The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Definitely somebody in 1906 not before.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-histo...ml#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.
"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-histo...ml#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.
Last edited by simplex1; 5th Jun 2014 at 05:16.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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 !!!!!
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 !!!!!
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.
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.
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 !
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 5th Jun 2014 at 09:20. Reason: date!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: France
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The work of a crank or a diligent researcher?
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.
Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906)
And from that same page...the second question asked of the eye witnesses was ...
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
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 !
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
- 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.
Last edited by simplex1; 5th Jun 2014 at 10:07.
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
See: "The Wright Aeroplane Tests in North Carolina", Scientific American, pag. 393, May 30, 1908,
https://archive.org/stream/scientifi...ge/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.
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.
See: "The Wright Aeroplane Tests in North Carolina", Scientific American, pag. 393, May 30, 1908,
https://archive.org/stream/scientifi...ge/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.
Last edited by simplex1; 5th Jun 2014 at 11:22.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 weight falls in about two seconds (see min 1:53 - 1:55).
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.
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...
Next...........
And you never did answer my question about what nationality you are
With a glider you only have to run a few steps if the launch method has enough power for fast acceleration...
Next...........
And you never did answer my question about what nationality you are
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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 (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).
Last edited by Mechta; 6th Jun 2014 at 00:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Henry H. Arnold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.