Orville & Wilbur 98 years ago today
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds Drapes of the Electric light bulb controversy,
The history books will have you believe that Thomas Edison invented the electric light bulb among other things, yet a house not two miles from Drapes was enjoying the benifits of electric light two years before Edison thought of the carbon filiment vacuum bulb.
History as she is writ has great inertia, once something is in the history books, nothing will change it.
There is something called the steam engine and wiggit theory, this states that when its time for the steam engine or wiggit to emerge, ie the technology becomes capable of actually producing some wiggit that people have had in mind for years, said wiggit appears all over the place more or less at the same time.
Television is a example, quite a few were working on radio transmition of images, but old John Logie got the credit, yet his invention in no way resembles modern TV recievers.
Radio is another, Marconi wins the medal, but Tessla was working with radio at more or less the same time, only he didn't call it wireless.
The history books will have you believe that Thomas Edison invented the electric light bulb among other things, yet a house not two miles from Drapes was enjoying the benifits of electric light two years before Edison thought of the carbon filiment vacuum bulb.
History as she is writ has great inertia, once something is in the history books, nothing will change it.
There is something called the steam engine and wiggit theory, this states that when its time for the steam engine or wiggit to emerge, ie the technology becomes capable of actually producing some wiggit that people have had in mind for years, said wiggit appears all over the place more or less at the same time.
Television is a example, quite a few were working on radio transmition of images, but old John Logie got the credit, yet his invention in no way resembles modern TV recievers.
Radio is another, Marconi wins the medal, but Tessla was working with radio at more or less the same time, only he didn't call it wireless.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Invention is only a word.
Man does not invent things he discovers the things that God has placed before him. Whether you are talking about Television, Radio or the cure for cancer God placed the necessary elements before man to be discovered.
Is it that necessary to lay claim as to who was the first? If Mr. Pearse were the first to fly in a powered aircraft I ask what has New Zealand done to memorialize him? In Ohio there is a major USAF airbase named after the Wrights and there is a major university named after the Wrights.
It would seem that New Zealand could lay claim that they had the first birds not to fly (Kiwi) that is if you don’t take into consideration penguins and the dodo. This might set off a confrontation from those that lay claim to being the home of the latter two birds and if they did disagree with New Zealand’s claim the whole thing would seem to be stupid to the outside world.
Do you get my point?
Is it that necessary to lay claim as to who was the first? If Mr. Pearse were the first to fly in a powered aircraft I ask what has New Zealand done to memorialize him? In Ohio there is a major USAF airbase named after the Wrights and there is a major university named after the Wrights.
It would seem that New Zealand could lay claim that they had the first birds not to fly (Kiwi) that is if you don’t take into consideration penguins and the dodo. This might set off a confrontation from those that lay claim to being the home of the latter two birds and if they did disagree with New Zealand’s claim the whole thing would seem to be stupid to the outside world.
Do you get my point?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, this thread has taken a distinctly worrying turn... but, as I think we have run out of steam on the Pearse argument...
My understanding is that, whether you believe in God or not, Christian and Jewish teaching does allow Man the capacity to invent things - that's what the whole Garden of Eden story is about, right?
My understanding is that, whether you believe in God or not, Christian and Jewish teaching does allow Man the capacity to invent things - that's what the whole Garden of Eden story is about, right?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usually I don't have to intervene on this forum, but this thread has taken a turn away from the original topic and has deteriorated into topics which have nothing to do with aviation.
Now! I personally like this topic and I believe there is an awful lot that can come from it yet. All intelligent and informative stuff about the Wright brothers and the history of flight. After almost a 100 years it would be reasonable to expect that. So if you can contain yourselves from introducing other matters perhaps we can keep the thread going until the 17th December. The greatest day in aviation history. Unless of course you know better!
Now! I personally like this topic and I believe there is an awful lot that can come from it yet. All intelligent and informative stuff about the Wright brothers and the history of flight. After almost a 100 years it would be reasonable to expect that. So if you can contain yourselves from introducing other matters perhaps we can keep the thread going until the 17th December. The greatest day in aviation history. Unless of course you know better!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Teddington, Middlesex
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'If a man is in too big a hurry o give up an error he is liable to give up some truth with it, and in accepting the arguments of the other man he is sure to get some error with it. Honest argument is merely a process of mutually picking the beams and motes out of each other's eyes so that both can see clearly. Men become wise just as they become rich, more by what they save than what they receive. After I get hold of a truth I hate to lose it again, and I like to sift all the truth out before I give up in error'
1903 letter from Wilbur Wright to George Spratt
So, long may the debate continue! (Not my posting, please note, but one made on behalf of the magnificent and admirable Mr Wright.)
1903 letter from Wilbur Wright to George Spratt
So, long may the debate continue! (Not my posting, please note, but one made on behalf of the magnificent and admirable Mr Wright.)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am trying to compile a complete list of controversies and claims to the "first powered flight" title.
Can anyone add to the following?
Wright Brothers - Dayton/Kitty Hawk, USA
Hiram Maxim - England
Samuel Langley - USA
Richard Pearse - New Zealand
Clement Ader - France
James Preston Watson - Scotland
John Montgomery - San Diego, USA
Gustave Whitehead - Connecticut, USA
Burrell Cannon - Texas, USA
Alexandr Fyodorovich Mozhaisky - Russia
Can anyone add to the following?
Wright Brothers - Dayton/Kitty Hawk, USA
Hiram Maxim - England
Samuel Langley - USA
Richard Pearse - New Zealand
Clement Ader - France
James Preston Watson - Scotland
John Montgomery - San Diego, USA
Gustave Whitehead - Connecticut, USA
Burrell Cannon - Texas, USA
Alexandr Fyodorovich Mozhaisky - Russia
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are making a list you could add...
Felix Du Temple 1874 France (Short hop in a steam powered machine after a run down a ramp. Claimed as the first attempt to fly a powered machine).
..or perhaps even..
Karl Jatho 1903 Germany - 60 meter hops, possibly not from level ground.
...and for the avoidance of doubt.. I'm a Wright supporter.
Felix Du Temple 1874 France (Short hop in a steam powered machine after a run down a ramp. Claimed as the first attempt to fly a powered machine).
..or perhaps even..
Karl Jatho 1903 Germany - 60 meter hops, possibly not from level ground.
...and for the avoidance of doubt.. I'm a Wright supporter.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 Wheeler - so, Pearse invented ailerons, did he?
"At the end and back or hinder part of each wing is a flap which moves up and down upon a hinge in the back edge of the wing ............ when both are raised, but unequally, the machine will make a curve towards the side on which the flap is most raised." From the patent specification of Richard Harte in 1870, seven years before Richard Pearse was born. Sound like ailerons to me!
Two years prior to that, fellow Brit. Matthew Boulton described in his patent application a system of wing tip balancers "to provide a controlling power .............. to prevent their turning over by rotating on the longitudinal axis." He postulated "vanes which are moved so as to take inclined positions, those on the ascending side of the vessel being caused to rotate to such an inclination that the air impinging upon them exerts a presure downwards, while those on the descending side are so inclined that the air impinging on them exerts a pressure upwards; thus the balance of the vessel is redressed and its further rotation prevented." Aileron-like devices undoubtedly, albeit envisaged for stability rather than control.
CC
"At the end and back or hinder part of each wing is a flap which moves up and down upon a hinge in the back edge of the wing ............ when both are raised, but unequally, the machine will make a curve towards the side on which the flap is most raised." From the patent specification of Richard Harte in 1870, seven years before Richard Pearse was born. Sound like ailerons to me!
Two years prior to that, fellow Brit. Matthew Boulton described in his patent application a system of wing tip balancers "to provide a controlling power .............. to prevent their turning over by rotating on the longitudinal axis." He postulated "vanes which are moved so as to take inclined positions, those on the ascending side of the vessel being caused to rotate to such an inclination that the air impinging upon them exerts a presure downwards, while those on the descending side are so inclined that the air impinging on them exerts a pressure upwards; thus the balance of the vessel is redressed and its further rotation prevented." Aileron-like devices undoubtedly, albeit envisaged for stability rather than control.
CC
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
Ah, the superiority of ailerons over the Wrights crudely fashioned wing warping eh?
Ailerons aren't inherently superior and wing warping is more efficient in some cases - as in the very low speed flight conditions of the Wrights early machines. The Wrights chose well, for according to Pearse, his rudder wasn't sufficiently effective to counter the adverse yaw induced by his ailerons. Eventually ailerons became the preferred method of lateral control, for they generally permit a stronger wing structure - at least when using traditional materials. An experimental F/A-18A with warping wings is currently undergoing tests at Edwards Air Force Base with NASA's Dryden Flight Research Centre.
Perhaps new materials may lead to the return of Orville and Wilbur's original solution, at least for those flight conditions where it is still the best choice ...?
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Ailerons aren't inherently superior and wing warping is more efficient in some cases - as in the very low speed flight conditions of the Wrights early machines. The Wrights chose well, for according to Pearse, his rudder wasn't sufficiently effective to counter the adverse yaw induced by his ailerons. Eventually ailerons became the preferred method of lateral control, for they generally permit a stronger wing structure - at least when using traditional materials. An experimental F/A-18A with warping wings is currently undergoing tests at Edwards Air Force Base with NASA's Dryden Flight Research Centre.
Perhaps new materials may lead to the return of Orville and Wilbur's original solution, at least for those flight conditions where it is still the best choice ...?
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Last edited by Blacksheep; 29th Jan 2003 at 03:04.
Enigmatologist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Tottering Upon Brink
Age: 69
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alberto Santos Dumont was if not the first, surely the most Dapper of the lot. 14 bis was not derivitive of the Wrights and was very keen. Demoisielle was the truley a masterpiece. 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Aus
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wrote the following for a magazine but they didnt want controversy. Can't imagine why; widens the imagination!
Were They the First?
Wilbur and Orville were pioneers in aviation who achieved great success and deserve acclaim, but it seems that anyone who questions the claims made on their behalf is considered ignorant, or worse. Although there are records of the time that show what really happened, the popular version as taught to school children seems to have been accepted by even aviation professionals. These brothers, talented as they undoubtedly were, did not wake up one day and decide to invent an airplane. They used other work, by other aviation pioneers, as a starting point. Yes, the Wrights made great progress and by their skill and perseverance made a series of successful flights. Flights that excited the imagination of the world and spurred popular acceptance of a new science. But were they the first?
One of the ways that the Wrights were different from the other aviation pioneers of the time was the way they saw the profit potential in flying, and they were quick to claim that they had been, indeed, the first to fly a powered airplane. They were also quick to take legal action to press their claims. For a time, until the First World War in fact, they were generally successful in litigation, receiving royalties on their patents and in doing so, they set aviation, and particularly American aviation, back. For instance they demanded a sum equal to twenty percent of all monies made, including gate receipts at flying displays, by those who flew virtually any flying machine for gain. They were determined that even those who flew in other countries should pay, and their claim was made on the basis of US patents for some aviation designs that had already been used overseas. It is interesting to read about the battles that Curtis, for example, had with the Wrights over the patent for the aileron, even though such a device was hardly an invention of either group. The Smithsonian did not accept the Wrights’ claims until 1948, and then only so that the original Flyer could become the property of the museum.
Had the Wrights been more open and ready to share, as were most of the other aviation pioneers of the time, the US would not have lost its edge, and who knows how fast the development of this new science would have progressed?
Perhaps because of the ongoing legal battles, the Wrights did not at any time give credit to others, whose works they used to develop their Flyer. There are too many similarities for their ideas to have been unique, yet they destroyed records that might have shown where these ideas came from. The first Flyer, which was damaged beyond repair after that first day of flying, could not be accurately duplicated or repaired since there were no plans or diagrams.
As a scientific experiment, the first flights would not, today, qualify as acceptable since independent experimenters would be unable to duplicate them. All replicas, and computer simulations of the first Flyer, cannot be flown. Even the Wrights, with their extensive gliding experience, could not manage to fly the airplane beyond a short distance, and could not make turns. Whenever they moved the pitch control the airplane stalled or dived into the ground, and only the low groundspeed (the wind was a steady 25 mph with a flying speed of around 35 mph) saved the machine, and the pilot, from disaster. Without that wind, it is doubtful that the Flyer would have even been able to get airborne. Other pioneers are criticised because they chose to make their takeoff run on a downslope, but the Wrights are given a pass when they make a machine that can only make it into the air with a strong headwind.
On the last attempt a wing dropped and the primitive roll control did not work. The machine broke as it struck the ground and never flew again (the Flyer was badly damaged in a wind gust while it was parked, waiting repair, and practically destroyed by flood waters later). Knowing that they were on a dead end path, the Wrights built a new machine for the next series of flights, and although it, too, was unsuccessful, their third attempt, more than a year later, was a real winner. Yet they did not alter the basic design, and the Wright series of airplanes petered out after a few years, with other, more innovative builders taking the lead. It was many years before the US regained its dominance in aviation.
The real reason that this day has gone down in history was the Coast Guard photo. A famous photograph that has been published in thousands of books and magazines did more for the Wrights than anything else. Without that photo the public would not have accepted the Wright’s claim any more than they had the others.
Meanwhile, what of the others? Did anyone really fly a successful powered airplane before the Wrights? There were many who could have, including Langley, Maxim, McDonald, Mozhaiski, Pearse, Stringfellow, Du Temple de la Croix, Watson, Whitehead and others. One thing that distinguishes these experimenters from the Wrights is that they did not have the Wrights’ desire to be famous, seeing what they did as steps in the process, rather than as a way to fame and fortune. Could they have done what they say, or in many cases, what was said on their behalf?
Several of their designs, sometimes including the actual machine or parts of it, have been re-built and flown successfully, so there is no doubt that some of them could have beaten the Wrights into the air. But they did not have the Wright’s ambition, and they did not have The Photograph.
Although it is only fair that the Wrights should be given a great deal of credit for their success, even to the point of popular acceptance of their claim to be the “first”, serious aviation scholars (aren’t we all?) should keep an open mind. In this way we give homage to those other, mostly ignored pioneers, whose work and sacrifice, and even their failures, made possible the success of the Wrights on December 17th 1903.
Were They the First?
Wilbur and Orville were pioneers in aviation who achieved great success and deserve acclaim, but it seems that anyone who questions the claims made on their behalf is considered ignorant, or worse. Although there are records of the time that show what really happened, the popular version as taught to school children seems to have been accepted by even aviation professionals. These brothers, talented as they undoubtedly were, did not wake up one day and decide to invent an airplane. They used other work, by other aviation pioneers, as a starting point. Yes, the Wrights made great progress and by their skill and perseverance made a series of successful flights. Flights that excited the imagination of the world and spurred popular acceptance of a new science. But were they the first?
One of the ways that the Wrights were different from the other aviation pioneers of the time was the way they saw the profit potential in flying, and they were quick to claim that they had been, indeed, the first to fly a powered airplane. They were also quick to take legal action to press their claims. For a time, until the First World War in fact, they were generally successful in litigation, receiving royalties on their patents and in doing so, they set aviation, and particularly American aviation, back. For instance they demanded a sum equal to twenty percent of all monies made, including gate receipts at flying displays, by those who flew virtually any flying machine for gain. They were determined that even those who flew in other countries should pay, and their claim was made on the basis of US patents for some aviation designs that had already been used overseas. It is interesting to read about the battles that Curtis, for example, had with the Wrights over the patent for the aileron, even though such a device was hardly an invention of either group. The Smithsonian did not accept the Wrights’ claims until 1948, and then only so that the original Flyer could become the property of the museum.
Had the Wrights been more open and ready to share, as were most of the other aviation pioneers of the time, the US would not have lost its edge, and who knows how fast the development of this new science would have progressed?
Perhaps because of the ongoing legal battles, the Wrights did not at any time give credit to others, whose works they used to develop their Flyer. There are too many similarities for their ideas to have been unique, yet they destroyed records that might have shown where these ideas came from. The first Flyer, which was damaged beyond repair after that first day of flying, could not be accurately duplicated or repaired since there were no plans or diagrams.
As a scientific experiment, the first flights would not, today, qualify as acceptable since independent experimenters would be unable to duplicate them. All replicas, and computer simulations of the first Flyer, cannot be flown. Even the Wrights, with their extensive gliding experience, could not manage to fly the airplane beyond a short distance, and could not make turns. Whenever they moved the pitch control the airplane stalled or dived into the ground, and only the low groundspeed (the wind was a steady 25 mph with a flying speed of around 35 mph) saved the machine, and the pilot, from disaster. Without that wind, it is doubtful that the Flyer would have even been able to get airborne. Other pioneers are criticised because they chose to make their takeoff run on a downslope, but the Wrights are given a pass when they make a machine that can only make it into the air with a strong headwind.
On the last attempt a wing dropped and the primitive roll control did not work. The machine broke as it struck the ground and never flew again (the Flyer was badly damaged in a wind gust while it was parked, waiting repair, and practically destroyed by flood waters later). Knowing that they were on a dead end path, the Wrights built a new machine for the next series of flights, and although it, too, was unsuccessful, their third attempt, more than a year later, was a real winner. Yet they did not alter the basic design, and the Wright series of airplanes petered out after a few years, with other, more innovative builders taking the lead. It was many years before the US regained its dominance in aviation.
The real reason that this day has gone down in history was the Coast Guard photo. A famous photograph that has been published in thousands of books and magazines did more for the Wrights than anything else. Without that photo the public would not have accepted the Wright’s claim any more than they had the others.
Meanwhile, what of the others? Did anyone really fly a successful powered airplane before the Wrights? There were many who could have, including Langley, Maxim, McDonald, Mozhaiski, Pearse, Stringfellow, Du Temple de la Croix, Watson, Whitehead and others. One thing that distinguishes these experimenters from the Wrights is that they did not have the Wrights’ desire to be famous, seeing what they did as steps in the process, rather than as a way to fame and fortune. Could they have done what they say, or in many cases, what was said on their behalf?
Several of their designs, sometimes including the actual machine or parts of it, have been re-built and flown successfully, so there is no doubt that some of them could have beaten the Wrights into the air. But they did not have the Wright’s ambition, and they did not have The Photograph.
Although it is only fair that the Wrights should be given a great deal of credit for their success, even to the point of popular acceptance of their claim to be the “first”, serious aviation scholars (aren’t we all?) should keep an open mind. In this way we give homage to those other, mostly ignored pioneers, whose work and sacrifice, and even their failures, made possible the success of the Wrights on December 17th 1903.
That's pretty much what I have said, though in not so many words -
The only real difference was that there was a photo taken. If the Wrights had flown as far as Pearse, and done a couple of turns like he did then we would all be somewhat more impressed with their first flights.
The only real difference was that there was a photo taken. If the Wrights had flown as far as Pearse, and done a couple of turns like he did then we would all be somewhat more impressed with their first flights.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oddly enough I was having a look at a Pearse flyer replica yesterday at the Ashburton SAANZ fly in, when a couple of old fella's started talking about the film replica taking off while being towed by a horse.
The reply was that it may have happened but would have been in the manner of a big kite .
It looks to me to be more closely related to a low powered hang glider than a conventional plane.
The reply was that it may have happened but would have been in the manner of a big kite .
It looks to me to be more closely related to a low powered hang glider than a conventional plane.