithsonian in the U.S.A. by the safest means of transportation possible in 1912. He put it on the Titanic.
If I may quote Peter Lewis ( British Aircraft 1809 to 1914. Putnam).

Designed on a grand scale, construction of Hiram S. Maxim's first biplane commenced in 1891, and the enormous machine was completed in 1894. Power for the pair of 17.83 ft. diameter propellers was provided by two light-weight compound steam engines, which gave a total of 360 h.p. 320 lb./sq. in. steam was supplied by a Thorneycroft marine boiler fired by naphtha, total thrust being 2,100 lb.
Testing was carried out at Baldwyn's Park, Bexley, Kent, on a 9 ft. wide steel railway track 1,800 ft. in length, equipped with check rails of Georgia pine 35 ft. apart. With pilot and three passengers aboard, the machine took off after a run of 200 yds., when it reached 40 m.p.h., but broke the check rails and came to a halt. The measured lift was 4,000 lb. Owing to the illness of the inventor, and the fact that the grounds at Baldwyn's Park were required for use as a public institution, the whole project was abandoned. Span, 104 ft. Length, 120 ft. Wing area, 3,875 sq. ft. Weight loaded, 8,000 lb.

[simplex1]

when you read:
"No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. "
why do you jump to the conclusion that a (so-called) diesel engine is implied?Yes, the description of the alleged engine, that equipped the No. 22 plane of Gustav Whitehead, can fit that of a hot tube or hot bulb engine (which are related to diesel motors). However, I can not find such engines, built around or before 1902, that have powers and weights approaching those claimed by Whitehead for his mysterious ignition by heat and compression power plant.

The only known engine of that time with a similar performance to Whitehead's motor was the Manly–Balzer engine (also with 5 cylinders) which used electric sparks for igniting the fuel not compression.
Dry weight: 136 lb (62 kg)
Power output: 52 hp (39 kW) at 950 rpm
Delivered: March 1903
see: Manly?Balzer engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manly%E2%80%93Balzer_engine)

[simplex1]

Regarding the plane built by Hiram Maxim, there is an article in the french journal L'Aeronaute from Nov. 1894. The author describes this huge plane and mentions the good reviews it received in newspapers but he does not clearly write Maxim's plane flew or at least made short hops, beyond any doubt.

"Il y a, dans les essais de M. Hiram Maxim, quelque chose de nouveau, c'est, l'emploi de deux rails superposés l'un au-dessous des roues, l'autre au-dessus. On met de la couleur sous le rail supérieur et si la couleur est enlevée, on déclare que l'appareil s'est envolé. Je trouve l'expérience mal faite. Il se peut très bien que l'aéroplane, qui a une très mauvaise stabilité, se renverse et qu'une des roues se soulève sans que pour cela l'appareil se soit enlevé. Il se peut encore que, comme l'aéroplane de M. Tatin, celui de M. Maxim fasse des bonds sans se maintenir en l'air et sans être capable de s'envoler."
(Source: "LE BREVET DE L'AÉROPLANE de M. HIRAM MAXIM" L'AÉRONAUTE, 27° ANNÉE. — N° 11. — NOVEMBRE 1894, L'Aéronaute (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5699551r/f11.image.r=hiram%20maxim.langEN) )

Translation:
"There is, in the trials of Mr. Hiram Maxim, something new, it is the use of two rails one below the wheels, the other above. The upper rail has paint and if the color is removed, we declare that the plane rose. I find the experiment badly done. It may well be that the airplane, which has a very poor stability, tends to overturn and one of the wheels lifts off without us being able to say the plane as a whole got in the air. It is still possible that, as the airplane of Mr. Tatin, the one of Mr. Maxim makes hops without staying in the air and without being able to fly."

It is not clear at all that Maxim's plane made even short hops, this is, it left the inferior rail with all the wheels for an instant. It might have left the lower rail with both left and right front wheels, a case for which the paint from the upper rails would have been removed. The force could have even broken the superior rail without the back wheels being able to quit the lower rail.

Hiram Maxim definitely had a plane in 1894 but the publications of the time do not confirm 100% a true take off (all wheels simultaneously not in contact with the lower rails).

[Haraka]

Trial of Maxim's Steam Flying Machine
Scientific American—September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London.]

On Tuesday, July 31, for the first time in the history of the world, a flying machine actually left the ground, fully equipped with engines, boiler, fuel, water, and a crew of three persons. Its inventor, Mr. Hiram Maxim, had the proud consciousness of feeling that he had accomplished a feat which scores of able mechanics had stated to be impossible. Unfortunately, he had scarcely time to realize his triumph before fate, which so persistently dogs the footsteps of inventors, interposed to dash his hopes. The very precautions which had been adopted to prevent accidents proved fatal to the machine, and in a moment it lay stretched on the ground, like a wounded bird with torn plumage and broken wings. Its very success was the cause of its failure, for not only did it rise, but it tore itself out of the guides placed to limit its flight, and for one short moment it was free. But the wreck of the timber rails became entangled with the sails, and brought it down at once. The machine fell on to the soft sward, embedding its wheels deeply in the grass, and testifying, beyond contradiction, that it had fallen and not run to its position. If it had not been in actual flight, the small flanged wheels would have cut deep tracks in the yielding earth.


I guess you can take your pick to support your particular case Simplex 1 :).

[glendalegoon]

amazing how simplex refuses to acknowledge the langley photo as unmanned.

[simplex1]

Regarding Hiram Maxim's 1894 plane:

"The actual horse power delivered to the screws is 363 when the engines are running at 375 revolutions per minute. ... The thrust of the screws, when the machine is moored, is 2,100 lb., and when it is running it is 2,000 lb. We give these figures as they were supplied to us, omitting decimals. The total lift is something over 10,000 lb. at a speed of forty miles an hour and with the aeroplanes making an angle of about 7.25 degrees with the horizontal."
Source: The Sydney Mail - Google News Archive Search (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1302&dat=18941103&id=aEFVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cpUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6652,4285105) or The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916) (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/maxim.html)

2000 lb * 40 mph / 363 HP = 58.7% - The efficiency of the propellers is simply too high for 1894. It should have been below 50%.

[Brian Abraham]

This replica does not agree with that 1903 lateral view photo of Flyer I. The distance between the main wings and the front elevator was visibly increased.A replica is not meant to be an exact copy of the original.

The FAA order applying to the Wright Flyer replicas.The general description of applicable 1903 Wright Flyer replicas are any close reproduction or copy of the Wright Brothers 1903 aircraft which may be used, but not limited to re-enactment or simulation of the proof of design concept type of flights preformed in 1903 with only a pilot on board. http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/order8130.31.pdfAnother inconsistency, an eye witness is quoted as talking about flapping propellersThe use of the word means nothing, it may simply refer to the rotation. Word usage was completely different 100 years ago. Do you hear the word "flotation" used today to describe the act of flying? Was used as such to describe the Wrights flights by one author.

[simplex1]

A replica is not meant to be an exact copy of the original.
If it is not an exact copy of the original and flies it does not prove the original was able to fly.

The use of the word means nothing, it may simply refer to the rotation.
"flap (flæp) vb, flaps, flapping or flappedto move (wings or arms) up and down, esp in or as if in flying, or (of wings or arms) to move in this way"
flap - definition of flap by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flap)

You have to show me an example (it could be 100 years old) where the word flapping refers clearly, beyond any doubt, to rotating propellers. You really want to be ridiculous. You are changing the meaning of words just to defend the hopeless case of the Wright brothers as the first people to fly an airplane.

[glendalegoon]

I will use the word flap for you.

SIMPLEX, your mouth flaps and gibberish comes out.


You won't even acknowledge that your photo of the langley plane is a MODEL without a human being on board.

OK smart guy, prove the Wright's plane (1903 flyer) can't fly.

Not just that you can't fly it. Not just that someone else can't fly it. but that the Wrights couldn't fly it.

They had been practicing for years and evolved their first gliders into a powered, controllable airplane.

You have been writing for a couple of weeks.

YOU are the only person who is hopeless.

[Brian Abraham]

Extract from a NASA technical paper "A Look at Handling Qualities of Canard Configurations", by Seth B. Anderson.

The comments on controllably, and the use of anhedral are worthy of note, given the diatribe by simplex on these two elements.At the start of powered flight, most new aircraft copied the Wright Brothers canard design; however, only tail aft configurations were produced during the WW I years, 1914-1918, and only a few copies of canard designs invaded the market for the next 50 years. In those early days of flight, most aircraft were designed and built without the benefit of wind tunnel tests, and documentation of stability and control characteristics did not exist. The first systematic stability and control flight test results were conducted by NACA5 in 1919 using a Curtiss JN4H aircraft. Handling qualities measurements correlated with pilot opinion did not take place until the late 1930s.

Although a great number of canard-equipped aircraft have flown throughout the years, it is only recently that stability and control data have become available to provide a clearer understanding of the relative merits of this concept. As a result, only a select few of the many canard concepts that have demonstrated successful flight are reviewed.

In the early struggles to achieve powered flight, the canard concept proved to be popular. The Wright Brothers designed their 1903 canard "Flyer" by appropriately blending knowledge of structures, power plant, and aerodynamics to construct a machine that had enough power to offset the drag and sufficient control to trim over a wide AOA range. They did not, however, understand or appreciate the need for stability and this was reflected in problems encountered in developing their concept. Not only was their aircraft unstable longitudinally and laterally, but also the elevator hinge moments were overbalanced, and large adverse yaw complicated turn entries.

An examination of a two-view drawing of the 1905 aircraft reveals features which are of special interest from the stability and control (handling qualities) standpoint. Foremost is the use of the foreplane, which led to the configuration coined "canard," a French word for a hoax or tall story. In fact, their accomplishment of powered flight was not completely believed until Wilber Wright demonstrated their aircraft in many European countries in 1908. The reason for the choice of the canard control was not based upon measured data (the Wrights' wind tunnel tests did not include pitching moment), but more upon intuitive reasoning. Good control was uppermost in their minds. Wilber had expressed a concern that an aft tail configuration had an intrinsic danger that was associated with Lilienthal's loss of control and death while flying his glider in 1896.

The stall behavior of their aircraft was never well documented. The relatively constant chord planform would normally provide good stall characteristics by virtue of center-section flow breakdown, except that downwash from the canard would unload the wing root area and tend to cause loss of lateral stability at stall. Stalls had been encountered in the 1901 glider (configured similarly to the 1903 powered vehicle), which was observed to "mush" to the ground with little damage. A more serious stall did occur with the 1903 Flyer when Wilber allowed the aircraft to pitch up to the stall in a moment of confusion when he inadvertently stopped the engine. The stall occurred at low altitude, resulting in a nose-down impact with considerable damage, but Wilber was not hurt. The nose-down behavior is normally a desired stall recovery response, except when flying close to the ground.

Pursuing the pitch characteristics further, recent data obtained on a one-eighth-scale model show that pitching moment characteristics were relatively linear up to CLmax . In fact, a pitch down at the stall normally max associated with a canard control losing effectiveness (by stalling before the wing) is not evident. Flight stall behavior would be altered by the c.g. location used. In the Wrights' case, the c.g. was not far enough forward to highly load the canard and cause it to stall first. Although the Wrights may have wanted more stability, it was not possible to move the c.g. farther forward because of the inability to trim out the large nose-down pitching moment associated with the highly cambered airfoil. It should be noted that even though the flyer was highly unstable, a large upload on the canard was required to provide trim at a cruise CL of approximately 0.6.

The Flyer's instability was a major handling qualities problem as evidenced from comments by Orville Wright in a letter to Wilber in 1909. "The difficulty in handling our machine is due to rudder (horizontal tailor canard) being in front, which makes it hard to keep on a level course. If you want to climb you must first give the front rudder a larger angle, but immediately the machine begins to rise you must reverse the rudder and give a smaller angle. The machine is always in unstable equilibrium. I do not think it necessary to lengthen the machine but to simply put the rudder behind instead of before." From the recent wind tunnel data it was estimated that they were flying with a negative static margin of approximately -20%. The derived pitch dynamic stability showed that the short period mode was aperiodic and doubled amplitude in about 0.5 sec. This calculated divergence rate is considerably greater than that judged acceptable. In reality, the behavior would be subdued by apparent mass and inertia effects. A skilled pilot could learn to cope with this behavior, but undoubtedly the pilot workload was high.

As their flights progressed, the Wrights recognized the need for more stability. By reducing the wing camber and providing a more favorable hinge moment balance, they were able to add 70 lb of cast iron at the nose to improve stability. Eventually, one of the canard surfaces was moved to the rear and made movable, improving stability so that hands-off flight was possible.

The lateral/directional stability and control of the Flyer were marginal and early attempts at turning flight were fraught with danger. In fact, it was not until September 1904 that a 360° turn was accomplished. Part of the problem was lateral stability. Although dihedral invented by Cayley around 1800 was known to produce positive lateral stability, the Wrights chose to use anhedral because their glIder experiments had shown adverse bank angle effects when flying in ground effect in cross wind operation with positive dihedral.
Although anhedral tended to help the airplane turn by virtue of an unstable spiral mode, Wilbur noted in his diary, "Unable to stop turning." It was fortunate that directional stability (CNB ) was neutral to low, since a large CNB would have aggravated the spiral instability. In part, the poor yaw (turn) behavior was due to the interconnect system used to improve turn entry. The Wrights discovered early in their glider tests that wing warping provided good roll effectiveness, but it also produced adverse yaw. By interconnecting the rudder with wing warp, adverse yaw effects were reduced, but yaw control power was marginal. In 1905 they decided to operate the rudder control independently with improved turn capability.

Although the 1903 Flyer did achieve success in ushering in the era of powered flight, the canard concept did not appear to have enough merit to prevail beyond 1910. The 1911 model B aircraft had a conventional (aft) tail.

[longer ron]

Well Simplex - some very knowledgeable guys on here giving you some sound practical information - as Brian posted previously - language useage has changed greatly over the 100+ years,different words/phrasing and even meanings !The technical language of aviation would evolve over the next ten years after 1903 - but it just did not exist in the early 1900's - so people just called and described things in different ways !
I did post yesterday why an exact replica of the 1903 Flyer could not be built to fly - and it has nothing to do with any half ar5ed conspiracy theories !

Have a nice life :)

[Haraka]

Canards.
I always thought that the name "Canard" was derived from the French word for a duck, because the long length of the aircraft in front of the main wing in this layout making the configuration resemble a duck in flight. Hence the Focke Wulf F-19 "Ente" and the Mig- 8 "Utke", in German and Russian also meaning duck. By usage the foreplanes ( when normally present) also being referred to as canards.
From the flying point of view I think consideration should also be given to the fact that the elevator's location ( directly in line with the pilot's forward vision) , its angle of incidence and it's position relative to the horizon gave the pilot a very short control feedback loop to respond to what the aeroplane was doing: all aids to flying an unstable aircraft.
The article quoted by Brian also perhaps gives some explanation as to the seemingly alarming up-angle of the elevator on the famous 17th December photograph .
(Incidentally I disagree with the assertion that at the start of powered flight "most" new aircraft copied the Wright brothers canard design. A number, yes, but that has not the same implication. It might not be incorrect to state that , following the experience of the European visit, the Wrights progressively abandoned their canard configuration).

[simplex1]

At the start of powered flight, most new aircraft copied the Wright Brothers canard design
Hiram Maxim's plane had that canard wing you are talking about since before 1894.
The canard configuration was well known at the time the Wright brothers started to build gliders.

[FlightlessParrot]

To account for an eyewitness describing the Wrights' propellers as "flapping" I don't think we need to postulate a change in meaning of the word (which seems a bit unlikely to me). We just have to remember that eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable, and the slow rotation of the Wrights' propellers could easily have been interpreted, by a relatively distant observer who didn't know how they really moved, as flapping. Think of all the times you've seen something as first moving in one way, then identified it and reinterpreted it.

Truly, eyewitnesses are unreliable. All those aircraft that streak flames before crashing, even though there was actually no fire. And it's not just other people: I was an eyewitness to a mild fender-bender, and afterwards realised I could not remember the precise sequence of events.

I'm not quite sure what OP is trying to prove. I assume it's that someone else had priority over the Wrights, and it looks like Langley: maybe Langley could have flown, but he didn't. But if the Wrights didn't really fly until 1908, that would give it to Santos Dumont, unless it was really Richard Pearse: but if Pearse was first, it shows how little this Guinness Book of Records mentality matters for real history, because he had no influence on future developments, whereas the Wrights, for good and ill, certainly did.

[Haraka]

Hiram Maxim's plane had that canard wing you are talking about since before 1894
I'm very sorry Simplex 1: I'm not going to even bother to answer that comment.
Regrettably, despite many contributors' forbearance and encouragement, you really don't seem to have demonstrated evidence of an informed coherent and/or constructive original argument or structured point of view on any of the topics you have raised.

Perhaps you would be happier on a UFO thread or somesuch on another forum?

[GWFirstinFlight]

Gustave Whitehead not only made engines, used them to fly, and wrote letters to the editor about them in 1901-1902 through 1911, but he was actively developing and selling them to other inventors. He was interviewed in person and displayed his engines, and there are many photos of them. Aviation pioneer Charles Witteman was one of his customers who said Whitehead was a genius. Wikipedia is definitely not the source of all knowledge, nor is what we have been taught the last word. History is always catching up to what the realities actually were. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly (http://www.gustavewhitehead.info)

[simplex1]

Again, coming back to Hiram Maxim, that article from Scientific American - September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London], about a flight on July 31, 1894, does not talk about witnesses and the evidence, it presents to support the flight, is indirect: "The machine fell on to the soft sward, embedding its wheels deeply in the grass, and testifying, beyond contradiction, that it had fallen and not run to its position. If it had not been in actual flight, the small flanged wheels would have cut deep tracks in the yielding earth."

The ideal flight of Maxim's plane, if everything had worked perfectly, would have been 1 inch above the steel rails!

"Four extra wheels were fitted to the machine on outriggers and so adjusted that, if the machine should lift one inch clear of the steel rails, the wheels at the ends of the outriggers would engage the under side of the pine trackway." ...
Source: The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916) (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/maxim.html)

The description given by Hiram Maxim himself about the flight is quite complicated. He was not 100% sure his plane had really flown, even at a height of 1 inch. It is not quite clear what happened to the right wheel which rolled on one of the steel rails. After running 1000 feet the plane started to tear up the upper rail with its outer right wheel. This means the inner right main wheel could well have been in contact with the steel rail. It is also not clear how far from the steel rail Maxim's plane stopped. The flying machine could have been 6 wheel in the air but the other two (right front) evolved in a mysterious way. Also, between 600 and 900 feet the plane, according to Maxim, floated 1 inch above the steel rail. Are we sure all inner wheels were in the air simultaneously? I have serious doubts the machine had such a vertical stability to fly (even guided horizontally by the outer wheels) 1 inch above the rails for 300 feet, a long distance.

Maxim's own words:
"The enormous screw-thrust started the engine so quickly that it nearly threw the engineers off their feet, and the machine bounded over the track at a great rate. Upon noticing a slight diminution in the steam pressure, I turned on more gas, when almost instantly the steam commenced to blow a steady blast from the small safety valve, showing that the pressure was at least 320 lbs. in the pipes supplying the engines with steam. Before starting on this run, the wheels that were to engage the upper track were painted, and it was the duty of one of my assistants to observe these wheels during the run, while another assistant watched the pressure gauges and dynagraphs. The first part of the track was up a slight incline, but the machine was lifted clear of the lower rails and all of the top wheels were fully engaged on the upper track when about 600 feet had been covered. The speed rapidly increased, and when 900 feet had been covered, one of the rear axle trees, which were of two-inch steel tubing, doubled up and set the rear end of the machine completely free. The pencils ran completely across the cylinders of the dynagraphs and caught on the underneath end. The rear end of the machine being set free, raised considerably above the track and swayed. At about 1,000 feet, the left forward wheel also got clear of the upper track, and shortly afterwards the right forward wheel tore up about 100 feet of the upper track. Steam was at once shut off and the machine sank directly to the earth, embedding the wheels in the soft turf without leaving any other marks, showing most conclusively that the machine was completely suspended in the air before it settled to the earth. In this accident, one of the pine timbers forming the upper track went completely through the lower framework of the machine and broke a number of the tubes, but no damage was done to the machinery except a slight injury to one of the screws."
Source: The Pioneers : An Anthology : Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 - 1916) (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/maxim.html)

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/maxim_1894_side_elev_1000.jpg
Hiram Maxim's plane

http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/73921977_960.jpg (http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/73921977_960.jpg)
Hiram Maxim's plane

[simplex1]

I'm not going to even bother to answer that comment.
Regrettably, despite many contributors' forbearance and encouragement, you really don't seem to have demonstrated evidence of an informed coherent and/or constructive original argument or structured point of view on any of the topics you have raised.Look at the first picture in my previous message. The canard wing in front of Maxim's 1894 plane is quite visible. The canard concept was not invented by the Wright brothers. It was already used before them.

[Dan Winterland]

because he had no influence on future developments, whereas the Wrights, for good and ill, certainly did.

One influence the Wrights had was to virtually stop all aviation research and development in the US. With their vigorous legal defences of their patents in court, anyone else who had plans to fly was effectively grounded. This enabled the Europeans to take the lead in aviation. With their ''only just flew'' event, they effectively halted further progress. Perhaps this gives some true insight into their motives - enrichment rather than pioneering.

[simplex1]

Gustave Whitehead not only made engines, used them to fly, and wrote letters to the editor about them in 1901-1902 through 1911, but he was actively developing and selling them to other inventors. He was interviewed in person and displayed his engines, and there are many photos of them. Aviation pioneer Charles Witteman was one of his customers who said Whitehead was a genius. Wikipedia is definitely not the source of all knowledge, nor is what we have been taught the last word. History is always catching up to what the realities actually were. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly (http://www.gustavewhitehead.info)
There is no trace on the internet of a 40 HP, 120 pounds, 5 cylinders, ignition by compression (of any kind possible) engine working with kerosene, being able to run 1 week continuously and available in 1902, not even in 1910. Whitehead claimed he had used such an engine for his No. 22 plane in an Article that appeared on April 1, 1902 !!

[glendalegoon]

dan winterland

anyone was welcome to use the patented notions/ideas etc of the wrights AS LONG AS IT WAS NOT FOR PROFIT.

Curtiss substantially stole the ideas and MADE MONEY off the wrights hard work.

I actually think only the warlike hatred of the europeans for each other lead to advancement in aviation, OVER THERE>

[Brian Abraham]

I always thought that the name "Canard" was derived from the French word for a duck, because the long length of the aircraft in front of the main wing in this layout making the configuration resemble a duck in flight.Apparently a result of the looks of Santos-Dumonts aircraft, the 14-bis. Canard also means unfounded rumour or story, as used by Anderson in my previous.

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Dumont-14Bis/IMAGES/14bis-photo.jpg

Discussion on who was "first".

The Case for Gustave Whitehead (http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Gustav_Whitehead.htm)

[Noyade]

One influence the Wrights had was to virtually stop all aviation research and development in the USA similar view here Dan...

Greed and the Wright Brothers - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/opinion/nocera-greed-and-the-wright-brothers.html?_r=0)

“By attempting to neuter Curtiss,” Goldstone writes, “the Wrights stifled the development of American aviation.”http://i58.tinypic.com/103vafr.jpg

[Haraka]

I think there is a bit more to the U.S.A.'s failure to keep pace with European aviation development pre-1917 than just "blaming it on the Wrights" . :)
However that is perhaps another discussion.

[joy ride]

The claims that Whitehead was the first to fly seem no better to me than those of Clement Ader's claimed flight in Eole. As I said earlier, there were many other pioneers and already a lot of knowledge and experience, so by the end of the 18th century "powered, sustained and controlled flight" was inevitable.

[Allan Lupton]

Quote
There is no trace on the internet of a 40 HP, 120 pounds, 5 cylinders, ignition by compression (of any kind possible) engine working with kerosene, being able to run 1 week continuously and available in 1902, not even in 1910. Whitehead claimed he had used such an engine for his No. 22 plane in an Article that appeared on April 1, 1902 !!

There is no trace on the internet of lots of things we know existed, mainly because nothing appears there without someone taking the trouble to put it there.
e.g. what can you find of the work of Forest?

Equally, there is plenty on the (uncontrolled) internet that is self-serving misrepresentation, passed off as fact, which is nothing of the sort.

[Noyade]

However that is perhaps another discussion. Hello Haraka. Perhaps, but it is interesting. From what I've read, the Patent War reached a point where the US Government had to step in so they could get production going. Not good....

http://i61.tinypic.com/k4weoh.jpg

[Haraka]

Hi Noyade,
It is indeed a very interesting subject and, in my opinion at least, worthy of discussion, your quote being a good start point.
Without wishing to contribute to thread drift ( and I'm now at a loss to see if there was any direction to this thread in the first place).

" For the impact of the Wright Brothers achievement on the rest of the world was seemingly lost on the American Government: indeed their schemes patriotically proffered, were officially dismissed as if they had been charlatans".

"..realise that the European continent at the nearest was several days' steaming away ,and that in the Pan-American Sphere the United States Army and Navy were the recognised dominant force: then we ourselves should ask, why should Uncle Sam spend money on Aeroplanes?
Not least of the factors to be considered,is the tenor of the times: as a Signal Corps officer once explained-' persons who desired to fly were looked upon as lacking something in their mentality'.

From 'United States Army and Air Force Fighters 1916-61 ( Harleyford) Ed. Bruce Robertson

[simplex1]

Again about Gustav Whitehead and his miraculous engines

Presenting his 1901, No. 21 plane in an October 1901 German article, Whitehead wrote the 30 HP acetylene engine, that equipped the plane, weighed 2 pounds per horsepower. In comparison the 1903, 52 HP Manly–Balzer engine, that powered Langley's airplane, weighed 2.61 pounds/HP.
see: http://www.flyingmachines.org/WhiteheadWW1AERO183CFGray.pdf and Manly?Balzer engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manly%E2%80%93Balzer_engine)

The motor for No. 21 was considerably lighter per HP than the Manly–Balzer engine which hold the record in weight per horsepower for many years.

There are also other more flagrant contradictions in the German article. Whitehead talks about three engines: 10, 20 and 30 HP. At one moment he claimed his 30 HP engine needed 60 pounds of fuel to run for 6 hours. In the end of the text he states that, during a test, his engine had run at full power with 10 pounds of fuel for the entire day. 10 pounds would have been enough just for 1 hour! and maxim 3 hours if he referred to the 10 HP engine.

[GWFirstinFlight]

Jane's All-the-World-Aircraft, decidedly "the world authority" on aviation history, has determined, based on mountains of evidence, that Gustave Whitehead did make powered flights in 1901 and others pre-1903, and thus, is first in powered flight, well ahead of the Wrights. Others may have their unsubstantiated opinions, but this is a fact, as of March, 2013. I agree that the Wrights are NOT on any official record as making a bona fide powered flight taking off from level ground and landing at the same elevation, flying under their own power (vs. "soaring" or "gliding", requiring a 22 mph headwind), and landing without damage. This, Gustave Whitehead DID accomplish, according to 18 witnesses, most on record with affidavits, before the Wrights "fly date" of Dec. 17, 1903. In addition, we have 27 witnesses who saw Whitehead fly up through 1911, except for one, these were up through 1908, and these are on the official record, many with affidavits, interviewed by credible researchers. So if the true flight date of the Wrights is 1908, based on witness statements, Whitehead surpassed them. It depends upon what you are crediting as first. First to make a powered flight carrying a man? First to make a sustained, powered flight? First to make a sustained, powered flight from and landing on level ground, under its own power? First to make the latter under still wind? The criteria counts. But what Orville is now credited with is absolutely wrong. It wasn't a successful flight, nor was it sustained or under its own power, nor, arguably, from and landing on level ground. Accepting Orville's version is unacceptable, he had a massive conflict of interest in wanting fame. The Scientific American solicited responses to a questionnaire concerning the Wrights' flights, to date, in (approx) March, 1906. They received responses from ten "witnesses" of 17. The responses received were only for flights made in 1905, not 1903, or prior to 1905. This is described in a Scientific American article, you can read it for yourselves - it is very interesting. Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906) (http://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1906-04-07/scientific-american-v94-n14-1906-04-07#page/n9/mode/2up) . Note in that article it credits the Wrights as being first to fly long distances carrying a man, which is far different than crediting Orville Wright for flying 120 feet in 1903, when he actually had an out-of-control plane that nose-dived into the sands of Kitty Hawk, and was not considered a successful flight until he later engineered this, as did his executors with the Smithsonian. We must not assume. We must examine evidence. There it is. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly (http://www.gustavewhitehead.info).

[Noyade]

Possibly you've already seen this Mr GW, but I'll post it anyway. It was in response to Mr Weissenborn's article that appeared in Air Enthusiast 35.

http://i59.tinypic.com/30cwsb6.jpg

[glendalegoon]

I would like to point out that the first use of miliary airplanes was by the USA against pancho villa.


remember too that the european powers were at war from 1914 and the USA didn't join the fight till 1917.

And by 1919 the first transatlantic flight was by a US Navy flying boat.

So don't be blaming the Wrights for progress.

in 1910, the first plane to takeoff from a ship was in the USA

in 1911 the first plane to land on a ship was in the USA.



so far this whole thread has taught me there are people I really don't like on PPrune and they really don't know too much.

[FlightlessParrot]

@glendalegoon
so far this whole thread has taught me there are people I really don't like on PPRuNe and they really don't know too much.

Well, we can agree on that.:E

[glendalegoon]

in the years leading up to ww1, the US was not prepared on many items including but not limited to airplanes.

we didn't have enough rifles for our army

and many men , called to duty, were lacking in essential nutrition including vitamins and were not fit for duty.


wow, this thread is a waste.

[simplex1]

The article "The Wright Aeroplane and its Performances", Scientific American, April 7, 1906, pag. 291-292 mentions a single witness name, out of 11 alleged witnesses that answered the letters addressed to them.
see: Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906) (http://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1906-04-07/scientific-american-v94-n14-1906-04-07#page/n9/mode/2up)

This witness is Charles Webbert who was identified as having a niece named Henrietta Webbert who was the whife of Charlie Taylor the mechanic who allegedly built the 1903 engine that powered the first plane built by the Wright brothers.
see: The Dayton Flight Factory: The Wright Brothers and the Birth of Aviation - Timothy R. Gaffney - Google C?r?i (http://books.google.ro/books?id=bMuTAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA40&ots=NPe0mtfF8b&dq=Henrietta%20Webbert%20charles%20webbert&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q=Webbert&f=false)

The witness is highly suspicious and also his letter brought nothing new. He wrote there things told before by the Wright brothers.

Same witness is quoted 1 year latter, in 1907, as saying:
""I wish I could control my automobile as well as Orville Wright managed his flying machine." said Mr. Webbert."
Source: "Fly Over St. Louis at 50 Miles an Hour", Apr. 21, 1907, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-65

It looks like Webbert acted as an advertiser of the two brothers.

[FlightlessParrot]

@simplex1

Please. What is it that you are saying? What is your account of the first steps in powered controlled piloted flight? If the Wrights weren't "flying" in 1903, was anyone else?

It is really easy to find doubts about individual bits of evidence, and even documentary evidence is subject to bias, and the FAI definition of flight, by essentially requiring wheels, could be seen as being designed to exclude the Wrights.

So, what really happened? Or is the evidence so strong against any candidate that nobody was the first to fly? (Which is a possibility.)

[Brian Abraham]

mentions a single witness name, out of 11 alleged witnesses that answered the letters addressed to them.......The witness is highly suspicious and also his letter brought nothing new. He wrote there things told before by the Wright brothers.....It looks like Webbert acted as an advertiser of the two brothersYou sure draw a long bow in your efforts to discredit the Wrights. Is it a case of simplex by name, simple by nature?

The full list of observers who had seen the Wrights fly prior to 12 March, 1906.

Mr. E. W. Ellis, Assistant Auditor of the City of Dayton.
Mr. Torrence Huffman, President of the Fourth National Bank.
Mr. C. S. Blllman. Secretary of the West Side Building Association.
Mr. Henry Webbert
Mr. W. H. Shank
Mr. William Fouts
Mr. Frank Hamburger
Mr. Charles Webbert
Mr. Howard M. Myers
Mr. Bernard H. Lambers
Mr. William Webbert
M.r. Reuben Schindler
Mr. William Weber

All the above of Dayton, Ohio

Mr. 0. F. Jamieson, East Germantown, Ind.
Mr. Theodore Waddell, Census Department, Washlington., D. C.
Mr. David Beard, Osborn, Ohio.
Mr. Amos Stauffer, Osborn. Ohiothe FAI definition of flightFor the FAI to recognise a flight it has to be observed by FAI accredited observers, since the FAI didn't exist at the time of the Wrights first flight, it doesn't make their list.

[longer ron]

:)Charlie Taylor the mechanic who allegedly built the 1903 engine


Meanwhile - back in reality again LOL


In 1901 Taylor started working at Wright Cycle Co. repairing bikes and minding the store. With the Wright Brothers working on a flying machine, they needed an engine and Taylor said he could do it. And he did.


With the machinery that was in the bike shop he succeeded in creating an engine that met specifications and performed in a period of six weeks. The shop contained a 26-inch Crescent band saw, 20-inch Barnes drill press, 14-inch Putnam lathe, 6-inch double end bench grinder, stationary natural gas combustion engine, and a wind tunnel. And on Dec. 17, 1903 history was made with the first powered flight.


Taylor worked with the Wright Brothers on many projects, upgrading engines and fixing the planes after flight testing. With the need to be closer to Dayton for making improvements to their aircraft and the subsequent testing, the Wright Brothers had access to 100 acres of prairie a few miles away. Named Huffman Prairie, Taylor had the new task of airport manager and building a shed (hangar) to assemble and maintain the Flyer II (1904). After the Wrights had a contract with the Army, Taylor helped to develop the engine for the first military plane in 1907.



Oh and he also allegedly built the wind tunnel as well :)

[simplex1]

I have already presented the impossible case of Charlie Taylor.
see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a.html#post8494418

This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.

Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.

[ChrisJ800]

I would like to point out that the first use of miliary airplanes was by the USA against pancho villa.


remember too that the european powers were at war from 1914 and the USA didn't join the fight till 1917.

And by 1919 the first transatlantic flight was by a US Navy flying boat.

So don't be blaming the Wrights for progress.

in 1910, the first plane to takeoff from a ship was in the USA

in 1911 the first plane to land on a ship was in the USA.



so far this whole thread has taught me there are people I really don't like on PPrune and they really don't know too much.

I dont think the first military action by a plane was against Pancho Villa. The Italians were doing photo reconaissance in 1911 against the Turks which I think was before Pancho Villa. Happy to be proved wrong though.

Also the Brits were the first to take off and land on a vessel that was underway. And also the Brits were the first to fly non stop across the Atlantic. The USA has done great things but credit is also due to the French, Italians, Brits and others. Even us Ozzies had Lawrence Hargrave who invented the Box Kite in 1893 and flew it to 5m altitude the following year!

[simplex1]

After an exchange of letters with the US War Department, the Wright brothers received a clear answer to their attempt to take money from the US government and deliver a plane only after that:

The US Board of Ordnance and Fortification met on October 24 and decided as follows:
"That Messrs. Wright be informed that the Board does not care to formulate any requirements for the performance of a flying machine or take any further action on the subject until a machine is produced which by actual operation is shown to be able to produce horizontal flight and to carry an operator."
Source: Analysis--The True Story of the Wright Brothers Contract (http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analwright.htm)

The US War Department wanted to see the most basic horizontal flight possible before taking any further action. The reaction of the US officials was normal as long as no reliable known witness had ever seen a man carrying plane flying.

[longer ron]

I have already presented the impossible case of Charlie Taylor.
see: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908. (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a.html#post8494418)

This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.

Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=8506798) I have already presented the impossible case of Charlie Taylor.
see: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908. (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a.html#post8494418)

This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.

Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.

Ah - I had forgotten that you are the worlds greatest expert on all things ! :)

You have not proved anything so far except perhaps something about your own character - :)

[Noyade]

G'day Chris.

Happy to be proved wrong though.Well, I think ya right mate. And since Simplex appears to be unable to answer a simple question posed by longer ron, "If not the Wrights, then who?", then it must be time for thread drift? :)

I believe the Pancho Villa affair occurred in 1916, and it didn't go well for the USA?...

http://i58.tinypic.com/2rw0n81.jpg

[simplex1]

And since Simplex appears to be unable to answer a simple question posed by longer ron, "If not the Wrights, then who?"
The answer to your question could be here:
Very Earliest Early Birds (http://earlyaviators.com/eearlhis.htm)

If the Wright brothers flew in 1908 as Alpheus Drinkwater said in 1951 than there are clear names of people who flew before the two US inventors.

[Noyade]

could be

Come'on spit it out! Who's your vote then? :)

[Noyade]

Wrights are NOT on any official record as making a bona fide powered flight taking off from level ground and landing at the same elevation, flying under their own power (vs. "soaring" or "gliding", requiring a 22 mph headwind), and landing without damage.You and someone else keep mentioning that "glide" at Kitty Hawk, that has a slope.

Never been there, but how much of a slope is there?

http://i61.tinypic.com/qyb89k.jpg

[simplex1]

Definitely somebody in 1906 not before.

If you ask me who performed (using a plane) the first practical, self sustained flight in close circuit, then this person is Henri Farman. Before him I do not see any serious evidence that somebody else achieved such a flight.

[Noyade]

Henri Farman

OK, thank you for that. :)
Now we're getting somewhere...

Cheers!

[Haraka]

Include:

"November 1 1911 Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti flew an Austrian-designed Taube aircraft over the Taguira Oasis on the Turkish front. Extracting the pins with his teeth, he threw four 4.5lb grenades from about 300ft onto the troops below. The grenades managed to achieve very little but the incident caused an international enquiry and provoked protests from the Turks about the indiscriminate nature of the attack. The first true bomb, with fins and a detonator, was designed by a Bulgarian soldier, Simeon Petrov, in 1912. In the Balkan War against Turkey that autumn, two bombs were dropped on a Turkish railway station from an Albatros aircraft. This was the first bomber aircraft and the first true bombs, whose design became standard during the World War I."

Not one of my usual sources (!) , but in this case I think fairly reliable and easy to hand:
Ten of the greatest: Aerial engagements | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1292462/Ten-greatest-Aerial-engagements.html)

On U.S. Naval Aviation:

" However, not until 1934 was the first carrier commissioned that had been built from the keel up for that purpose"
(Unites States Navy and Marine Corps Fighters 1918-1962. Ed Bruce Robertson.Harleyford 1962.)

[simplex1]

And you keep mentioning that "glide" at Kitty Hawk, that has a slope. Never been there, but how how much of a slope is there?Even a 10 degree slope would have generated an enormous 130 pounds of thrust (the tangential weight of the plane (605 pounds) plus pilot (145 pounds)).

The total thrust generated by the two propellers was just 134 pounds (estimated by the Wright Experience project).

see also: 1903 Wright Flyer I (http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Airplanes/Flyer_I.htm)

An insignificant 10 degree slope would have nearly doubled the available thrust from 134 to 264 pounds.

The slope in the picture is clearly above 10 degrees.
http://wright-brothers.wdfiles.com/local--files/start/Dec-17-1903-Flyer1TakingOffFirstFlight120Feet.jpg
The 1903 Flyer taking off in his first flight on Dec. 17, 1903.

[Haraka]

IF the Wrights used the same rail position on the 17th Dec as they did on 14th Dec, then the illustration in his "Wright Flyer 1" reference entitled
"Ready for the first flight test on 14 December 1903" might lend some credence to the slope allegation.

Regarding Voisin bros./Farman and the Wrights. Both learned from each other from 1908 . The Wright's appreciation of the greater stability of the French product and ailerons being incorporated by Henri Farman in the Voisin, post the turning exhibitions of Wilbur ( incidentally to be seen in the Bristol Boxkite of 1910- an improved ,but still unmistakable, Farman).

[Brian Abraham]

This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engineAnd exactly what proof do you have to be able to make this egregious claim?

Your cropped photo is of flight on the 17th Dec, and from the complete photo there is no evidence of any slope.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/First_flight2.jpg/1920px-First_flight2.jpg

The brothers made a flight on the 14th December, but did not regard it as such because the launch ramp was set on a slope of 8° 50" at the foot of Kill Devil Hill. Photos below.

http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/14-3.jpg
http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/14-1.jpg

Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) recognise the Wrights as making the first controlled, powered, sustained (from takeoff to landing) flight involving a heavier-than-air vehicle, using mechanically unassisted takeoff (thrust/lift created chiefly by onboard propulsion).

[Haraka]

Thanks Brian,
Then the Wrights moved their take-off rail's position between 14th and 17th Dec.
Presumably this new position was established to the FAI's later satisfaction and is where the psp ( or whatever) track now is.

[simplex1]

Your cropped photo is of flight on the 17th Dec, and from the complete photo there is no evidence of any slope.You are a bit in denial.
Just study in detail the best image available (TIFF 17.2 mb). You find it here:
[First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina] (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652085)

This photo in small format was published by the Wright brothers in Sep. 1908 as evidence for their alleged flights in 1903. If the slope had been visible on the small size picture the brothers would not have sent it to be published. Unfortunately, they made the mistake to keep the negative and when this was studied with care the slope in front of the plane revealed itself in its entire splendor.

The slope (the fact that the plane was carried up on a hill before each flight) is also confirmed by John T. Daniels in his 1933 letter to a friend and also in his declaration from 1935.
see: Eyewitness Account of First Flight by John Daniels (http://wrightstories.com/eyewitness-account-of-first-flight-by-john-daniels)

[simplex1]

The presence of the hill is also confirmed by this picture: [Close-up view of damaged 1903 machine, rudder frame broken in landing, on ground at end of last flight] (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/wri/item/2001696495/) showing Flyer I 1903 landed, after its final flight on Dec. 17, 1903. The large size version of the image (TIFF 17.2 mb) also reveals the anachronistic look of the propellers. They simply did not exist in 1903. Propellers like that appeared at the end of 1907 and this is strong evidence the photo was not made in 1903.

Had the two brothers obtained a patent for their alleged 1903, 66% efficient propellers they would have had a great contribution immediately to increasing the speed of airships which lacked high performance aerial screws.

[Brian Abraham]

You are a bit in denial.I'm afraid you are the one in denial. I've a 7500 X 5406 copy of the photo, much better than your paltry offer, and not a slope to be seen, and also no slope is evident in the following photo of the final flight. Taken 17 seconds into the flight, approximately 250 feet distant from the end of the launching track at an altitude of about 10 feet, with about another 600 feet and 42 seconds to go.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/WrightFlyer4thFlight.jpg

Haraka, don't know on what basis/evidence the FAI recognised the flight.

The presence of the hill is also confirmed by this pictureOf course the hill is present, the launch point was at the right hand base of the hill.Propellers like that appeared at the end of 1907 and this is strong evidence the photo was not made in 1903Absolute and utter nonsense. You make a lot of assertions with absolutely no proof to back up those assertions.

[joy ride]

Interesting Wiki article about early flight, pioneers, and Wenham's Wind Tunnel -long before the Wright's!

Early flying machines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_flying_machines)

[Haraka]

. A wind tunnel, however, was the main focus of Maxim's experimental work, and he built it in heroic dimensions. It was 12 feet long, with a test section 3 feet square. Twin coaxial fans mounted upstream and driven by a steam engine blew air into the test section at 50 miles per hour. The tunnel and whirling arm proved to Maxim that cambered airfoils provided the most lift with the least drag. He obtained a lift-to-drag ratio of 14 for a cambered airfoil at 4 degree angle of attack-a spectacular performance for the late 1800s. He was also the first to detect the effects of aerodynamic interference, where the total drag of a structure exceeded the sum of the drags of the individual components. He cautioned, therefore, that "the various members constituting the frame of a flying machine should not be placed in close proximity to each other.

ch1-4 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-440/ch1-4.htm)

No half measures with Sir Hiram!

(Also note the reference to the discovery of interference drag- very important, even in those days, in considering things like biplane performance)

[simplex1]

Absolute and utter nonsense
Are you the user Binksternet from Wikipedia, the one who has wrecked so many pages regarding the history of aviation?

[Haraka]

Quote:
From the "Pilots of America" site

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
" This is a nonsensical response"

"Are you the user Binksternet from Wikipedia, the one who has wrecked so many pages regarding the history of aviation?"

:)

[longer ron]

As an aircraft engineer I was interested in the 'alleged' building of the engine by charlie,wilbur and orville :)

They built it by 'keeping it simple' and ultra conservative...

Contemporary automotive practice seems to have been the model for the water-cooled four-cylinder inline layout and influenced many of the details of the design.

The bore and stroke were both 4" for a total displacement of 200 cubic inches. Why the brothers selected such a short stroke, when most engines of the period were "under square" is unknown. Perhaps it had to do with the maximum center offset of their lathe. The compression ratio was about 4.5:1 and suitable for the 60 octane gasoline then available.

No throttle was fitted. The engine appears to have been designed to run at constant power throughout the whole flight envelope. Ignition could be manually retarded as an aid to starting, but there is disagreement about whether timing could be adjusted in flight. At any rate, the control over engine speed provided by retard would not have been dramatic.

The originality of the Wright design was in the extensive use of aluminum to save weight and in the ways in which the design was adapted to the limitations of their tooling. Some fabrication work may have been farmed out to local machine shops, but the bulk of it was done in-house on a lathe and drill press. Someday in that great shop in the sky, I would like to ask Wilbur and Orville why they did not purchase critical, hard-to-make parts, such as the crankshaft and connecting rods. Perhaps, caught up in the rhythm of the work, the idea of going to outside suppliers, working around someone else's givens, would have been a kind of violation.

Even so, Engine No. 1 did not approach the state-of-the-art of 1902. Some features, such as splash lubrication, vacuum-actuated intake valves and make-and- break ignition were obsolescent. Nor was the performance goal of 8 hp at 180 lb anything to write home about. But conservatism has appeal for aircraft engine designers.

[Haraka]

Longer ron
The engine appears to have been designed to run at constant power throughout the whole flight envelope
Might this have been the reason for the Wrights avoiding a "conventional" take off ,where a maximum of power (very much more than that required to sustain flight) is needed to accelerate and get the machine off of the ground in a reasonable distance in still air?

[simplex1]

The wind tunnel tests done by the Wright brothers were useless

The Wright brothers were not the first to test scaled wings in wind tunnels as Wilbur claimed and the results, obtained on the scaled down models, could not have been useful for the real life plane.

By comparing what Wilbur claimed in (1) with the results obtained in (2), it becomes clear that W. Wright lied about the usefulness of its wind tunnel tests. His experiments would have been of no utility for designing a real size Flyer.

(1) "We finally stopped our wind tunnel experiments just before Christmas, 1901. We really concluded them rather reluctantly because we had a bicycle business to run and a lot of work to do for that as well.

It is difficult to underestimate the value of that very laborious work we did over that homemade wind tunnel. It was, in fact, the first wind tunnel in which small models of wings were tested and their lifting properties accurately noted. From all the data that Orville and I accumulated into tables, an accurate and reliable wing could finally be built. Even modern wind tunnel data with the most sophisticated equipment varies comparatively little from what we first discovered. In fact, the accurate wind tunnel data we developed was so important, it is doubtful if anyone would have ever developed a flyable wing without first developing this data. Sometimes the non-glamorous lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project.

In any case, as famous as we became for our "Flyer" and its system of control, it all would never have happened if we had not developed our own wind tunnel and derived our own correct aerodynamic data.

- Wilbur Wright"
Source: The Wright Brothers' Wind Tunnel (http://legacy.wrightflyer.org/WindTunnel/testing1.html)

(2) "Based on the most accurate surviving description of the Wright Brothers’ wind tunnel, a replica was constructed and used to determine the effect flow quality and experimental method had on the Brothers’ results, and whether those results were useful in a quantitative sense.

The research incorporated static and total pressure measurements, velocity surveys across the jet, and quantitative flow visualization. Velocity surveys involved high resolution dynamic pressure measurements along the horizontal and vertical test section axes. Particle image velocimetry provided velocity magnitudes, turbulence intensities, and vorticity measurements in the test section. Force measurements on an airfoil model supported the conclusions regarding the effect of flow characteristics on aerodynamic measurements.

Testing revealed boundary layers extending 2.5″ from each wall. In the center of the tunnel was a 5″ diameter “dead zone” in which the flow velocity was 20% lower than the maximum tunnel velocity. Isolated pockets of high velocity flow reaching 35 mph existed outside the “dead
zone”. PIV data revealed asymmetric load distributions on the airfoil due to velocity and vorticity gradients, and indicated the Wrights’ lift measurements were at least 7% low due to flow interactions with the lift balance. Direct force measurements showed the Wrights’ lift measurements were at least 6% and as much as 15% low depending on the Wrights’ true tunnel velocity. Scaling from the tunnel to the Wright Flyer increased the CL discrepancy by an additional 14% and showed the Wrights’ drag prediction to be 300% too high, resulting in highly inaccurate efficiency predictions. Thus, though they learned a great deal from their wind tunnel experiments, the Wrights’ quantitative data was not applicable to full scale design.
...
Because of this, the Wrights would have greatly over predicted the drag on their wing. Significantly, this prediction would have forced the Wrights to seek a much greater thrust and much larger engine than actually necessary to overcome the inflated value."
Source: Michael Gary Dodson, "An historical and applied aerodynamic study of the Wright Brothers' wind tunnel test program and application to successful manned flight", Trident Scholar project report no. 335, year 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a437187.pdf

[longer ron]

U.S.N.A. --- Trident Scholar project report; no. 334 (2005)
AN HISTORICAL AND APPLIED AERODYNAMIC STUDY OF THE WRIGHT
BROTHERS’ WIND TUNNEL TEST PROGRAM AND APPLICATION TO
SUCCESSFUL MANNED FLIGHT by

Midshipman 1/c Michael G. Dodson, Class of 2005
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland

Reading through the whole study...they pay tribute to the wright brothers intuitive development technique and do not accuse the wrights of not flying in 1903 !The Brothers gained much useful knowledge from the wind tunnel tests but obviously were aware of the limitations of the some of the results and intuitively arrived at a reasonable aerofoil shape which was a marked improvement on the previous glider design !

Quote from the study

However, had they used their wind tunnel as a quantitative tool the Wright Flyer would have
been grossly over-designed and may have been too heavy to fly. Therefore the Wrights must
have recognized the limits of the tunnel and used it as a qualitative tool, along with the
experience they gained in earlier full scale experiments, to engineer and design the first
successful manned aircraft.

[glendalegoon]

amazing again.

oh, I am supposed to use more caps.

Amazing, again!

The Wrights used another method to experiment with airfoils. But of course simplex1 hasn't read about that. And I am not going to give details of it.

[Noyade]

Definitely somebody in 1906 not before.Chronologically, I don't understand that? IF we are to disregard the Wright's 1903 experience as a Power Glide (a term I read last night and used by John W.R Taylor to describe Ferdinand Ferber's 1905 flight), then don't we just end up back with the Wright's - and their III model?...

You mentioned Henri Farman earlier...

If you ask me who performed (using a plane) the first practical, self sustained flight in close circuit, then this person is Henri Farman. Before him I do not see any serious evidence that somebody else achieved such a flight. But that was 1908 and Flyer III was doing the same in 1905? Or are wheels and that gravity fed catapult the issue?

http://i59.tinypic.com/2q090n5.jpg

[simplex1]

longer ron, just read again my previous message

"From all the data that Orville and I accumulated into tables, an accurate and reliable wing could finally be built."
Wilbur Wright

"Scaling from the tunnel to the Wright Flyer ... showed the Wrights’ drag prediction to be 300% too high, resulting in highly inaccurate efficiency predictions. ... the Wrights’ quantitative data was not applicable to full scale design."
The study of Michael Gary Dodson

see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-10.html#post8507801

It is self evident that W. Wright said the wind tunnel tests had generated numerical data that had been used after that for calculating and designing large wings while the tests done by Michael Gary Dodson show the predictions for drag would have been 300% too high had the two brothers tried to scale up their data, obtained using their wind tunnel.

To be more clear if, as an example, one has a small wing and measures its drag coefficient, with the help of a small wind tunnel, this coefficient is simply useless for a wing of the same shape but with a surface: 25, 50, 100 times larger.

[eetrojan]

The wind tunnel tests done by the Wright brothers were useless

The Wright brothers were not the first to test scaled wings in wind tunnels as Wilbur claimed and the results, obtained on the scaled down models, could not have been useful for the real life plane.

By comparing what Wilbur claimed in (1) with the results obtained in (2), it becomes clear that W. Wright lied about the usefulness of its wind tunnel tests. His experiments would have been of no utility for designing a real size Flyer.

(1) "We finally stopped our wind tunnel experiments just before Christmas, 1901. We really concluded them rather reluctantly because we had a bicycle business to run and a lot of work to do for that as well.

It is difficult to underestimate the value of that very laborious work we did over that homemade wind tunnel. It was, in fact, the first wind tunnel in which small models of wings were tested and their lifting properties accurately noted. From all the data that Orville and I accumulated into tables, an accurate and reliable wing could finally be built. Even modern wind tunnel data with the most sophisticated equipment varies comparatively little from what we first discovered. In fact, the accurate wind tunnel data we developed was so important, it is doubtful if anyone would have ever developed a flyable wing without first developing this data. Sometimes the non-glamorous lab work is absolutely crucial to the success of a project.

In any case, as famous as we became for our "Flyer" and its system of control, it all would never have happened if we had not developed our own wind tunnel and derived our own correct aerodynamic data.

- Wilbur Wright"
Source: The Wright Brothers' Wind Tunnel

(2) "Based on the most accurate surviving description of the Wright Brothers’ wind tunnel, a replica was constructed and used to determine the effect flow quality and experimental method had on the Brothers’ results, and whether those results were useful in a quantitative sense.

The research incorporated static and total pressure measurements, velocity surveys across the jet, and quantitative flow visualization. Velocity surveys involved high resolution dynamic pressure measurements along the horizontal and vertical test section axes. Particle image velocimetry provided velocity magnitudes, turbulence intensities, and vorticity measurements in the test section. Force measurements on an airfoil model supported the conclusions regarding the effect of flow characteristics on aerodynamic measurements.

Testing revealed boundary layers extending 2.5″ from each wall. In the center of the tunnel was a 5″ diameter “dead zone” in which the flow velocity was 20% lower than the maximum tunnel velocity. Isolated pockets of high velocity flow reaching 35 mph existed outside the “dead
zone”. PIV data revealed asymmetric load distributions on the airfoil due to velocity and vorticity gradients, and indicated the Wrights’ lift measurements were at least 7% low due to flow interactions with the lift balance. Direct force measurements showed the Wrights’ lift measurements were at least 6% and as much as 15% low depending on the Wrights’ true tunnel velocity. Scaling from the tunnel to the Wright Flyer increased the CL discrepancy by an additional 14% and showed the Wrights’ drag prediction to be 300% too high, resulting in highly inaccurate efficiency predictions. Thus, though they learned a great deal from their wind tunnel experiments, the Wrights’ quantitative data was not applicable to full scale design.
...
Because of this, the Wrights would have greatly over predicted the drag on their wing. Significantly, this prediction would have forced the Wrights to seek a much greater thrust and much larger engine than actually necessary to overcome the inflated value."
Source: Michael Gary Dodson, "An historical and applied aerodynamic study of the Wright Brothers' wind tunnel test program and application to successful manned flight", Trident Scholar project report no. 335, year 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a437187.pdf

I find it really difficult to discern the point of most of your posts. That said, please take this as a good nature joke. :)

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/simplex.gif

[longer ron]

The trouble is Simplex - I do not think that english is your native language - english is a very flexible language and you seem to struggle with some of its 'nuances' - using the 'went up' phrase from one of your threads on another forum as an example - it was said as praise for the wright brothers ability to fly that aircraft - not in the meaning that you took from the phrase!
The other thing is that you are not being even handed in your approach to any of this subject - all you want to do is try to discredit the Wrights !
Also as we have touched on before - the english used by the wrights is very old fashioned and 'quaint' and has to be read very carefully,it is disingenuous to take a single phrase out of a long report or article - one has to look at the article/study as a whole
One of the things about the Wrights research was that they ended up mistrusting much of the previously accepted scientific 'knowledge'.
There are some very knowledgeable guys on here - it is worth taking that into account !!!!! :)

[longer ron]

It is self evident that W. Wright said the wind tunnel tests had generated numerical data that had been used after that for calculating and designing large wings while the tests done by Michael Gary Dodson show the predictions for drag would have been 300% too high had the two brothers tried to scale up their data, obtained using their wind tunnel.

To be more clear if, as an example, one has a small wing and measures its drag coefficient, with the help of a small wind tunnel, this coefficient is simply useless for a wing of the same shape but with a surface: 25, 50, 100 times larger.

But the Wrights did not come to that conclusion did they !
They calculated that they could fly with an 8hp engine and they did not try to build a 'cathedral' like some other pioneers...as I said in my previous post - one has to look at the whole article and not 'Cherry Pick' the bit that seems to support your obsession !

[Brian Abraham]

If anyone should be interested in the facts about the Wright Brothers, and the date etc surrounding their first flights, I highly recommend the book "No Longer an Island - Britain and the Wright Brothers 1902 - 1909", written by an American, Alfred Gollin, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who is regarded as one of the most talented historians of his generation. A scholarly treatise and heavily footnoted.

The fact that the Brothers had flown on the date claimed was advertised quite widely by certain media outlets, including Europe and Britain.The British in particular had taken a great interest in aviation development, and had established contact with the Wrights when they were at the gliding experiment stage. News of their powered flight reached them in January 1904. It's all in the book, and leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the facts of 17 December, 1903.

[simplex1]

The witnesses saw the 1905 Flyer being pushed by hand before it took off!!

Regarding the claimed flights of 1905, there are serious doubts they really took place. In April 1906 the journal Scientific American said it had received letters from 11 witnesses and from their declarations "it would seem that the aeroplane (Flyer III) was pushed for a short distance by hand and left the rail after having traveled 25 or 30 feet".
There is no word about any catapult!! The force necessary to accelerate the 710 pounds of Flyer III, from zero to the flight speed in only 30 feet, is enormous, many times greater than the thrust generated by the propellers, and it could not have been delivered by hand.

"In order to ascertain if possible the manner in which the machine was launched, the witnesses were asked in the sixth question whether or not the machine arose from the ground by its own power. From the replies received, it would seem that the aeroplane rested on a single rail 40 feet long, was pushed for a short distance by hand, and left the rail after having traveled 25 or 30 feet. The rail was level and raised about 6 inches from the ground."
Source: Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906) (http://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1906-04-07/scientific-american-v94-n14-1906-04-07#page/n9/mode/2up)

[nifty1]

Whatever, I have found that reading most of this thread absolutely fascinating and would like to congratulate the mods for not closing it as seems to have been asked by some posters,and also simplex1 for the clarity of what he has provided, if the text has posted not been edited to suit his argument.

[longer ron]

Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906) (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faviation-history-nostalgia%2F540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-10.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fstream%2Fscientific-american-1906-04-07%2Fscientific-american-v94-n14-1906-04-07%23page%2Fn9%2Fmode%2F2up&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faviation-history-nostalgia-86%2F)

And from that same page...the second question asked of the eye witnesses was ...


The second question,intended to bring out the length of the flights made on the various occasions,called forth answers which showed that the witnesses had seen the aeroplane fly for between 15 - 28 miles,agreeing substantially with the wright figures !


bingo...

you have just proved that the Wrights had flown 25 miles by 1905...congratulations simplex - you have just blown your own theory out of the water :)

[simplex1]

After claiming they saw the 1905 plane being pushed by hand before it took off (when according to the official story, Flyer III was pulled by a falling heavy weight) the credibility of the alleged witnesses (only one appears with his name) goes down to zero.

- The fact a witness claimed he had seen the Wright brothers flying in 1905, 1904 or 1903 does not automatically mean the two inventor really flew that time. The witness could have lied.

- The fact a witness claimed he had seen something that could not have happened shows, without any doubt, the witness lied. In consequence he is a low credibility person who can not be trusted.

[longer ron]

So what nationality are you simplex - French ?

Did the launching rail have a 'hold back' latch or similar to lock the aircraft in place while the engine rpm was run up and the pilot was satisfied that the engine was operating normally ?
I doubt the Wrights were dumb enough to launch the aircraft without checking engine rpm etc.
So the witnesses may have seen the aircraft pushed forward to the 'latch' prior to engine run up !
I am asking you because you know everything about the Wright brothers :)

Please remember that the witnesses were not technically trained and might not get technical details absolutely correct - however they would be able to estimate time/distance fairly well :ok:

[simplex1]

May 30, 1908, two pictures showing the Wrights' plane in the air are published. The flying machine has a large, tall sand dune behind it.

Nearly four years and half after the alleged Dec. 17, 1903 powered flights there was still no solid evidence a plane built by the Wrights was able to rise under its own power. How can I believe the two inventors were able to fly more than 30 minutes in Oct. 1905 over a flat pasture near Dayton if they still needed a hill and strong winds to stay in the air as late as May 1908.
The two pictures (see the image) could prove an ordinary glide or a power assisted descent. There is no solid evidence the photos really show a true powered flight.

http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/local--files/start/May-1908-Kill-Devil-Hill-Wright-Brothers-Plane.jpg
See: "The Wright Aeroplane Tests in North Carolina", Scientific American, pag. 393, May 30, 1908,
https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1908-05-30/scientific-american-v98-n22-1908-05-30#page/n7/mode/2up

As a remark:
The same May 30, 1908 Scientific American, at page 392, displays a few pictures presenting one of the Aerial Experimental Association's planes, one photo showing the airplane in flight. They are quite credible images. There is little doubt the AEA's plane really flew under its own power.

[glendalegoon]

Have you ever read the book, "How We Invented the Airplane"?


It is amazing how someone running along the side of the plane while it was accelerating is somehow pushing the plane. The Wrights helped stabilize the plane while it accelerated, they did not PUSH it.

The Wrights were under advice of their patent attorney (one of the best in the country) to not discuss or allow photographs to be made of any flights.
Wrights had seriously considered building another flyer and demonstrating powered, controlled flight at the 1904 World's Fair in Saint Louis, MO. But only didn't to help their patent case.

As a matter of fact, the patent was applied for based on the control mechanism of the 1902 glider. It was a meeting with the patent attorney even before the powered 1903 flight that lead to such great secrecy.

[Haraka]

"How We Invented the Airplane"

That tells us something :)

[simplex1]

It is amazing how someone running along the side of the plane while it was accelerating is somehow pushing the plane. The Wrights helped stabilize the plane while it accelerated, they did not PUSH it.One could not even stabilize the plane because the counterweight (plus propellers) pulled it so quickly that it was impossible to run along the side of the plane (see the video). The Flyer accelerated faster than a sports car. Imagine somebody trying to run 2 seconds or even 0.5 sec along the side of such a car, immediately after it started. This is ridiculous.

The weight falls in about two seconds (see min 1:53 - 1:55).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3beVhDiyiohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3beVhDiyio

The force necessary to rise back the weight can be gauged if you watch the same video between min 2:08 and 2:15. Six people are pulling the load like the slaves who built pyramids and, in those 7 seconds, the counterweight travels less than 25% of the total height.

[longer ron]

Towards the end of that youtube clip - you can clearly see a guy stabilizing the wing tip whilst running with it for a few yards - just like with a glider :)

With a glider you only have to run a few steps if the launch method has enough power for fast acceleration... :ok:

Next...........

And you never did answer my question about what nationality you are :)

[glendalegoon]

simplex, I now question your ability to think.


the first flight (dec 17, 1903) was NOT using a catapult. wilbur and another man ran along the side as the plane gained speed, helping to stabilize the machine. I don't know how you are confusing the first flights with the later ones. MOVIES WERE NOT MADE OF THE FIRST FLIGHT, JUST A STILL PICTURE


catapults were used to shorten the takeoff run, so the length of track could be much shorter. There was also density altitude to consider in the dayton area compared to sea level in NC.


the flights at le mans were so impressively better than any other flying machine it could only be logically assumed that they had been doing it longer and with more understanding than the others.

[Mechta]

A few comments I would like to throw into this interesting discussion.



The Wright brothers chose Kitty Hawk for its strong, steady winds.
The Wright Flier probably did not need to accelerate along the rail. In the 27mph winds of 17 December 1903 it may well have been developing sufficient lift to get airborne when static, due to the head wind. The thrust of the propellers was simply needed to maintain its position over the ground and prevent it getting blown backwards. (The ground speed of the first flight was 6.8mph)
By starting with such a strong head wind, the engine only had to sustain flight, which as many will know, takes a lot less power than a take off does. A simple analogy is the difference between sustainer ('turbo') engines on gliders and those on the self launchers of the same model which are typically 3 to 4 times the power.
The Wrights had been practicing with their gliders for four years. No wonder modern day pilots struggle with the twitchiness of replicas of the Flier. Unicycles and 1970s model helicopters both take hours of practice to master but can be operated once the knack is acquired.
The rail gave the Wrights a level, consistent take off surface. Soft sand is never an easy runway for take offs, but is a fairly forgiving surface for less than perfect arrivals.
Hoffman Field did not have Kitty Hawk's reliable headwinds. The descending weight catapult gave the closest equivalent.
The first flight started a considerable distance from the hill. The ground there is virtually flat. See http://ferrytrails.********.co.uk/2012/11/kitty-hawk.html (http://ferrytrails.********.co.uk/2012/11/kitty-hawk.html) (replace the stars with blog spot (no space)) (Note an error in the text of the link above. Its states the last flight of the day was 59 minutes. As we all know, it was 59 seconds).

I have been to Kitty Hawk and would strongly recommend 'believers' and 'non-believers' do too.

[simplex1]

the first flight (dec 17, 1903) was NOT using a catapult. wilbur and another man ran along the side as the plane gained speed, helping to stabilize the machine.
Read please again my message at this link:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-10.html#post8508464
I did not talk there about the flights on Dec. 17, 1903. The witnesses saw the 1905 Flyer being pushed by hand not the 1903 machine. Be more careful please.

[glendalegoon]

While reviewing my D Day history, I thought this was interesting. That the ONLY US 5 star General of the Air Force, and the only american to achieve 5 star general status in two different services WAS TAUGHT TO FLY BY THE WRIGHT BROTHERS.

Henry H. Arnold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Arnold)


I wonder if you asked Gen. Arnold what he thought of the Wrights?

By the way. I am greatly interested in the Wrights for may reasons, most should be obvious. But one reason is that the first man killed in a flight with the Wrights was a graduate of the same high school that I graduated from.

[Brian Abraham]

Thanks Mods - not the sharpest knife in the draw. :p

[Noyade]

Hello Simplex.

I think I'm seeing a pattern emerge.

Is this really about the Wrights or more to do with establishing criteria or parameters for what you consider the first practical aircraft flight?

So far we have...

No slopes (I mean geographically :)).
No rails.
And certainly no catapults.
No skids.
Must have wheels.
Seen and documented by thousands.
Perform a figure-8.

How's life in France? :)

http://i57.tinypic.com/20hwsg5.jpg

[glendalegoon]

simplex, I am still waiting for YOU to acknowledge that the langley photo did not have a human pilot aboard.

[Noyade]

And I think there is a "back door" to the Wiki issue. As you know, the Wright Brothers link is now blocked, due to vandalism, but this remains open...

Voisin 1907 biplane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voisin_1907_biplane)

Go to Talk, and look at the bottom...

http://i61.tinypic.com/23h850p.jpg

Easy! Make it the World's First Practical Aircraft with an Undercarriage.

:)

[Mechta]

Don't be silly Noyade. Henri Farman did not become a French citizen until 1937, so he couldn't possibly have been the first man to fly.

Santos Dumont was Brazilian, so that rules his 1906 adventure in the 14Bis out, so Léon Delagrange must have been the first man to fly, in his Voisin. :E:E:E

[Noyade]

so he couldn't possibly have been the first man to fly.

No mate, but he was the first to fly a practical aircraft! :)

Remember the Komet and the early Arado jets, you had to pick the bastards up at the end of the day. Not practical.

But the Voisin...well, it ticks all the boxes that Simplex has created.

This thread is not about the first to fly!

[glendalegoon]

noyade

that farnam didn't have a way to control roll. it was hardly a practical plane.

[Noyade]

Oh he controlled it alright and the bugger had wheels. Very practical. :)

http://i57.tinypic.com/23vlr9f.jpg

Heading to work. Cheers!

[Brian Abraham]

The attached is a photo of Kitty Hawk. The circular road at the bottom encircles Kill Devil Hill, from where the 14th December "flight" took place using the 8° 50" slope.

The 17th December flights launched from the bottom of the red line, and the longest flight of the day (800 plus feet) terminated at the upper most part of the red line.

The launch point is a long, long way from the hill.

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

[glendalegoon]

he controlled it by slopping around with rudder

not too many pilots do that now a days.

and the wrights beat him anyway, and with better control

[simplex1]

Regarding Farman and Delagrange, it should be noted they were just test pilots and plane buyers. They can not be considered the designers of the airplanes they flew in 1907 and 1908.

[eetrojan]

So, Mr. Simplex, if I follow your initial post and posts 190, 193, and 198, you’re steel trap of a mind is asking us to connect the following “logical” dots and agree with you that the Wrights didn’t fly until 1908:

(1) The Wright’s 1903 flight did not happen, because

(2) The Wright’s 1905 flight did not happen, because

(3) Scientific American’s 1906 article reported on responses from 11 witnesses that said the aeroplane was “pushed for a short distance by hand” [190] and that can’t possibly be true because the 1905 flight “was pulled by a falling heavy weight.” [193] which means the aeroplane would have been moving much too fast for anybody to push the aeroplane, and thus those witnesses lied, because

(4) The videos of the Wright’s 1908-1909 flights show the aeroplane being launched with a falling heavy weight that falls “in about two seconds” making it “ridiculous” to imagine somebody trying to run “even 0.5 sec along the side” [198].

:ugh:Holy crap. Did I miss anything?

Your logic is totally crazy. More importantly, it’s demonstrably wrong given that it all hinges on your ultimate assertion that the YouTube video of the 1908-1909 flights somehow proves that men can’t run along side, when in fact if you look just a little bit closer, the video repeatedly shows just that. And, if there were also men running along the side of the aeroplane to stabilize the wing as it is accelerated forward by the falling weight in 1905, I suggest to you that it would have been reasonable for the 11 lay witnesses to have described their activity as “pushing.”

http://www.teamandras.com/temp/Wright_1909_Flight_Pusher.jpg

Oddly, you do not even acknowledge longer ron’s pithy reply in [199] where he notes that “Towards the end of that [1908-09] YouTube clip - you can clearly see a guy [running along the side] and stabilizing the wing tip whilst running with it for a few yards” (5:24-5:28 or so). As shown by the red arrow above, there’s also a guy running along side and stabilizing the wing tip in the 1908 flight in France too, around 1:16.

Here, have a watch. Go to 1:15 and then play.

q3beVhDiyio

[longer ron]

Simplex has never answered any questions LOL
He just goes on to his next illogical conclusion or reiterates an older illogical conclusion !

So come on Simplex - what is your nationality ?

And what precisely is your personal angle on this matter ? for you it seems to be an obsession !

I am british - so it makes no difference to me who is regarded as the first to make a powered/controlled flight !

[simplex1]

I am british - so it makes no difference to me who is regarded as the first to make a powered/controlled flight !If somebody says: "I am Portuguese - so it makes no difference to me who is regarded as the first to make a powered/controlled flight !" will you believe him?

[simplex1]

you do not even acknowledge longer ron’s pithy reply in [199] where he notes that “Towards the end of that [1908-09] YouTube clip - you can clearly see a guy [running along the side] and stabilizing the wing tip whilst running with it for a few yards”Are you eetrojan the same as longer ron? Your styles are identical.
Yes, there is somebody running for max. 1 sec along the side of the right wing but he does not create the impression of pushing the plane. The theory that so many witnesses (who saw the plane in different days) had been misled by a guy running in the same direction with the plane and all reached the conclusion that the man had pushed the plane, running as fast as he could, is simply not credible. When somebody pushes a heavy object, he moves slowly and you can see the person struggling to make that thing (ex. a car) go forward.

[Noyade]

Regarding the catapult, it was an "optional feature?"

Take off performance was still a bit of a sticking point though. In 1904 the Wrights started using a crude catapult picture of replica (http://3.bp.********.com/-6JMtR0sB5Fs/Tjxq3H-EvOI/AAAAAAAAClQ/2bJ2lRXCUfw/s1600/IMG_3115_1.jpg). It was an optional feature, as Wilbur Wright showed during a 1908 demonstration. During an attempt to set an FAI time to altitude record, the officials disqualified him on account of his "assisted takeoff". Wilbur promptly redid the attempt without the catapult and promptly set a new record.How can I believe the two inventors were able to fly more than 30 minutes in Oct. 1905 over a flat pasture near Dayton if they still needed a hill and strong winds to stay in the air as late as May 1908.
But by September, they didn't need a slope, a hill, strong winds or a catapult, right?

One hour two minutes and fifteen seconds - 9 September 1908 at Fort Myer Virginia...

http://i61.tinypic.com/2qnmi2w.jpg

[Blacksheep]

If having someone run alongside holding a wing to stabilise the aircraft and having a catapult haul the aircraft up to flying speed means that it can't be decribed as a truly controlled flight . . .

. . . then there's an awful lot of glider pilots on this bulletin board who can't fly. ;)

[simplex1]

"Take off performance was still a bit of a sticking point though. In 1904 the Wrights started using a crude catapult ... . It was an optional feature, as Wilbur Wright showed during a 1908 demonstration. During an attempt to set an FAI time to altitude record, the officials disqualified him on account of his "assisted takeoff". Wilbur promptly redid the attempt without the catapult and promptly set a new record." I am not aware about Wilbur Wright taking off without the help of a catapult in France, in 1908. A primary sources (preferably something published in 1908-1909) confirming W. Wright made flights in 1908 without being assisted by a falling weight at start is required. Provide it please.

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms1_photographs/1230/preview.jpg
"Description
This is probably Wilbur Wright's altitude record setting flight of December 18, 1908. During this flight Wilbur broke his own endurance record and also set a world altitude record of 115 meters. The flight took place at Camp d'Auvours near Le Mans, France. The flight won the Aero Club de la Sarthe prize for altitude. Also visible is the launching derrick and two marker balloons measuring altitude of 100 meters."
Source: http://timestraveler.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/wilbur-wright-sets-new-aeroplane-records/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I have also found an article (see below) about an altitude record set by W. Wright in Dec. 1908 but the fact he took off without the help of a catapult is not mentioned.

Saturday, Dec. 19, 1908
Flying yesterday in Le Mans, France, Wilbur Wright set new aeroplane records for time and altitude, as he flew for 1 hour 53 minutes and 59 seconds in the morning and, in a later flight, reached an altitude of 360 feet. The previous records, both his, were 1 hour 31 minutes and 51 seconds, and 240 feet. “Mr. Wright attained an average height of 24 feet this morning, and the distance was officially measured as 61½ miles, which does not include the wide sweeps and turns made during the flight. He descended only because the oil feeder got out of order. … Mr. Wright made his record for height and won the Sarthe Club’s prize in the afternoon when the atmospheric conditions were less favorable. At first it was thought that the violence of the breeze would compel him to postpone his effort, but, undaunted, he launched his machine and circled around and around the field. When soaring at ninety feet a sudden gust of wind caught the aeroplane sideways, causing it to plunge violently backward. The spectators were terrified, but Mr. Wright remained unperturbed and soon righted the craft. At the end of ten minutes the wind had moderated and the aeroplane soared upward and passed high over a line of captive balloons, marking a distance of 300 feet.”
Source: http://timestraveler.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/wilbur-wright-sets-new-aeroplane-records/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[eetrojan]

Are you eetrojan the same as longer ron? Your styles are identical.

Uh no. Mr. longer ron is from Sussex in the U.K. whereas I am from Southern California in the U.S. We live thousands of miles apart. I once did a little work in a village called Steyning, and visited Brighton. Maybe we met one another.

One thing longer ron and I have in common, however, is that we both speak English as our native language. You, on the other hand, incorrectly interpreted "My respect ... went up..." to be an idiom that means loss of respect [003].

If English is a second language for you, it would explain quite a few of your misunderstandings.

What nationality are you? Is English your native tongue?

Yes, there is somebody running for max. 1 sec along the side of the right wing but he does not create the impression of pushing the plane. The theory that so many witnesses (who saw the plane in different days) had been misled by a guy running in the same direction with the plane and all reached the conclusion that the man had pushed the plane, running as fast as he could, is simply not credible. When somebody pushes a heavy object, he moves slowly and you can see the person struggling to make that thing (ex. a car) go forward.

In [198], you said "it was impossible to run along the side of the plane (see the video)... [for] even 0.5 sec .. This is ridiculous." Based on that unequivocal "analysis", you conclude that all of the Wright's witnesses "lied" about everything because Scientific American reported their use of words that relate to "pushing" - a plainly "impossible" thing to have seen in your mind.

So. You now acknowledge "there is somebody running for max. 1 sec along the side" (thank you for that concession), but oddly you still insist that it's "not credible" to conclude that all the witnesses were "misled" into believing the plane was being "pushed" based on a man running along side the plane while holding the wing. Thus it seems, you continue to cling to your wildly extrapolated thesis that those eleven witnesses "lied" and, therefore, everything about the Wright's pre-1908 flights is false.

Amazing insight you have, especially since your knowledge of what "all the witnesses" said is based on very thin hearsay evidence, namely Scientific American's hearsay summary that "From the replies received, it would seem that the aeroplane rested on a single rail 40 feet long, was pushed for a short distance by hand, ..." (emphasis added).

In my opinion, lay witnesses could plausibly describe a man who visibly runs with the aeroplane's wingtip, even if only for a second, as "pushing" the aeroplane.

I trust that you won't continue to dismiss all eleven witnesses as liars based on your misunderstanding of the scope of the English word "pushed."

[simplex1]

The Scientific American, in its Jan. 25, 1908 edition, credits the Wright Brothers, A. M. Herring and Gustave Whitehead as producing the first successful heavier-than-air flying machines despite the fact that only claims made by the three inventors existed that time and no credible witness, beyond any doubt. Articles like this, written in apparently serious publications, spread the myths of Herring, Whitehead and the Wright brothers as the first aviators.

"In view of the above-mentioned facts, while giving to M. Farman the credit for first publicly demonstrating that it is possible to fly in all directions, both with, against, and across a light wind, we nevertheless wish to recall to the aeronautical world the fact that to America belongs the credit of producing the first successful motor-driven aeroplane, and that to such men as the Wright brothers, A. M. Herring, and Gustave Whitehead — men who under the tutelage of Lilienthal and Chanute, have begun with gliding flight and gradually worked their way forward to the production of a self propelled aeroplane in all its details, including the gasoline motor — belongs the real credit of having produced the first successful heavier-than-air flying machines."
Source: "The Farman Aeroplane Wins the Deutsch-Archdeacon Prize.", Scientific American, pag. 54, Jan. 25, 1908, https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1908-01-25/scientific-american-v98-n04-1908-01-25#page/n0/mode/1up

[Haraka]

Having now read this thread , and considered all the scientific and engineering evidence presented from so many pioneers' formally recorded works , does anybody seriously now think that the overall development of heavier-than-air aviation would have been significantly impaired had the Wrights stuck to making bicycles?

[eetrojan]

The Scientific American, in its Jan. 25, 1908 edition, credits the Wright Brothers, A. M. Herring and Gustave Whitehead as producing the first successful heavier-than-air flying machines despite the fact that only claims made by the three inventors existed that time and no credible witness, beyond any doubt.

What about the eleven witnesses that responded to the author(s) of Scientific American's article dated April 7, 1906?

Oh yeah, you've dismissed them. In your view, they're not "credible" because some of them reportedly talked about "pushing" which was clearly "impossible."

At this point, you're not having a reasonable conversation, just a diatribe. Y'all carry on. Have fun.

[simplex1]

does anybody seriously now think that the overall development of heavier-than-air aviation would have been significantly impaired had the Wrights stuck to making bicycles?
“It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century." - Fred Culick.

Source: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/1...CULaiaaj03.pdf (http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11239/1/CULaiaaj03.pdf)

[simplex1]

What about the eleven witnesses that responded to the author(s) of Scientific American's article dated April 7, 1906?
I have already answered this question.
See: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-8.html#post8506695 and read it carefully.

Those eleven witnesses do not appear with their names excepting one, Charles Webbert, who saw the machine "being assisted in starting on the rail". He did not mention hands pushing the airplane. Anyway, for reasons already explained the credibility of this man is zero.

[eetrojan]

“It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century." - Fred Culick.

Source: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/1...CULaiaaj03.pdf

This quote means the author believed two things: (1) The Wrights invented the airplane; and (2) If they hadn't, somebody else would have invented the airplane.

That's like saying "It is certainly true that if not Alexander Graham Bell, somebody else would have invented the telephone."

That sounds correct. No argument from me.

[eetrojan]

My question:What about the eleven witnesses that responded to the author(s) of Scientific American's article dated April 7, 1906?

Mr. Simplex's responseI have already answered this question.
See: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-8.html#post8506695) They flew in 1908. and read it carefully.

Honestly, it's pretty difficult to keep track of your disjointed posts, much less glean your reason for making them, but I just read it again.

Your prior post says that it's your opinion that the 11 witnesses are not credible because Scientific American didn't print their names, and that the Charles Webbert letter they did print as representative of the witness accounts is "highly suspicious" because Webbert's niece was married to somebody connected to the Wrights.

By the way, you referred to Webbert's neice as somebody's "whife." That reminds me - where are you from and what is your native language?

At any rate, the Scientific American article expressed healthy skepticism and, so far as I know, was a legitimate source of news. Do you have evidence that that Scientific American falsely claimed to seek out and review written communications from 17 witnesses, 11 of whom responded?

You also said that the Webbert letter itself is suspicious because, in your opinion, it "brought nothing new" beyond what the Wrights said "before."

In essence, you oddly conclude that the Webbert letter is highly suspicious" because it's consistent with the Wright brothers prior statements. Wow, would it have been "super duper highly suspicious" had it been inconsistent?

I look forward to your reply.

[glendalegoon]

Haraka. I believe the WRIGHTS and their contribution made the airplane what it is today.

That silly little farman biplane didn't even have ailerons and slopped around a turn with rudder, ailerons were added after a full understanding of what the WRIGHTs had done with wing warping, warp drag and the rudder.

EVERY account of the French flights indicated the WRIGHTS were the masters of the air and others just sort of plodded around like a barn door with a prop on it.

I have it on semi good authority that SIMPLEX1 is actually a distant cousin of the wrights and only starts these dumb threads to feel important. Being a fish cutter isn't so much compared to INVENTING THE AIRPLANE>


AND to all the witnesses, the words they used would make sense to those of that time era. For example: "THE GAY DIVORCE`" play/film of the 1930's certainly wouldn't mean the same today, now would it?

ASSISTING a plane as it trundles down a wooden rail is like patting someone on the back today being considered holding up a doddering old man.

Simplex, go back to the fish. YOU AIN'T GOT THE WRIGHT STUFF

[Haraka]

“It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century.

This is a totally mind-numbingly, consummately, inept statement - demonstrating a total lack of appreciation or comprehension of the developmental process.

"Invented the Airplane" :}

Back to populist and simplistic "Barnum and Bailey" hogwash.

(Apart from the ongoing ignorance of not being capable of comprehending the reasoning behind the derivation of the grammatically correct term "Aeroplane")

[glendalegoon]

HARAKA

I take it you are british.

[John Hill]

Why are the main parts of an aeroplane given French names?

[simplex1]

The Scientific American from Dec. 26, 1903 informed its readers that
the aeroplane of the Wright brothers had been started from the top of a 100-foot sand dune and it had risen in the air to a height of about 60 feet, after which it had driven a distance of some three miles!!

"A Successful Experiment with a Motor-Driven Aeroplane.
On December 17 the Messrs. Orville and Wilbur Wright made some successful experiments at Kitty Hawk, N. C, with an aeroplane propelled by a 16-horsepower, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, and weighing complete more than 700 pounds.
The aeroplane was started from the top of a 100-foot sand dune. After it was pushed off, it at first glided downward near the surface of the incline. Then, as the propellers gained speed, the aeroplane rose steadily in the air to a height of about 60 feet, after which it was driven a distance of some three miles against a twenty-mile-an-hour wind at a speed of about eight miles an hour. Mr. Wilbur Wright was able to land on a spot he selected, without hurt to himself or the machine.
This is a decided step in advance in aerial navigation with aeroplanes, and it is probably due to the increased degree of controllability resulting from the Wright brothers’ novel form of horizontal rudder, which is a small guiding aeroplane placed in front of, instead of behind, the aeroplane proper. A well illustrated description of the Wright aeroplane appeared in our Februarr 22, 1902, issue. The present aeroplane has the very large surface of 510 square feet, making its apparent entire controllability all the more remarkable."
Source: "A Successful Experiment with a Motor-Driven Aeroplane.", Scientific American, pag. 486, Dec. 26, 1903, https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1903-12-26/scientific-american-v89-n26-1903-12-26#page/n9/mode/1up

[simplex1]

Regarding “It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century." said by Fred Culick, if you read all the remarks made by this professor regarding the Wright brothers, you quickly reach the conclusion that what he really meant is he has serious doubts the two brothers really invented the plane, really were the first to fly a heavier than air machine.

[eetrojan]

Regarding “It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century." said by Fred Culick, if you read all the remarks made by this professor regarding the Wright brothers, you quickly reach the conclusion that what he really meant is he has serious doubts the two brothers really invented the plane, really were the first to fly a heavier than air machine.

I see how you might get that impression since the quote is from the professor's 25-page article, published on the 2003 centennial of the Wright's 1903 flight, and is entitled "The Wright Brothers: First Aeronautical Engineers and Test Pilots." :rolleyes:

His "serious doubts" are especially obvious given his third sentence where he says, "Beginning in the late 1890s, the Wright Brothers absorbed all that was known in aeronautics before them, then added their own discoveries and developed the first successful airplane." :ugh:

[eetrojan]

Mr. Simplex said The Scientific American from Dec. 26, 1903 informed its readers that the aeroplane of the Wright brothers had been started from the top of a 100-foot sand dune and it had risen in the air to a height of about 60 feet, after which it had driven a distance of some three miles!!

Give your dramatic use of two exclamation points, could you help explain how this seeming random assertion fits the discussion by completing the following sentence?

"This means ___________________________________"

[Brian Abraham]

Those eleven witnesses do not appear with their names excepting one, Charles Webbert, who saw the machine "being assisted in starting on the rail". He did not mention hands pushing the airplane. Anyway, for reasons already explained the credibility of this man is zeroAbsolute rubbish. I provided all the names earlier. All of the others lack credibility as well? Once again.

The full list of observers who had seen the Wrights fly prior to 12 March, 1906.

Mr. E. W. Ellis, Assistant Auditor of the City of Dayton.
Mr. Torrence Huffman, President of the Fourth National Bank.
Mr. C. S. Blllman. Secretary of the West Side Building Association.
Mr. Henry Webbert
Mr. W. H. Shank
Mr. William Fouts
Mr. Frank Hamburger
Mr. Charles Webbert
Mr. Howard M. Myers
Mr. Bernard H. Lambers
Mr. William Webbert
M.r. Reuben Schindler
Mr. William Weber

All the above of Dayton, Ohio

Mr. 0. F. Jamieson, East Germantown, Ind.
Mr. Theodore Waddell, Census Department, Washlington., D. C.
Mr. David Beard, Osborn, Ohio.
Mr. Amos Stauffer, Osborn. Ohio

[simplex1]

This is Fred Culick, after he had declared the Wright brothers are the first aeronautical engineers (an evident irony) he trashed them saying "Flyer I" was unstable and underpowered which means the 1903 plane could not fly.
A super pilot might be able teoretically to keep an unstable plane aloft but never an underpowered flying machine.

"12. BUILDING A FLYABLE (?) 1903 FLYER
...
Given the terrible flying qualities and handling characteristics of the original Flyer implied by the discussion in Section 7.2 and more thoroughly by Culick and Jex (1984) and Jex and Culick (1985), building a flying replica of the airplane should raise questions. There were two serious problems with that machine: it was unstable about two axes and marginally stable directionally; and it was underpowered."
Source: "WRIGHT BROTHERS: FIRST AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS AND TEST PILOTS", F.E.C. Culick, California Institute of Technology, Forty-Fifth Annual Symposium, The Society of Experimental Test Pilots, 26-29 September, 2001, see: http://www.wrightflyer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-First-Aeronautical-Engineers-and-Test-Pilots.pdf

Note: The question mark in the title exists in the original article, it was not added by my.

[simplex1]

The Wright brothers quickly rushed to have their flying machines published in various journals. When they did not show anything new they did not have anything new.

"'Some Aeronautic Experiments", Scientific American, pag. 125, Feb. 22, 1902,
see: https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1902-02-22/scientific-american-v86-n08-1902-02-22#page/n8/mode/1up/search/wright

"DINER-CONFÉRENCE DU 2 AVRIL 1903, M. Chanute à l'Aéro-Club", L'Aérophile, pag. 81-86, April 1903, see: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65534693/f93.image.r=wright.langEN

"LA NAVIGATION AÉRIENNE AUX ÉTATS-UNIS", L'Aérophile, pag. 81-183, August 1903, see: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65534693/f189.image.r=wright.langEN
Detailed drawings of the 1902 glider published in August 1903 in L'Aérophile, see:
(1) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65534693/f191.image.r=wright.langEN
(2) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65534693/f192.image.r=wright.langEN
(3) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65534693/f193.image.r=wright.langENn

These are articles that prove the Wright brothers quickly rushed to have their flying machines shown in various journals, as soon as they obtained some results. The August 1903 article in L'Aérophile even mentions the great "secret" of the two brothers, Wing Warping, together with detailed drawings of the 1902 glider, in a moment when the two inventors were not protected by any patent.

[eetrojan]

Mr. Simplex notes that Professor Culick's paper includes a section about building a replica flyer that reads as follows (bolding by Simplex):
12. BUILDING A FLYABLE (?) 1903 FLYER
...
Given the terrible flying qualities and handling characteristics of the original Flyer implied by the discussion in Section 7.2 and more thoroughly by Culick and Jex (1984) and Jex and Culick (1985), building a flying replica of the airplane should raise questions. There were two serious problems with that machine: it was unstable about two axes and marginally stable directionally; and it was underpowered.

Ha ha. So what. I'd be surprised if any of circa 1903 aircraft wasn't by 2003 standards "unstable" and "underpowered." Wouldn't you?

In his section 12, titled "Building a Flyable (?) 1903 Flyer," Professor Culick isn't questioning whether the 1903 flyer actually flew in 1903, but rather whether it was practical to construct a flyable replica in 2003. You know, without getting hurt. Big difference.

Classic Mr. Simplex. You take a 53 page paper about the "the first successful airplane" (opening paragraph), find one section that can be interpreted negatively if viewed wildly out of context, and then belch it out :yuk: to argue that the Wrights' 1903 aeroplane didn't fly at all. It's laughable.

The many other pages in Professor Culick's paper are all about how the Brothers did in fact fly, e.g. by learning to deal with their dynamically unstable plane (p.25):

... the 1903 airplane surely offered more difficult handling qualities, but with only straight flights, the Brothers did not report new dynamical problems. If unexpected dynamics did appear, they were likely not easily identified, being obscured by the Brothers’ vigorous efforts to keep the airplane in the air.

Professor Culick's concluding paragraph must really drive you crazy:

The Wrights did exactly what they had to do, they did it first and they documented what they did. Theirs was the first research and development program carried out in the style of the 20th century. They did it all from conception to flight testing. It’s important to understand the substance of their works—the Wrights’ program forms the roots of the modern aerospace field, especially including flight testing.

[Brian Abraham]

Classic Mr. Simplex. You take a 53 page paper about the "the first successful airplane" (opening paragraph), find one section that can be interpreted negatively if viewed wildly out of context, and then belch it out to argue that the Wrights' 1903 aeroplane didn't fly at all. It's laughable.Something he does all the time unfortunately, so obsessed is he with the claim that the Wrights didn't fly until 1908. Evidence abounds otherwise.

A section from "No Longer an Island" which proves beyond doubt that the Wright did what they said they did, unless Octave was in on the deception.

As soon as they were able the Wright brothers flashed word of their success, by telegram, to their family in Dayton; and when the news was received there Katherine Wright at once sent a telegram to Octave Chanute in order to inform him. Meanwhile, a local newspaper in the vicinity of Kitty Hawk, the Norfolk Virginia-Pilot, published an account of the flights in its edition for 18 December 1903. The account was incorrect in many of its details. It claimed, for example, that the Wrights had flown a distance of three miles when the fact was that the longest of their flights was only eight hundred and fifty two feet. This report in the Virginia-Pilot was copied by some newspapers in the United States and in Europe, but it was ignored by others. Major Baden-Powell, far away in London but ever vigilant in the cause of British aviation, reacted almost at once. On 23rd December 1903, he wrote to Chanute:

….What is this I read in the daily papers about the brothers Wright having made a machine fly 3 miles? Is there any truth in this?

When Octave Chanute learned of the success of the Wright brothers he sent them his congratulations. He also enquired about when they would be ready to make the details of their achievement public knowledge. Wilbur sharply told him, in reply, and for good reason, that they were not yet prepared to furnish pictures or descriptions of their machine or their methods to anyone. However, since the newspapers continued to publish incorrect stories about what had occurred on 17 December, the Wrights prepared an accurate factual statement of their own, dated 3 January 1904, and sent to the Associated Press. When their statement was published in the Dayton Press they clipped out copies of it and mailed them to various friends and associates.

Chanute read the Associated Press statement statement when it was published in his own local newspaper, the Chicago News. Now he too began to send copies of it to his various correspondents in different parts of the world. Indeed he now launched upon a regular campaign to alert all his friends to what had taken place at those far off sand hills on the bleak North Carolina coast. He sent several copies of the Wright statement, together with explanatory letters, to his correspondents in England so that the aeronautical authorities there were soon aware of the exact details of what the Wright brothers had achieved. He wrote twice to Major Baden-Powell and sent him a copy of the Wright statement. He also wrote to Herbert Wenham, the British pioneer who had done so much to increase his own interest in aviation. When he sent a copy of the statement to Wenham he declared “To you, who first called attention to the possibility of artificial flight…..I send the first correct account which has been published of the achievement of the Wright brothers. It is a beginning, and if no accident occurs it may lead to practical results….” (Chanute to Wenham 9 January 1904)

Chanute sent the fullest and most detailed account to Patrick Y. Alexander. Chanute began his letter by telling Alexander about the invitation the Wrights had extended to him, in the previous November (Chanute to Alexander 18 January 1904):

I was very sorry not to find you in Washington, but it turned out for the best. The Wrights had built a new apparatus, provided with a motor and propellers, and were to test it November 5th. They had made a firm resolve that, besides themselves, none but the surgeon & myself be present. I had written to obtain an invitation for you but did not dare advise you. On my arrival in Washington I found a telegram inviting you to the camp, but it was yourself who had flown instead of the Wrights.

He then proceeded to supply details of the Wright success, and about their attitude after it:

I got to the camp on the 5th, only to find that on the preceding day the propeller had been twisted off the shaft in a test. It had to go to Dayton to be rebrazed. On its return the shaft itself was twisted in two, and two new shafts had to be forged and turned at Dayton.

Finally on the 17th of December (I could not stay so long) the first dynamic flight in history took place. I enclose herewith a clipping in which the Wrights state what they did do. It is a first success which cannot be pursued on account of weather. The Wrights are immensely elated. They have grown very secretive and nobody is to be allowed to see the machine at present so your chance is gone….I have not seem them and letters are now very scarce. They delayed over a year after I first advised them to apply for patents, and I suppose that now they have the inventor’s tremors that their secrets will be divulged.

[Haraka]

Haraka. I believe the WRIGHTS and their contribution made the airplane what it is today.


Sure , you are entitled to your opinions. The Americans being the first to use an aeroplane in war (against Pancho Villa) being one of them.

I won't bother to risk confusing you with facts when your mind is so obviously made up.

[Haraka]

Just an observation on the progress in official principal altitude and speed records at the year ends from 1909 ( i.e. post the Wright visit to Europe) to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.
Altitude
1909 1,486 ft. Antoinette
1910 10,170ft. Bleriot.
1911 12,828ft. Bleriot.
1912 18,404ft. Morane Saulnier.
1913 20,078ft. Nieuport

Speed

1909 47.83 m.p.h. Bleriot.
1910 69.48 m.p.h. Bleriot.
1911 82.72 m.p.h. Nieuport.
1912 108.17m.p.h. Deperdussin.
1913 126.66 m.p.h. Deperdussin.

I would suggest that these are two indicators on drivers of aviation progress.

Do note that:
a. They are all of French manufacture and design.

and that :
b. They are all tractor propeller configured monoplanes.

[Noyade]

Hello Haraka! :)

Totally agree mate. Here are some distance and endurance records from 1906 to 1914...

http://i62.tinypic.com/fvdzjd.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/2zs03gw.jpg

[Haraka]

I think that there may be some misconceptions about the virtues of flying without direct roll control and the implications of wing warping or wing mounted ailerons.
I would suggest that these early and very under powered aircraft were flying perilously close to the stall, and that the qualitative and potentially dangerous behaviour of aerofoils up to and beyond the stall had been well established for many years.
Attempting to "pick a wing up" with warping or a wing mounted aileron close to the stall could well be disastrous, with the increase in angle of attack on that wing causing it to go through the stall, if it wasn't already in that state.
The European approach was initially primarily that of maintaining stability by ,for example, dihedral and/or sweepback. The aim was to get in to the air safely and with stability at first , before a degree of practical piloting experience had been accumulated
The Wrights, however , by using the catapult ,were perhaps able to get a fair excess flying speed initially ,well ahead of stall speed. As this bled off then certainly initially elegant turning could be accomplished without the risk of spinning in.
I note that the early aileron concepts included those for a separate flying surface to the main wing , thus obviating that main wing surface having the risk of a potentially dangerous increase of angle of attack on the upgoing side (i.e. that of the downwards moving aileron) Once flying speed ranges were increased then ailerons were a safer option.
Turning without aileron or wing warping is fairly straightforward and not so clumsy as some might like to imagine. An initial lead in with rudder induces bank as a secondary control effect. Rate of turn is then controlled primarily on elevator ( as in a modern aeroplane), wing lift holding the aircraft in the turn with rudder being used for balance. Thus it is that there are many pictures of early aircraft in controlled banked turns around pylons, without using wing warping or ailerons.
Mignet was later to dispense with direct roll control on his popular "flying flea" designs-without problems in that regard.

[glendalegoon]

I was wrong about pancho villa expedition being the first use of military aviation in combat.

Perhaps the first US use in combat.

but the first aeronautical unity of the US involved a purchase of a wright military flyer and that same unit was involved a few years later in the pancho villa raids.

I understand the Italians are the first to use the plane in 1911 in a bombing raid.

[simplex1]

In a letter written on Nov. 9, 1905, Octave Chanute claimed he had seen a 500 m flight performed by the Wright Brothers.
However, from the content of the letter and its general tone, Chanute appears to act as the lawyer of the two brothers, trying to convince Captain Ferber (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Ferber) about things he had not seen.

In December 1905, L'Aérophile dedicated a long text to the Wright brothers and their claimed spectacular flights of Sep-Oct 1905. The most interesting thing in the article is a letter written by Octave Chanute, on Nov. 9, 1905 and addressed to Ferber, in which Chanute advised this french captain to trust the Wright brothers regarding their claims about the long runs in the air that had taken place in 1905. Chanute even mentioned he had witnessed a 500 meters flight at an unspecified date, definitely not in Sep-Oct 1905 or after (this information results from the letter). The only evidence, about the claimed long flights in the beginning of Oct. 1905, was personally obtained by Chanute directly from some eye witnesses, who were close friends of the Wright brothers. They assured him one week before Nov. 9, 1905 (so definitely after the Wrights' last flight on Oct. 5, 1905) that the long runs in the air had taken place, indeed.

The letter written in French by Chanute, as it was published by L'Aérophile:

"D'autre part, le capitaine Ferber avait reçu de M. Chanute la lettre suivante, écrite en français, qu'il avait provoquée pour arriver à un premier contrôle des assertions Wright :

Chicago, III., 9 novembre 1905
Cher capitaine Ferber,
Je viens de recevoir votre lettre du 26 octobre. Je crois que vous pouvez octroyer toute confiance à ce que les Wright vous ont écrit de leurs accomplissements (sic). Je n'ai vu, de mes yeux, qu'une petite envolée d'un demi-kilomètre, mais ils m'ont mandé leurs progrès de semaine en semaine et leurs amis intimes qui ont vu les longs parcours du commencement d'octobre, m'ont confirmé verbalement la semaine dernière, quand j'étais à Dayton, pour voir une envolée projetée de 60 kil. en une heure, qui n'a pu avoir lieu par raison d'un grand orage.
Les Wright se sont inspirés de l'exemple de la France qui a tenu secrets ses progrès de ballons dirigeables depuis 1885. Ils se sont arrangés avec leurs journaux à Dayton. Il y a bien eu une indiscrétion et un article publié, mais sa circulation a été supprimée.
Les Wright devaient vous écrire vers le 4 novembre.
Agréez, cher monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.
(Signé) : O. CHANUTE."


English Translation:

"On the other hand, Captain Ferber had received the following letter, written in French, from Mr. Chanute who had been provoked by him (by Ferber) to verify somehow the assertions of the Wrights:

Chicago, Ill., November 9, 1905
Dear Captain Ferber,
I have just received your letter of October 26. I think you can trust what the Wrights wrote to you regarding their achievements (sic). I have not seen with my own eyes anything excepting a short flight of half a kilometer but they informed me weekly about their progress and their close friends, who saw the long runs from the beginning of October, verbally confirmed to me, last week when I was in Dayton to see a projected 60 km flight in an hour, which did not take place because of a great storm.
The Wrights are inspired by the example of France which has kept the progress of its airships secret since 1885.
They arranged with their newspapers in Dayton. There was an indiscretion and an article got published, but its circulation was suppressed.
The Wrights have to write to you around November 4.
Accept, sir, my best wishes.
(Signed): O. CHANUTE."

Source: "Letter sent by Octave Chanute to captain Ferber and published by L'Aérophile on December 1905 at pag. 268 (middle of the page)", see: L'Aérophile (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6553918h/f274.image.r=chanute%20ferber.langEN)
The entire article: "Les Frères Wright et leur Aéroplane à moteur L'origine et les pièces du débat. — Exposé des faits avancés par les Wright. — Objections et possibilités. — Premiers résultats de l'enquête. ", L'AÉROPHILE, Directeur-Fondateur : GEORGES BESANÇON, 13e Annee — N°, 12 Décembre 1905 pag. 165-272, L'Aérophile (Paris) (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6553918h/f271.image.r=chanute%20ferber.langEN)

This letter is quite suspicious. Chanute had seen, without any doubt, some unpowered flights performed by the Wright brothers. From the text in the letter it appears the 500 meters flight witnessed by Chanute was powered and self sustained but it is not clear 100%. 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.

[joy ride]

Despite all the confusing and conflicting information on this thread and elsewhere, I accept that the Wrights probably were the first in powered, controlled and sustained flight, but sadly the whole matter is now seen by the general public in terms of:

no-one at all flew, then suddenly out of nowhere the Wrights did.

The reality is that they benefited hugely from a wealth of accumulated experience and wisdom from around the world, were not the first to fly and not the first aloft under power.

By the time of their first flight others were very close, and some of them had a better idea of how to build a plane.

Many inventions, developments and achievements are NOT achieved in a complete vacuum; many have roots in earlier work and some are arrived at by several people.

I certainly do respect the achievements and dedication of the Wrights, but I feel that their Uber-heroic status - particularly in their home country - gives a very, er, warped (!) impression of their aeronautical significance, and it is disturbingly exclusive of the great pioneers and the other close contenders.

[eetrojan]

Despite all the confusing and conflicting information on this thread and elsewhere, I accept that the Wrights probably were the first in powered, controlled and sustained flight, but sadly the whole matter is now seen by the general public in terms of:

no-one at all flew, then suddenly out of nowhere the Wrights did.

The reality is that they benefited hugely from a wealth of accumulated experience and wisdom from around the world, were not the first to fly and not the first aloft under power.

By the time of their first flight others were very close, and some of them had a better idea of how to build a plane.

Many inventions, developments and achievements are NOT achieved in a complete vacuum; many have roots in earlier work and some are arrived at by several people.

I certainly do respect the achievements and dedication of the Wrights, but I feel that their Uber-heroic status - particularly in their home country - gives a very, er, warped (!) impression of their aeronautical significance, and it is disturbingly exclusive of the great pioneers and the other close contenders.

I'm an American and I find this very reasonable. I'm sure that much of the history I have been taught has come with a home-field spin. Skepticism relating to that issue is quite healthy.

I wish the "Simplex"es of the world would spend more time teaching me about the rich fabric of other aviation contributors in a positive manner, rather than countless negative posts contending that the Wrights perpetrated lies based on "suspicious" letters.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[glendalegoon]

There is a great deal of misunderstanding.
Did the WRights invent the engine? no


Did they invent the fabric, thread, the wood? no

Did the invent the wire cables, or pulleys? no

But they did put it all together, and their method of control was patented!

Orville got the first pilot's license.

And it isn't just nationalistic pride.

[Noyade]

Skepticism relating to that issue is quite healthy.Hello eetrojan. :)

I think skepticism is a great thing. If my father had been more skeptical of his doctor's advice he may still be alive today.

I don't mind simplex. Reasonably civil, a tad monotonous and maybe a little heavy-handed with the "they all lied" theory, but hey, he's entitled to an opinion and this is the internet after all. He obviously has an axe to grind and I keep waiting for the final conclusion - but I'm now doubting there is one? I thought a while back this was heading to a grand "therefore the real flight belongs to....", or "the first really practical aircraft was...", but not anymore. I can kinda grasp his 1903 power-glide concept, but proving it convincingly in 2014? Very unlikely.

But with over 7,000 views to the thread since late May, wow! - and with many twists and turns along the way, I find it very entertaining! Keep up the good fight mate!

Orville got the first pilot's license.Skepticism at work...:ok:

http://i57.tinypic.com/m7dwj.jpg

[FlightlessParrot]

But they did put it all together, and their method of control was patented!

As I read this thread, I'm wondering about patent law. Pretty clearly, of all the pioneers, the Wrights were the first to successfully put it all together, even though their aeroplane was very marginal. But the next great burst of development, including settling on the definitive tractor/rear-elevator form, happened in France (though part of it by a Portuguese speaker, oh simplex1, if you really are a Portuguese speaker from Alaska).

Meanwhile the Wrights were being very secretive, and then very litigious, in defence of Intellectual Property. The secrecy is a bit surprising if the US patents were, in those days as now, first-to-invent rather than first-to-file. This would suggest that even at the beginning of the 20th c., patent law was hindering progress, rather than fostering invention, which is what it's supposed to be about. Or were the Wrights just a pair of tail-pipes?