Centenary of Powered Flight
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the evidence that has been offered up in support of obscure claimants are newspaper stories and affidavits, neither of which can be considered conclusive proof.
Browse through the newspapers from any large city between 1860 and 1900, and you are likely to find stories about successful flying machines. While one or more of these newspaper stories may have been true, it's much more likely that they were all fantasy. Aeronautical hoaxes have been a tradition in journalism since the 1840s. Few (if any) of these stories are researched articles; they are simply letters to the editor. In these letters, would-be aviators stretched the truth or fabricated successful flights to attract investors and finance their aeronautical research. Editors published the letters without questioning their accuracy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that aviation stories made good copy.
Affidavits from eye-witnesses to supposed flights are just as suspect. They become more so as the elapsed time between the flight and the deposition lengthens. Because most people like to be helpful, that can often be coaxed into remembering things that never happened by investigators -- particularly if the investigators are insistent or attach some importance to the event. A. V. Roe, a pioneer aviator, collected a large number of affidavits to prove that he had been the first person to fly in England. But actual correspondence between Roe and other aviators from that time (among them Orville Wright) showed that the flights he made took place sometime after the dates that the witnesses had been prompted to remember. The same goes for the Dundee aviator James Preston Watson -"eye-witnesses" signed affadavits in the 40s and 50s swearing that Watson flew a powered airplane in the summer of 1903, before the Wrights. A careful study of other evidence shows this cannot possibly have been the case.
What is needed to prove a claim that someone else was first to fly is evidence that corroborates the newspaper stories and affidavits -- diaries, letters, scientific notebooks, blueprints, photographs of airplanes in flight. So far, none of the claimants have produced corroborating evidence sufficient to unseat the Wright brothers from their widely accepted place in history as the inventors of the first practical airplane.
Browse through the newspapers from any large city between 1860 and 1900, and you are likely to find stories about successful flying machines. While one or more of these newspaper stories may have been true, it's much more likely that they were all fantasy. Aeronautical hoaxes have been a tradition in journalism since the 1840s. Few (if any) of these stories are researched articles; they are simply letters to the editor. In these letters, would-be aviators stretched the truth or fabricated successful flights to attract investors and finance their aeronautical research. Editors published the letters without questioning their accuracy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that aviation stories made good copy.
Affidavits from eye-witnesses to supposed flights are just as suspect. They become more so as the elapsed time between the flight and the deposition lengthens. Because most people like to be helpful, that can often be coaxed into remembering things that never happened by investigators -- particularly if the investigators are insistent or attach some importance to the event. A. V. Roe, a pioneer aviator, collected a large number of affidavits to prove that he had been the first person to fly in England. But actual correspondence between Roe and other aviators from that time (among them Orville Wright) showed that the flights he made took place sometime after the dates that the witnesses had been prompted to remember. The same goes for the Dundee aviator James Preston Watson -"eye-witnesses" signed affadavits in the 40s and 50s swearing that Watson flew a powered airplane in the summer of 1903, before the Wrights. A careful study of other evidence shows this cannot possibly have been the case.
What is needed to prove a claim that someone else was first to fly is evidence that corroborates the newspaper stories and affidavits -- diaries, letters, scientific notebooks, blueprints, photographs of airplanes in flight. So far, none of the claimants have produced corroborating evidence sufficient to unseat the Wright brothers from their widely accepted place in history as the inventors of the first practical airplane.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from. .<a href="http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/NewZ/research.html" target="_blank">http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/NewZ/research.html</a>
"Wild and inaccurate statements have been publicised from time to time concerning Richard Pearse's achievements in the field of aviation. However, no responsible researcher has ever claimed that he achieved fully controlled flight before the Wright brothers, or indeed at any time. To attain fully controlled flight a pilot would have to be able to get his plane into the air, fly it on a chosen course and land it at a predetermined destination. Obviously Pearse's short "hops" or "flights", whilst they established the fact that he could readily become airborne, did not come within this category, but neither, for that matter, did the first powered flights of the Wright brothers in December 1903. The Wright brothers, however, had the resources necessary to continue their experimentation until they achieved fully controlled flight."
and later:-
"...At about this time two of Pearse's letters to the press came to light. In the first, dated 10th May 1915, he stated: I started out to solve the problem (of aerial navigation) about March 1904. The Wrights started at about the same time". In the second letter, dated 15th September 1928, he wrote: "I started my experiments on aerial navigation about February, 1904".
The site also quotes statements by witnesses, giving various dates for early flights, some of which pre-date those recalled by Pearse himself. Whatever the dates, it is worth bearing in mind the points about flying a chosen course and landing at a chosen time and place. By 1905 the Wrights were able to fly circuits at will. The Flyer III of that year could fairly be described as a practical aeroplane, viable as a means of transport. None of the rival claimants got this far.
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: FNG ]</p>
"Wild and inaccurate statements have been publicised from time to time concerning Richard Pearse's achievements in the field of aviation. However, no responsible researcher has ever claimed that he achieved fully controlled flight before the Wright brothers, or indeed at any time. To attain fully controlled flight a pilot would have to be able to get his plane into the air, fly it on a chosen course and land it at a predetermined destination. Obviously Pearse's short "hops" or "flights", whilst they established the fact that he could readily become airborne, did not come within this category, but neither, for that matter, did the first powered flights of the Wright brothers in December 1903. The Wright brothers, however, had the resources necessary to continue their experimentation until they achieved fully controlled flight."
and later:-
"...At about this time two of Pearse's letters to the press came to light. In the first, dated 10th May 1915, he stated: I started out to solve the problem (of aerial navigation) about March 1904. The Wrights started at about the same time". In the second letter, dated 15th September 1928, he wrote: "I started my experiments on aerial navigation about February, 1904".
The site also quotes statements by witnesses, giving various dates for early flights, some of which pre-date those recalled by Pearse himself. Whatever the dates, it is worth bearing in mind the points about flying a chosen course and landing at a chosen time and place. By 1905 the Wrights were able to fly circuits at will. The Flyer III of that year could fairly be described as a practical aeroplane, viable as a means of transport. None of the rival claimants got this far.
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: FNG ]</p>
The interviews and research that Geoffery Rodliffe did concentrated on the dates and distances specifically because Pearse was notorious for not getting his dates correct.. .He checked on things like weather conditions (heavy rainfall, snow, etc, that was recorded, and referenced that with the dates that the witesses claimed.. .The dates and distances are correct.
As for controlled flight, he made two deliberate turns, at least one of which was out of ground effect.. .We are not going to change each other's minds over this, but Pearse clearly showed sustained, controlled, powered flight before the Wright Brothers. I'm sticking with that.
[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: 18-Wheeler ]</p>
As for controlled flight, he made two deliberate turns, at least one of which was out of ground effect.. .We are not going to change each other's minds over this, but Pearse clearly showed sustained, controlled, powered flight before the Wright Brothers. I'm sticking with that.
[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: 18-Wheeler ]</p>
