100 years of Flight
Yes, the answer is that you've already made up your mind and will not listen to anything else.
If a 900 yard flight that includes two turns and mostly out of ground effect, was made by a totally untrained pilot that didn't crash at the end of it, would that be an uncontrolled flight or a controlled one?
If a 900 yard flight that includes two turns and mostly out of ground effect, was made by a totally untrained pilot that didn't crash at the end of it, would that be an uncontrolled flight or a controlled one?
Pigasus27. Regardless of what Pearce may have said, there numerous references and compelling evidence that he achieved actual powered, (reasonably) controlled, flight before the Wright brothers. 18-Wheeler's web site has a very informative, complete and well researched article on Pearce.
I assume 18-Wheeler won't object to me quoting the following from his web site:
"11-5-1903. This, in my opinion was Man's first real flight. Pearse took off along the side of a river, the Opihi River (in New Zealand), turned left to fly over the 30' tall river bank, then turned right to fly parallel to the middle of the river, above the wing's ground effect. After flying nearly 1,000 yards, his engine began to overheat and lost power, thus forcing a landing way down the dry-ish riverbed. One of the locals, Arthur Tozer, was crossing the river at the time in a horse-drawn carriage, and was rather surprised to have Pearse fly right over his head!"
The myth that the Wrights were the first to achieve powered flight may have it's origins in the terms of an agreement made around 1944, under which the Wright Flyer aircraft was returned from the UK to the Smithsonian Institute.
I assume 18-Wheeler won't object to me quoting the following from his web site:
"11-5-1903. This, in my opinion was Man's first real flight. Pearse took off along the side of a river, the Opihi River (in New Zealand), turned left to fly over the 30' tall river bank, then turned right to fly parallel to the middle of the river, above the wing's ground effect. After flying nearly 1,000 yards, his engine began to overheat and lost power, thus forcing a landing way down the dry-ish riverbed. One of the locals, Arthur Tozer, was crossing the river at the time in a horse-drawn carriage, and was rather surprised to have Pearse fly right over his head!"
The myth that the Wrights were the first to achieve powered flight may have it's origins in the terms of an agreement made around 1944, under which the Wright Flyer aircraft was returned from the UK to the Smithsonian Institute.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Regardless of what Pearce may have said!!" Now you're just getting silly! He himself said that he didn't do it - you say that he did. Were you there? Pearce was. He said that he didn't fly, and that's good enough for me (and I suspect everyone else except Torres and 18-wheeler).
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Feltham, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some great moments mentioned above which I would agree with, but for me personally, the most inspiring moments were as a young boy, listening to my 'uncle' Ralph telling stories of his exploits in WWII where he had his face burnt off trying to shoot down a doodlebug, and his work on Concorde.
He epitomised the spirit of flight which drove great men to achieve great things and was the biggest hero I ever met.
He epitomised the spirit of flight which drove great men to achieve great things and was the biggest hero I ever met.
Pigasus, one can convince some of the people, some of the time, but not all the people, all the time. And I respect your right to an opinion...... 
I would be very interested to see your evidence (or arguement, subjective or not) that either: (a) Pearce failed to achieve powered flight; or (b) the Wright brothers flight pre dated Pearce's flight.
Forgetting 18-wheelers excellent web site, how about the Cornwell University in the UK which states categorically:
Richard Pearce
Richard Pearce designed, built and flew the world's first airplane before the Wright Brothers at Kittyhawk.
Or Australia's Monash University which states:
Popular history has it that the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk [in the United States] were the first to fly [a heavier-than-air craft], but this is not true! The first flight was by a twenty-five year old New Zealander, Richard Pearse on March 31, 1902. Pearse, (1877 - 1953), is not generally known for this wonderful feat as [until recently?] there has been very little publicity about it. In fact the first formal mention of his achievement was some seven years later in the newspapers of 1909.
Presumably, reputable Universities would not make those statements without first verifying their veracity?
Obviously I wasn't there, but there appears to be significant evidence to support the claim that Pearce's flight pre dated the Wrights. Conversely, you may be correct and Cornwall University, Monash University, 18-wheeler and I may be wrong.
As I mentioned above, one needs to research the terms of the 1944 agreement under which the Wright Flyer was returned from the UK to the USA after the Second World War. It's been some time since I read the article on the agreement, but I seem to recall a condition was that the Smithsonian Institute were to promote the Wrights flight as man's first powered flight.
I would be very interested to see your evidence (or arguement, subjective or not) that either: (a) Pearce failed to achieve powered flight; or (b) the Wright brothers flight pre dated Pearce's flight.
Forgetting 18-wheelers excellent web site, how about the Cornwell University in the UK which states categorically:
Richard Pearce
Richard Pearce designed, built and flew the world's first airplane before the Wright Brothers at Kittyhawk.
Or Australia's Monash University which states:
Popular history has it that the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk [in the United States] were the first to fly [a heavier-than-air craft], but this is not true! The first flight was by a twenty-five year old New Zealander, Richard Pearse on March 31, 1902. Pearse, (1877 - 1953), is not generally known for this wonderful feat as [until recently?] there has been very little publicity about it. In fact the first formal mention of his achievement was some seven years later in the newspapers of 1909.
Presumably, reputable Universities would not make those statements without first verifying their veracity?
Obviously I wasn't there, but there appears to be significant evidence to support the claim that Pearce's flight pre dated the Wrights. Conversely, you may be correct and Cornwall University, Monash University, 18-wheeler and I may be wrong.
As I mentioned above, one needs to research the terms of the 1944 agreement under which the Wright Flyer was returned from the UK to the USA after the Second World War. It's been some time since I read the article on the agreement, but I seem to recall a condition was that the Smithsonian Institute were to promote the Wrights flight as man's first powered flight.
In the style of Pigasus27, I'm still waiting for an answer for, "If a 900 yard flight that includes two turns and mostly out of ground effect, was made by a totally untrained pilot that didn't crash at the end of it, would that be an uncontrolled flight or a controlled one?"
People's memories can be odd at times, remember the president of the US, "I DID NOT HAVE S.E.X. WITH THAT WOMAN."
Of course not.
People's memories can be odd at times, remember the president of the US, "I DID NOT HAVE S.E.X. WITH THAT WOMAN."
Of course not.
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In two letters, published in 1915 and 1928, Richard Pearse writes of February or March 1904 as the time when he set out to solve the problem of aerial navigation. He also states very clearly and explicitly that he did never achieved proper flight and did not beat the American brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright.
Against these rather clear statements - and the fact there is absolutely no contemporary evidence in favour of a 1903 flight attempt (less still an actual flight), we have some eyewitness accounts collected several decades after the supposed event. I have worked as a professional oral historian for over 15 years and feel qualifued to state that if there is one thing that the human mind is incapable of doing, it is storing and recalling accurate date information over a long period of time.
So there are 2 ways we can take this.
18 Wheeler is asking us to believe that on two separate occasions the main protagonist has written bare faced lies about his own activities; that probably for the first time in human history we have an individual denying having achieved a notable positive "first" in human progress; and that when interviewed decades later, some eyewitnesses to his aviation experiments have precisely recalled the date on which they occurred.
Or we could believe that Mr Pearse was telling the truth about what he did; and cast reasonable doubt on the accuracy and impartiality of those interviewed decades later.
Make up your own mind folks
Against these rather clear statements - and the fact there is absolutely no contemporary evidence in favour of a 1903 flight attempt (less still an actual flight), we have some eyewitness accounts collected several decades after the supposed event. I have worked as a professional oral historian for over 15 years and feel qualifued to state that if there is one thing that the human mind is incapable of doing, it is storing and recalling accurate date information over a long period of time.
So there are 2 ways we can take this.
18 Wheeler is asking us to believe that on two separate occasions the main protagonist has written bare faced lies about his own activities; that probably for the first time in human history we have an individual denying having achieved a notable positive "first" in human progress; and that when interviewed decades later, some eyewitnesses to his aviation experiments have precisely recalled the date on which they occurred.
Or we could believe that Mr Pearse was telling the truth about what he did; and cast reasonable doubt on the accuracy and impartiality of those interviewed decades later.
Make up your own mind folks
He was not satisfied with his results, hence he did not make the claim nor was he interested in doing so.
You can twist it any way you like, but a flight like he did well before the Wrights is unarguably sustained controlled flight. It took the Wrights over a year to match anything like what he did.
As for people recalling things years later, it was in the local newspaper a day or so later. Somewhat more recently than 'years'.
He was also noted as saying when he first saw news of the Wright brother's flight that he had achieved the task before them, but was not really interested in who was first.
It was only many year later he was reported as changing his mind. Compared to the aeroplanes of the mid 20's, his Monoplane must have seemed near-imossible to fly.
Never the less, it did, and for quite a distance many times over a couple of years.
You can twist it any way you like, but a flight like he did well before the Wrights is unarguably sustained controlled flight. It took the Wrights over a year to match anything like what he did.
As for people recalling things years later, it was in the local newspaper a day or so later. Somewhat more recently than 'years'.
He was also noted as saying when he first saw news of the Wright brother's flight that he had achieved the task before them, but was not really interested in who was first.
It was only many year later he was reported as changing his mind. Compared to the aeroplanes of the mid 20's, his Monoplane must have seemed near-imossible to fly.
Never the less, it did, and for quite a distance many times over a couple of years.
Last edited by 18-Wheeler; 4th Dec 2003 at 13:56.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Covering the Commonwealth
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a series in the 'A' magazine by noted pre-w.w.1 aviation historian Phillip Jarrett. In this he's looked at the various claimants to the 'first flight'. Pearce and Santos Dumont are two highly thought of contenders who achieved much, but, according to Jarrett, were not first - except for the requirements of later historians, who, in many cases, are trying to prove different for nationalistic reasons. I'm afraid Pearce's case does not convince me - though I think he was certainly a brave, and commendable pioneer
However, there are two key points that are being missed above:
1: The Wright's aircraft (not them, not the flight, the aircraft) was controllable
2: They publicised (later on, sure) and published and patented and are recognised as two of the leading scientific developers of practical flight. As you've said Pearce supports their efforts.
3: The dispute with Samuel Langley - where Curtiss and the Smithsonian lied, forged and cheated is why the Flyer was in Britain, not the Smithsonian untill '48, and shows how great academic instuitutions can pervert history. (this is a matter of record - not my opinion btw) is why the Wrights were sucked into litigation. It's an example of the 'Wrights not first = news' vs 'Wrights did it = not news' problem that we face this year from media trying to get 'an angle' on an old story.
Hope this helps!
18wheeler & torries - I remain unconvinced, but I'm glad we can review the facts to decide eh? Bluntly, there are few Universities who I would accredit with the ability to get aviation history right. - Cranfield etc. Monash (my parents' Uni btw) and Cornwell are not among them. Sorry.
However, there are two key points that are being missed above:
1: The Wright's aircraft (not them, not the flight, the aircraft) was controllable
2: They publicised (later on, sure) and published and patented and are recognised as two of the leading scientific developers of practical flight. As you've said Pearce supports their efforts.
3: The dispute with Samuel Langley - where Curtiss and the Smithsonian lied, forged and cheated is why the Flyer was in Britain, not the Smithsonian untill '48, and shows how great academic instuitutions can pervert history. (this is a matter of record - not my opinion btw) is why the Wrights were sucked into litigation. It's an example of the 'Wrights not first = news' vs 'Wrights did it = not news' problem that we face this year from media trying to get 'an angle' on an old story.
Hope this helps!
18wheeler & torries - I remain unconvinced, but I'm glad we can review the facts to decide eh? Bluntly, there are few Universities who I would accredit with the ability to get aviation history right. - Cranfield etc. Monash (my parents' Uni btw) and Cornwell are not among them. Sorry.
The claims to Richard pearse's fame are mostly based on Geoffrey Rodliffe's books about him. In the article mentioned above it is pointed out that a lot of the research behind these books is questionable or perhaps even flawed. As pointed out by Fernytickles witness evidence from those days is a very thin source to base all these claims on.
However fun these bi-monthly Pearse/Wright wars are, the original reason for this topic was to question whether any events were laid on for the 17th. I think this question could've been answered without dragging in this whole discussion that is now going on. Those willing to discuss the Pearse/Wright issue, please find your own topic! (I might even join you there.)
However fun these bi-monthly Pearse/Wright wars are, the original reason for this topic was to question whether any events were laid on for the 17th. I think this question could've been answered without dragging in this whole discussion that is now going on. Those willing to discuss the Pearse/Wright issue, please find your own topic! (I might even join you there.)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As we close in on 17th December I think we should, and must, avoid letting the question of Richard Pearse arise again. It has been discussed many times over the past months and it is time to let it drop.
Why? Because the fact is that the Wright Brothers have been accredited with the distinction of making the first flight. That it what history records and this forum is no position to change history.
So please continue the discussion about man's first flight and not about who else may have done it.
100 years is a long time and we should celebrate man's first flight as it is declared by the history books.
CP
Why? Because the fact is that the Wright Brothers have been accredited with the distinction of making the first flight. That it what history records and this forum is no position to change history.
So please continue the discussion about man's first flight and not about who else may have done it.
100 years is a long time and we should celebrate man's first flight as it is declared by the history books.
CP
No CP, I will not let it drop because it's just plain wrong.
The name of the paper is in a refererence book I have at home in Aus, I am in Dubai at the moment and so do not have access to it.
The name of the paper is in a refererence book I have at home in Aus, I am in Dubai at the moment and so do not have access to it.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,656
Received 315 Likes
on
175 Posts
Well, whichever we've missed the opportunity to celebrate 100 years of the Richard Pearse event, so as aviation afficionados we'll just have to celebrate 100 years of the Wrights... Beer anybody?
PS: we've missed this year's Christmas as there are those who will argue that JC was born in September - or was it August - excellent say I, tear down the decos, strike Slade from the gramophone player...
PS: we've missed this year's Christmas as there are those who will argue that JC was born in September - or was it August - excellent say I, tear down the decos, strike Slade from the gramophone player...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear Hear Treaders....Let's have a Fosters for all the antipodians and let the Pearse/Wright argument go to it's own thread and debate as desired.
This thread is about any special events going on for the 100th of The Brothers.
Saw the new Smithsonian Air and Space annex last weekend. Looks like a large concrete Quonset hut... blech!! But who cares, it's what's inside that counts. Opening day is 12/15.
This thread is about any special events going on for the 100th of The Brothers.
Saw the new Smithsonian Air and Space annex last weekend. Looks like a large concrete Quonset hut... blech!! But who cares, it's what's inside that counts. Opening day is 12/15.
