Orville & Wilbur 98 years ago today
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> The only difference between what Pearse & the Wrights had
> achieved by the end of 1903 was that Pearse had flown a lot
> further
Really?
In 1965 the Science Museum via Her Majesty's Stationary Office published a booklet entitled "The worlds first Aeroplane flights and Early attempts to fly".
Relegated to notes on the last page the publication says...
"(2) The Pearse Claim. Claims have recently been made for (not by) the New Zealander Richard Pearse that he flew a powered aeroplane of his own design in 1902 and 1903. But statements by Pearse himself were later discovered in which he stated that he first started experimenting early in 1904; that his first machine was “uncontrollable”; and that “I never flew with my first experimental plane”. He also accepted that the Wrights were the first to fly."
> achieved by the end of 1903 was that Pearse had flown a lot
> further
Really?
In 1965 the Science Museum via Her Majesty's Stationary Office published a booklet entitled "The worlds first Aeroplane flights and Early attempts to fly".
Relegated to notes on the last page the publication says...
"(2) The Pearse Claim. Claims have recently been made for (not by) the New Zealander Richard Pearse that he flew a powered aeroplane of his own design in 1902 and 1903. But statements by Pearse himself were later discovered in which he stated that he first started experimenting early in 1904; that his first machine was “uncontrollable”; and that “I never flew with my first experimental plane”. He also accepted that the Wrights were the first to fly."
As I wrote above - "Yes I am happy to not trust his word on that, as he was not in the best mental state in his later years. He claimed a few things in those years that did not match what he actually did.
I believe that he was not happy with his efforts so made no big deal of them. His ultimate effort was to build an aeroplane that could fly like a bee and be affordable to the average family, and the First Flyer was the first step in that process. He would not have been happy until he achieved that, and he did not in fact manage it.
The witness statements were not pulled out of a hat, and were carefully cross-checked by George Bolt & Geoffery Rodliffe. In every case the dates & distances match up.
As I have asked many times, what would you call a flight of 1,000 yards, a couple of turns, including flight out of ground effect? Does that sound like it was out of control by someone who had never (obviously) had flying lessons? How many students could manage that these days?"
There are only two differences between the Wright brothers flights and Pearce's - Pearse did not bother to get a photo taken as he didn't think what he was doing was important, and the credibility of the witnesses of both series of flights.
I cannot see why Pearse's wintesses would be any less credible than the Wright brother's ones would be.
We only have their word for both series of flights at the end of the day. Neither group has any reason to make up stories about what happened.
I believe that he was not happy with his efforts so made no big deal of them. His ultimate effort was to build an aeroplane that could fly like a bee and be affordable to the average family, and the First Flyer was the first step in that process. He would not have been happy until he achieved that, and he did not in fact manage it.
The witness statements were not pulled out of a hat, and were carefully cross-checked by George Bolt & Geoffery Rodliffe. In every case the dates & distances match up.
As I have asked many times, what would you call a flight of 1,000 yards, a couple of turns, including flight out of ground effect? Does that sound like it was out of control by someone who had never (obviously) had flying lessons? How many students could manage that these days?"
There are only two differences between the Wright brothers flights and Pearce's - Pearse did not bother to get a photo taken as he didn't think what he was doing was important, and the credibility of the witnesses of both series of flights.
I cannot see why Pearse's wintesses would be any less credible than the Wright brother's ones would be.
We only have their word for both series of flights at the end of the day. Neither group has any reason to make up stories about what happened.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>>>I cannot see why Pearse's wintesses would be any less credible than the Wright brother's ones would be. <<<<<
>>>>>Neither group has any reason to make up stories about what happened.<<<<<
This is extremely naive, given that we are talking about a claim for the first flight in history, and that the Pearse witnesses were interviewed decades after the supposed event.
Again, can I recommend that people try and look up the Ogilvie book previously referenced, for a serious historical approach to the Pearse story. IMHO the Rodliffe books are seriously flawed by the author's efforts to make the "evidence" justify and fit what he wants to believe, rather than looking closely at the evidence itself.
>>>>>Neither group has any reason to make up stories about what happened.<<<<<
This is extremely naive, given that we are talking about a claim for the first flight in history, and that the Pearse witnesses were interviewed decades after the supposed event.
Again, can I recommend that people try and look up the Ogilvie book previously referenced, for a serious historical approach to the Pearse story. IMHO the Rodliffe books are seriously flawed by the author's efforts to make the "evidence" justify and fit what he wants to believe, rather than looking closely at the evidence itself.
IMHO the Rodliffe books are seriously flawed by the author's efforts to make the "evidence" justify and fit what he wants to believe, rather than looking closely at the evidence itself.
It seems likely that you have not read the Rodliffe books. He only reports what Pearse did, and passes little judgement.
There is nothing remotely naive about my comment.
Look at it another way - If the flights that the two groups were swapped over, how would I look if I was promoting someone who had made a handful of relatively minor hops of a much shorter distance, no turns, not out of ground effect, etc.
It'd be laughable.
It seems likely that you have not read the Rodliffe books. He only reports what Pearse did, and passes little judgement.
There is nothing remotely naive about my comment.
Look at it another way - If the flights that the two groups were swapped over, how would I look if I was promoting someone who had made a handful of relatively minor hops of a much shorter distance, no turns, not out of ground effect, etc.
It'd be laughable.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 Wheeler - I have read the Rodliffe books, and the problem with him, like you, is a blind acceptance of unreliable witness statements. Just because someone says that something happened, does not mean that it actually happened exactly that way.
In my opinion it is naive in the extreme to take at face value witness statements gathered under dubious circumstances decades after the event took place.
In my opinion it is naive in the extreme to take at face value witness statements gathered under dubious circumstances decades after the event took place.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I add to this, wearing my (reasonably experienced) trial lawyer hat (or wig) for a moment, that perfectly honest witnesses can have great difficulty in accurately recalling even very recent events, dates, times, places and so forth, let alone events which occurred a considerable time ago. This is one reason why photographs and contemporaneous documents can be of value in getting as close as possible to a historical record. Why is there this persistent concern here and elsewhere to talk up oddball claimants and belittle the Wrights, even though they did take the trouble to maintain records of what they did?
Last edited by FNG; 23rd Jan 2003 at 07:12.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Teddington, Middlesex
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The acid test of science is whether other people can repeat an experiment or observation using the same equipment. Thus we know all that school chemistry. physics and biology stuff to be true because we have all proven it over and again for ourselves.
Now, if someone builds and exact replica of the Pearse monstrosity and flys the contraption 1,000 yards there would be grounds for crediting all the claims.
Many Wright Flyer replicas have been built and flown. The body of evidence (and our lawyer friend will agree that even in the most cut and dried of cases there is some degree on contradiction - it is the weight of evidence that counts) the body of evidence pushes the Wright's acheivements up there with great genius.
The one difference with Pearse is that no picture was taken... no, hang on, the two differences were that no picture was taken and the witnesses disagreed... no, wait a minute, the three differences were that there was no picture, no contemporary witness account, no flight instruments...
Now, if someone builds and exact replica of the Pearse monstrosity and flys the contraption 1,000 yards there would be grounds for crediting all the claims.
Many Wright Flyer replicas have been built and flown. The body of evidence (and our lawyer friend will agree that even in the most cut and dried of cases there is some degree on contradiction - it is the weight of evidence that counts) the body of evidence pushes the Wright's acheivements up there with great genius.
The one difference with Pearse is that no picture was taken... no, hang on, the two differences were that no picture was taken and the witnesses disagreed... no, wait a minute, the three differences were that there was no picture, no contemporary witness account, no flight instruments...
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put Orville and Wilbur's achievements in perspective, read the 'replica' account in the current issue of Flight International. Some 600 people were involved in completing the replica and certification as an 'experimental' aircraft took a whole year!
The Wright brothers worked to a deliberate project plan, read up all that was known about aerodynamics, built a wind tunnel to test aerofoils and performed detailed calculations for their basic design. The 'Flyer' was produced as a flight test prototype to test their theories and calculations. They even correctly calculated the power they would need and designed an engine that would produce just enough power for the job with the minimum weight - steel cylinders screwed into an alloy block, alloy crankcase etc. They flew four missions on 17 December 1903, the duration of the last flight being 59 seconds, covering 872 feet under full control. The Flyer was then damaged by being blown over by a gust, but the Wrights had already gathered enough data to prove the basic design and return to developing their larger commercial model.
In short, they weren't happy amateurs just playing at flying, they were professional engineers determined to design and build a practical flying machine as a fully commercial proposition.
...and as we all know, they succeeded.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
The Wright brothers worked to a deliberate project plan, read up all that was known about aerodynamics, built a wind tunnel to test aerofoils and performed detailed calculations for their basic design. The 'Flyer' was produced as a flight test prototype to test their theories and calculations. They even correctly calculated the power they would need and designed an engine that would produce just enough power for the job with the minimum weight - steel cylinders screwed into an alloy block, alloy crankcase etc. They flew four missions on 17 December 1903, the duration of the last flight being 59 seconds, covering 872 feet under full control. The Flyer was then damaged by being blown over by a gust, but the Wrights had already gathered enough data to prove the basic design and return to developing their larger commercial model.
In short, they weren't happy amateurs just playing at flying, they were professional engineers determined to design and build a practical flying machine as a fully commercial proposition.
...and as we all know, they succeeded.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
I do not have 'blind acceptance' of the Rodliffe books - The ones that I have read show that he carefully checked the statements both against each other and with the conditions of the period.
They all agreed quite well indeed.
I stand by my comments that the dates and distances are correct.
I stand by my comment that there is no reason to believe/disbelieve the Wright's observers any more/less than Pearse's. There were no qualified or experienced aviation observers in that era.
They all agreed quite well indeed.
I stand by my comments that the dates and distances are correct.
I stand by my comment that there is no reason to believe/disbelieve the Wright's observers any more/less than Pearse's. There were no qualified or experienced aviation observers in that era.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Earth must be flat. I can see that it is. If it were round like some mad people say, then all those nice people in New Zealand would fall off it and wouldn't be able to reach their keyboards to type, repeatedly "I read it in a book that some bloke said it was true so it must be true". On second thoughts, speaking as an aerobatics geek, perhaps I too should abandon reason and science and become a Pearse groupie, because any flying which he did would, by virtue of his location in NZ, have to be done upside down, and this is, of course, the best way to fly.
Hoorah for Mr Pearse! The Brian Lecomber of, er....1902, or 3, or 5, or whenever.
Please address all further enquiries via Earth Embassy, Planet Zarg.
Hoorah for Mr Pearse! The Brian Lecomber of, er....1902, or 3, or 5, or whenever.
Please address all further enquiries via Earth Embassy, Planet Zarg.
Last edited by FNG; 23rd Jan 2003 at 09:40.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philip,
Is it so hard to believe that history has not been altered to satisfy the populous? Just because there were more eye witnesses doesn't make a fact more believable. How many people eye witnessed the landing on the moon?
Stating that the Pearce machine was incapable of flight is ill founded. If I were to make a story up of a possible flight I'm sure I would make it romantic. Certainly not terminate it by crashing into a hedge. I also wouldn't construct fantastic powerplants that FAR excelled that of any engine of the era. Study them, I'm sure you would be amazed. I can't state that the aerodynamics of the Pearce flyer would have produced enough lift however the large wing and rear tailplane are well proven and still in use today. With the horsepower those engines produced it would have simply been a matter of pointing the wing at the right angle!
In my opinion the Pearce machine most certainly flew. I've also no reason to believe that the eye witness accounts were inaccurate. In actual fact I've spoken with descendants of witnesses who sware by dates well prior to the Wright flight.
In regards to building a replica, what is the point? I really can't understand the reasoning behind the Wright replicas, unless there is question in regards to the fact that it actually flew?
Daniel Powell.
Computer Systems Engineer
Reading, England.
Is it so hard to believe that history has not been altered to satisfy the populous? Just because there were more eye witnesses doesn't make a fact more believable. How many people eye witnessed the landing on the moon?
Stating that the Pearce machine was incapable of flight is ill founded. If I were to make a story up of a possible flight I'm sure I would make it romantic. Certainly not terminate it by crashing into a hedge. I also wouldn't construct fantastic powerplants that FAR excelled that of any engine of the era. Study them, I'm sure you would be amazed. I can't state that the aerodynamics of the Pearce flyer would have produced enough lift however the large wing and rear tailplane are well proven and still in use today. With the horsepower those engines produced it would have simply been a matter of pointing the wing at the right angle!
In my opinion the Pearce machine most certainly flew. I've also no reason to believe that the eye witness accounts were inaccurate. In actual fact I've spoken with descendants of witnesses who sware by dates well prior to the Wright flight.
In regards to building a replica, what is the point? I really can't understand the reasoning behind the Wright replicas, unless there is question in regards to the fact that it actually flew?
Daniel Powell.
Computer Systems Engineer
Reading, England.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Teddington, Middlesex
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My last post on this subject!
Daniel: yes, of course history gets altered with the passage of time. History is not a factual account of things, it is the latter-day view of what happened (which should contain a large proportion of fact, but doesn't necessarily!)
My simple contention is that if something worked then, it will still work now.
Of couse, people with dubious motives attempt to hijack even this premiss. Witness Glen Curtiss rebuilding (and substantially altering) the wretched Langley Aerodrome in a devious attempt to demonstrate 'prior art' in pursuit of his defence against the Wright's legal claims (he lost).
We know that you cannot fly by trapping the morning dew in a glass envelope, as one would-be aviator in the ancient world thought he could, because it doesn't work now and it didn't work then. We know the myth of Icarus is just that - a myth - because you cannot fly too close to the sun with wings made from feathers attached with wax. It's true now, and it was true then.
People build replica Wright Flyers because they respect and admire two great and gifted men. The Flyer worked in 1903, and it still works in 2003. A heap of junk with no aerofoil camber, a designed-to-seize engine copied from steam engineering practice and a prop that would not even cut the mustard as a room fan will not fly now, and didn't fly then.
Daniel: yes, of course history gets altered with the passage of time. History is not a factual account of things, it is the latter-day view of what happened (which should contain a large proportion of fact, but doesn't necessarily!)
My simple contention is that if something worked then, it will still work now.
Of couse, people with dubious motives attempt to hijack even this premiss. Witness Glen Curtiss rebuilding (and substantially altering) the wretched Langley Aerodrome in a devious attempt to demonstrate 'prior art' in pursuit of his defence against the Wright's legal claims (he lost).
We know that you cannot fly by trapping the morning dew in a glass envelope, as one would-be aviator in the ancient world thought he could, because it doesn't work now and it didn't work then. We know the myth of Icarus is just that - a myth - because you cannot fly too close to the sun with wings made from feathers attached with wax. It's true now, and it was true then.
People build replica Wright Flyers because they respect and admire two great and gifted men. The Flyer worked in 1903, and it still works in 2003. A heap of junk with no aerofoil camber, a designed-to-seize engine copied from steam engineering practice and a prop that would not even cut the mustard as a room fan will not fly now, and didn't fly then.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting that Mr Pearse's supporters are prepared to exercise some level of judgement about the value of historical sources in questioning Pearse's own words on the subject - oh yes, the man was clearly out of his mind when he said he didn't start experimenting until 1904, and that his first plane didn't fly.
But the same folks have mysteriously lost their capacity to judge the accuracy of a historical source, happily trusting "witnesses" (and now, it seems, the descendants of witnesses!) interviewed some decades after the event under suspicious circumstances.
Funny, that.
But the same folks have mysteriously lost their capacity to judge the accuracy of a historical source, happily trusting "witnesses" (and now, it seems, the descendants of witnesses!) interviewed some decades after the event under suspicious circumstances.
Funny, that.
Last edited by I have control; 23rd Jan 2003 at 22:13.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wish to change the course of history, simply because it wasn't recorded to your satisfaction?
In regards to the belief of word of mouth recollection, I was simply attempting to demonstrate that proof of his flight was not only recorded by written media.
"A heap of junk with no aerofoil camber," Does this prevent an object from flying?? Kite technology, the first gliders, rockets?
"a designed-to-seize engine copied from steam engineering practice" You could state that about my race car engine. It has a piston, bore, uses expansion to create power much as any steam engine. The race engine is most certainly not designed for long term use either. Reduced valve guides and a very stressed crank, rods and valve train all ensure that my modern race motor is also designed to seize. Yet I am sure that given the right airframe my motor would fly, and drag me up with it. The question is for how long, he's not attempting to fly around the world, only across a field.
" and a prop that would not even cut the mustard as a room fan will not fly now, and didn't fly then." You could say that about the Wright props. Modern high revving engines and speed have radically altered the prop forever. I would be interested in any proof of the failure of his prop.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Pearse flyer actually took to the air. I also think that if the man was a little more interested in the publicity then this argument would have no founding and there would be proof positive of the exact date and time of his flight.
Is it so unbelievable that a single dedicated and undeniably talented man could outperform that of the Wright brothers and their team?
Daniel Powell
In regards to the belief of word of mouth recollection, I was simply attempting to demonstrate that proof of his flight was not only recorded by written media.
"A heap of junk with no aerofoil camber," Does this prevent an object from flying?? Kite technology, the first gliders, rockets?
"a designed-to-seize engine copied from steam engineering practice" You could state that about my race car engine. It has a piston, bore, uses expansion to create power much as any steam engine. The race engine is most certainly not designed for long term use either. Reduced valve guides and a very stressed crank, rods and valve train all ensure that my modern race motor is also designed to seize. Yet I am sure that given the right airframe my motor would fly, and drag me up with it. The question is for how long, he's not attempting to fly around the world, only across a field.
" and a prop that would not even cut the mustard as a room fan will not fly now, and didn't fly then." You could say that about the Wright props. Modern high revving engines and speed have radically altered the prop forever. I would be interested in any proof of the failure of his prop.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Pearse flyer actually took to the air. I also think that if the man was a little more interested in the publicity then this argument would have no founding and there would be proof positive of the exact date and time of his flight.
Is it so unbelievable that a single dedicated and undeniably talented man could outperform that of the Wright brothers and their team?
Daniel Powell
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, you can call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but why is it that the people who support the Wrights tend to be (1) able to spell, (2) familiar with the empirical approach of scientific experimentation, and (3) aware of the subjectivity and unreliability of witness testimony, whereas the Pearse fans tend to display, er, none of these qualities?
Last edited by FNG; 24th Jan 2003 at 07:52.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In actual fact I do know of 18 wheeler. Unfortunately have not had the pleasure of meeting him, but we share an interest in building racing engines and the cacophony of equipment that surrounds them. 18 wheeler informed me of this thread and I have voluntarily inserted my argument.
FNG I think it is you that refuses to adhere to basic scientific principals. It is you that believes that Pearce did not fly, whereas there is a body of evidence to prove that indeed left the solid earth (briefly). So if you believe so heartily that he failed then you prove he did so.
In regards to witnesses, you state that Wright followers are aware of the unreliability of witness testimony. Then what would the Wright flight be without witnesses!? Your argument only states that both flights failed to exist.
In closing it appears that you have lost all focus on the argument and instead are forced to counter with weak diatribe. Why not attempt to keep this factual, or sir are you out of facts?
FNG I think it is you that refuses to adhere to basic scientific principals. It is you that believes that Pearce did not fly, whereas there is a body of evidence to prove that indeed left the solid earth (briefly). So if you believe so heartily that he failed then you prove he did so.
In regards to witnesses, you state that Wright followers are aware of the unreliability of witness testimony. Then what would the Wright flight be without witnesses!? Your argument only states that both flights failed to exist.
In closing it appears that you have lost all focus on the argument and instead are forced to counter with weak diatribe. Why not attempt to keep this factual, or sir are you out of facts?
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry if it comes across like that, redmist. I don't think that I've ever positively asserted that Mr P didn't ever fly, although frankly I'm enormously sceptical as to the contention that he did. The evidence as to when he flew, if he flew at all, seems sketchy to say the least. My real point, however is: "so what if he did fly?" As for the point about witness evidence, it is that having to rely mainly or entirely on the recollections of individuals as to what they may or may not have seen years before is a slender basis for any case. The Wrights' case is not thus based.
As I understand it, the basic story goes something like this. One day, bloke on his own says, “I think I’ll invent an aeroplane”. So, he does, and flies it a bit. A few people stand idly by watching him do this. Bloke thinks “Well, that was fun, but solving this problem which has obsessed mankind for millennia is not a big deal. Certainly no point writing about it, taking photos or anything. Think I’ll pack it in now and go and invent mobile phones, styrofoam cups, or warp drive, or something”. Many years later, bloke says “I didn’t invent the aeroplane”, but this doesn’t count, because, tragically, he is by now a loony. Various other people say “oh yes, I recall idly standing about and seeing him flying about a bit in this really cool aeroplane, er.....quite a while ago....I know this is right because I distinctly recall the Air Traffic Controller telling him to enter the hold until that squadron of flying pigs had cleared the runway".
Meanwhile, at about the same time as “quite a while ago”, two other blokes, well-read bicycle mechanics, read up on all the work done on flying through the previous century, exchange ideas and info with people who’ve thought about it a lot, systematically research wings and engines, do quite a bit of gliding, sort out an engine, then put it all together. They have been keeping records. They manage some short flights in December 1903. Again, they keep records. They carry on working, and record keeping, and, by the time that they’ve taken their machine to France a few years later, it is so good that even the French have to admit that these boys have done the business. Again, it’s all recorded.
So, weighing up the evidence, it’s possible that Mr P flew, and maybe, just maybe, he flew before the Wrights. No one can be sure. As for the Wrights, however, there is no reasonable basis for doubting that they did what they did and when they did it. From their early work there evolved an industry making aeroplanes. The world (after some debate) acknowledges them as the fathers of powered flight. Is the world really so wrong?
As I understand it, the basic story goes something like this. One day, bloke on his own says, “I think I’ll invent an aeroplane”. So, he does, and flies it a bit. A few people stand idly by watching him do this. Bloke thinks “Well, that was fun, but solving this problem which has obsessed mankind for millennia is not a big deal. Certainly no point writing about it, taking photos or anything. Think I’ll pack it in now and go and invent mobile phones, styrofoam cups, or warp drive, or something”. Many years later, bloke says “I didn’t invent the aeroplane”, but this doesn’t count, because, tragically, he is by now a loony. Various other people say “oh yes, I recall idly standing about and seeing him flying about a bit in this really cool aeroplane, er.....quite a while ago....I know this is right because I distinctly recall the Air Traffic Controller telling him to enter the hold until that squadron of flying pigs had cleared the runway".
Meanwhile, at about the same time as “quite a while ago”, two other blokes, well-read bicycle mechanics, read up on all the work done on flying through the previous century, exchange ideas and info with people who’ve thought about it a lot, systematically research wings and engines, do quite a bit of gliding, sort out an engine, then put it all together. They have been keeping records. They manage some short flights in December 1903. Again, they keep records. They carry on working, and record keeping, and, by the time that they’ve taken their machine to France a few years later, it is so good that even the French have to admit that these boys have done the business. Again, it’s all recorded.
So, weighing up the evidence, it’s possible that Mr P flew, and maybe, just maybe, he flew before the Wrights. No one can be sure. As for the Wrights, however, there is no reasonable basis for doubting that they did what they did and when they did it. From their early work there evolved an industry making aeroplanes. The world (after some debate) acknowledges them as the fathers of powered flight. Is the world really so wrong?
Last edited by FNG; 24th Jan 2003 at 07:51.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can see a replica of Mr. Pearse's mechanically powered flying machine here
Note the carefully shaped aerofoil profiles on the mainplane - no doubt the result of hours of wind tunnel testing, the ailerons and elevators - so superior to the primitive wing warping employed by the Wright brothers and finally the beautiful curves of the hand carved propellor blades.
To be fair, here is the complete link to the "Museum of Transport and Technology of New Zealand Inc." so readers can read and judge for themselves at least one version of Pearse's story. Personally, I'm sure he succeeded in becoming airborne, but as Richard Pearse himself declared, he couldn't get his machine going fast enough to make the rudders effective and so he couldn't keep it under control. Hardly a qualifier by either his own or anybody else's judgement.
Whether he did or didn't make the first sustained and controlled powered flight is largely irrelevant - Pearse certainly didn't leave an indelible mark on the history of aviation. His reclusiveness alone was sufficient to ensure that his efforts went unrecognised and contributed nothing to subsequent developments in aviation.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Note the carefully shaped aerofoil profiles on the mainplane - no doubt the result of hours of wind tunnel testing, the ailerons and elevators - so superior to the primitive wing warping employed by the Wright brothers and finally the beautiful curves of the hand carved propellor blades.
To be fair, here is the complete link to the "Museum of Transport and Technology of New Zealand Inc." so readers can read and judge for themselves at least one version of Pearse's story. Personally, I'm sure he succeeded in becoming airborne, but as Richard Pearse himself declared, he couldn't get his machine going fast enough to make the rudders effective and so he couldn't keep it under control. Hardly a qualifier by either his own or anybody else's judgement.
Whether he did or didn't make the first sustained and controlled powered flight is largely irrelevant - Pearse certainly didn't leave an indelible mark on the history of aviation. His reclusiveness alone was sufficient to ensure that his efforts went unrecognised and contributed nothing to subsequent developments in aviation.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema