Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.

Old 6th Jun 2014, 16:04
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Having now read this thread , and considered all the scientific and engineering evidence presented from so many pioneers' formally recorded works , does anybody seriously now think that the overall development of heavier-than-air aviation would have been significantly impaired had the Wrights stuck to making bicycles?
Haraka is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 16:32
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Scientific American, in its Jan. 25, 1908 edition, credits the Wright Brothers, A. M. Herring and Gustave Whitehead as producing the first successful heavier-than-air flying machines despite the fact that only claims made by the three inventors existed that time and no credible witness, beyond any doubt.
What about the eleven witnesses that responded to the author(s) of Scientific American's article dated April 7, 1906?

Oh yeah, you've dismissed them. In your view, they're not "credible" because some of them reportedly talked about "pushing" which was clearly "impossible."

At this point, you're not having a reasonable conversation, just a diatribe. Y'all carry on. Have fun.
eetrojan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 16:34
  #223 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
does anybody seriously now think that the overall development of heavier-than-air aviation would have been significantly impaired had the Wrights stuck to making bicycles?

“It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century." -
Fred Culick.

Source: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/1...CULaiaaj03.pdf
simplex1 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 17:14
  #224 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What about the eleven witnesses that responded to the author(s) of Scientific American's article dated April 7, 1906?
I have already answered this question.
See: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8506695 and read it carefully.

Those eleven witnesses do not appear with their names excepting one, Charles Webbert, who saw the machine "being assisted in starting on the rail". He did not mention hands pushing the airplane. Anyway, for reasons already explained the credibility of this man is zero.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 17:43
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
“It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century." - Fred Culick.

Source: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/1...CULaiaaj03.pdf
This quote means the author believed two things: (1) The Wrights invented the airplane; and (2) If they hadn't, somebody else would have invented the airplane.

That's like saying "It is certainly true that if not Alexander Graham Bell, somebody else would have invented the telephone."

That sounds correct. No argument from me.
eetrojan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 18:12
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My question:
What about the eleven witnesses that responded to the author(s) of Scientific American's article dated April 7, 1906?
Mr. Simplex's response
I have already answered this question.
See: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908. and read it carefully.
Honestly, it's pretty difficult to keep track of your disjointed posts, much less glean your reason for making them, but I just read it again.

Your prior post says that it's your opinion that the 11 witnesses are not credible because Scientific American didn't print their names, and that the Charles Webbert letter they did print as representative of the witness accounts is "highly suspicious" because Webbert's niece was married to somebody connected to the Wrights.

By the way, you referred to Webbert's neice as somebody's "whife." That reminds me - where are you from and what is your native language?

At any rate, the Scientific American article expressed healthy skepticism and, so far as I know, was a legitimate source of news. Do you have evidence that that Scientific American falsely claimed to seek out and review written communications from 17 witnesses, 11 of whom responded?

You also said that the Webbert letter itself is suspicious because, in your opinion, it "brought nothing new" beyond what the Wrights said "before."

In essence, you oddly conclude that the Webbert letter is highly suspicious" because it's consistent with the Wright brothers prior statements. Wow, would it have been "super duper highly suspicious" had it been inconsistent?

I look forward to your reply.

Last edited by eetrojan; 6th Jun 2014 at 19:36. Reason: fixed a typo
eetrojan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 19:59
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Haraka. I believe the WRIGHTS and their contribution made the airplane what it is today.

That silly little farman biplane didn't even have ailerons and slopped around a turn with rudder, ailerons were added after a full understanding of what the WRIGHTs had done with wing warping, warp drag and the rudder.

EVERY account of the French flights indicated the WRIGHTS were the masters of the air and others just sort of plodded around like a barn door with a prop on it.

I have it on semi good authority that SIMPLEX1 is actually a distant cousin of the wrights and only starts these dumb threads to feel important. Being a fish cutter isn't so much compared to INVENTING THE AIRPLANE>


AND to all the witnesses, the words they used would make sense to those of that time era. For example: "THE GAY DIVORCE`" play/film of the 1930's certainly wouldn't mean the same today, now would it?

ASSISTING a plane as it trundles down a wooden rail is like patting someone on the back today being considered holding up a doddering old man.

Simplex, go back to the fish. YOU AIN'T GOT THE WRIGHT STUFF
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 20:05
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
“It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century.
This is a totally mind-numbingly, consummately, inept statement - demonstrating a total lack of appreciation or comprehension of the developmental process.

"Invented the Airplane"

Back to populist and simplistic "Barnum and Bailey" hogwash.

(Apart from the ongoing ignorance of not being capable of comprehending the reasoning behind the derivation of the grammatically correct term "Aeroplane")
Haraka is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 20:10
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HARAKA

I take it you are british.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 20:35
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 77
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why are the main parts of an aeroplane given French names?
John Hill is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 20:36
  #231 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Scientific American from Dec. 26, 1903 informed its readers that
the aeroplane of the Wright brothers had been started from the top of a 100-foot sand dune and it had risen in the air to a height of about 60 feet, after which it had driven a distance of some three miles!!

"A Successful Experiment with a Motor-Driven Aeroplane.
On December 17 the Messrs. Orville and Wilbur Wright made some successful experiments at Kitty Hawk, N. C, with an aeroplane propelled by a 16-horsepower, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, and weighing complete more than 700 pounds.
The aeroplane was started from the top of a 100-foot sand dune. After it was pushed off, it at first glided downward near the surface of the incline. Then, as the propellers gained speed, the aeroplane rose steadily in the air to a height of about 60 feet, after which it was driven a distance of some three miles against a twenty-mile-an-hour wind at a speed of about eight miles an hour. Mr. Wilbur Wright was able to land on a spot he selected, without hurt to himself or the machine.
This is a decided step in advance in aerial navigation with aeroplanes, and it is probably due to the increased degree of controllability resulting from the Wright brothers’ novel form of horizontal rudder, which is a small guiding aeroplane placed in front of, instead of behind, the aeroplane proper. A well illustrated description of the Wright aeroplane appeared in our Februarr 22, 1902, issue. The present aeroplane has the very large surface of 510 square feet, making its apparent entire controllability all the more remarkable."

Source: "A Successful Experiment with a Motor-Driven Aeroplane.", Scientific American, pag. 486, Dec. 26, 1903, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi...ge/n9/mode/1up

Last edited by simplex1; 6th Jun 2014 at 20:54.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 20:50
  #232 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding “It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century." said by Fred Culick, if you read all the remarks made by this professor regarding the Wright brothers, you quickly reach the conclusion that what he really meant is he has serious doubts the two brothers really invented the plane, really were the first to fly a heavier than air machine.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 21:36
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding “It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century." said by Fred Culick, if you read all the remarks made by this professor regarding the Wright brothers, you quickly reach the conclusion that what he really meant is he has serious doubts the two brothers really invented the plane, really were the first to fly a heavier than air machine.
I see how you might get that impression since the quote is from the professor's 25-page article, published on the 2003 centennial of the Wright's 1903 flight, and is entitled "The Wright Brothers: First Aeronautical Engineers and Test Pilots."

His "serious doubts" are especially obvious given his third sentence where he says, "Beginning in the late 1890s, the Wright Brothers absorbed all that was known in aeronautics before them, then added their own discoveries and developed the first successful airplane."
eetrojan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 21:44
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr. Simplex said
The Scientific American from Dec. 26, 1903 informed its readers that the aeroplane of the Wright brothers had been started from the top of a 100-foot sand dune and it had risen in the air to a height of about 60 feet, after which it had driven a distance of some three miles!!
Give your dramatic use of two exclamation points, could you help explain how this seeming random assertion fits the discussion by completing the following sentence?

"This means ___________________________________"
eetrojan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 23:27
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those eleven witnesses do not appear with their names excepting one, Charles Webbert, who saw the machine "being assisted in starting on the rail". He did not mention hands pushing the airplane. Anyway, for reasons already explained the credibility of this man is zero
Absolute rubbish. I provided all the names earlier. All of the others lack credibility as well? Once again.

The full list of observers who had seen the Wrights fly prior to 12 March, 1906.

Mr. E. W. Ellis, Assistant Auditor of the City of Dayton.
Mr. Torrence Huffman, President of the Fourth National Bank.
Mr. C. S. Blllman. Secretary of the West Side Building Association.
Mr. Henry Webbert
Mr. W. H. Shank
Mr. William Fouts
Mr. Frank Hamburger
Mr. Charles Webbert
Mr. Howard M. Myers
Mr. Bernard H. Lambers
Mr. William Webbert
M.r. Reuben Schindler
Mr. William Weber

All the above of Dayton, Ohio

Mr. 0. F. Jamieson, East Germantown, Ind.
Mr. Theodore Waddell, Census Department, Washlington., D. C.
Mr. David Beard, Osborn, Ohio.
Mr. Amos Stauffer, Osborn. Ohio
Brian Abraham is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 23:32
  #236 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is Fred Culick, after he had declared the Wright brothers are the first aeronautical engineers (an evident irony) he trashed them saying "Flyer I" was unstable and underpowered which means the 1903 plane could not fly.
A super pilot might be able teoretically to keep an unstable plane aloft but never an underpowered flying machine.

"12. BUILDING A FLYABLE (?) 1903 FLYER
...
Given the terrible flying qualities and handling characteristics of the original Flyer implied by the discussion in Section 7.2 and more thoroughly by Culick and Jex (1984) and Jex and Culick (1985), building a flying replica of the airplane should raise questions. There were two serious problems with that machine: it was unstable about two axes and marginally stable directionally; and it was underpowered.
"
Source: "WRIGHT BROTHERS: FIRST AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS AND TEST PILOTS", F.E.C. Culick, California Institute of Technology, Forty-Fifth Annual Symposium, The Society of Experimental Test Pilots, 26-29 September, 2001, see: http://www.wrightflyer.org/wp-conten...est-Pilots.pdf

Note: The question mark in the title exists in the original article, it was not added by my.

Last edited by simplex1; 6th Jun 2014 at 23:46.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2014, 23:41
  #237 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Wright brothers quickly rushed to have their flying machines published in various journals. When they did not show anything new they did not have anything new.

"'Some Aeronautic Experiments", Scientific American, pag. 125, Feb. 22, 1902,
see: https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/wright

"DINER-CONFÉRENCE DU 2 AVRIL 1903, M. Chanute à l'Aéro-Club", L'Aérophile, pag. 81-86, April 1903, see: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...=wright.langEN

"LA NAVIGATION AÉRIENNE AUX ÉTATS-UNIS", L'Aérophile, pag. 81-183, August 1903, see: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...=wright.langEN
Detailed drawings of the 1902 glider published in August 1903 in L'Aérophile, see:
(1) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...=wright.langEN
(2) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...=wright.langEN
(3) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...wright.langENn

These are articles that prove the Wright brothers quickly rushed to have their flying machines shown in various journals, as soon as they obtained some results. The August 1903 article in L'Aérophile even mentions the great "secret" of the two brothers, Wing Warping, together with detailed drawings of the 1902 glider, in a moment when the two inventors were not protected by any patent.

Last edited by simplex1; 7th Jun 2014 at 00:24.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2014, 01:13
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr. Simplex notes that Professor Culick's paper includes a section about building a replica flyer that reads as follows (bolding by Simplex):
12. BUILDING A FLYABLE (?) 1903 FLYER
...
Given the terrible flying qualities and handling characteristics of the original Flyer implied by the discussion in Section 7.2 and more thoroughly by Culick and Jex (1984) and Jex and Culick (1985), building a flying replica of the airplane should raise questions. There were two serious problems with that machine: it was unstable about two axes and marginally stable directionally; and it was underpowered.
Ha ha. So what. I'd be surprised if any of circa 1903 aircraft wasn't by 2003 standards "unstable" and "underpowered." Wouldn't you?

In his section 12, titled "Building a Flyable (?) 1903 Flyer," Professor Culick isn't questioning whether the 1903 flyer actually flew in 1903, but rather whether it was practical to construct a flyable replica in 2003. You know, without getting hurt. Big difference.

Classic Mr. Simplex. You take a 53 page paper about the "the first successful airplane" (opening paragraph), find one section that can be interpreted negatively if viewed wildly out of context, and then belch it out to argue that the Wrights' 1903 aeroplane didn't fly at all. It's laughable.

The many other pages in Professor Culick's paper are all about how the Brothers did in fact fly, e.g. by learning to deal with their dynamically unstable plane (p.25):

... the 1903 airplane surely offered more difficult handling qualities, but with only straight flights, the Brothers did not report new dynamical problems. If unexpected dynamics did appear, they were likely not easily identified, being obscured by the Brothers’ vigorous efforts to keep the airplane in the air.
Professor Culick's concluding paragraph must really drive you crazy:

The Wrights did exactly what they had to do, they did it first and they documented what they did. Theirs was the first research and development program carried out in the style of the 20th century. They did it all from conception to flight testing. It’s important to understand the substance of their works—the Wrights’ program forms the roots of the modern aerospace field, especially including flight testing.
eetrojan is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2014, 04:06
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Classic Mr. Simplex. You take a 53 page paper about the "the first successful airplane" (opening paragraph), find one section that can be interpreted negatively if viewed wildly out of context, and then belch it out to argue that the Wrights' 1903 aeroplane didn't fly at all. It's laughable.
Something he does all the time unfortunately, so obsessed is he with the claim that the Wrights didn't fly until 1908. Evidence abounds otherwise.

A section from "No Longer an Island" which proves beyond doubt that the Wright did what they said they did, unless Octave was in on the deception.

As soon as they were able the Wright brothers flashed word of their success, by telegram, to their family in Dayton; and when the news was received there Katherine Wright at once sent a telegram to Octave Chanute in order to inform him. Meanwhile, a local newspaper in the vicinity of Kitty Hawk, the Norfolk Virginia-Pilot, published an account of the flights in its edition for 18 December 1903. The account was incorrect in many of its details. It claimed, for example, that the Wrights had flown a distance of three miles when the fact was that the longest of their flights was only eight hundred and fifty two feet. This report in the Virginia-Pilot was copied by some newspapers in the United States and in Europe, but it was ignored by others. Major Baden-Powell, far away in London but ever vigilant in the cause of British aviation, reacted almost at once. On 23rd December 1903, he wrote to Chanute:

….What is this I read in the daily papers about the brothers Wright having made a machine fly 3 miles? Is there any truth in this?

When Octave Chanute learned of the success of the Wright brothers he sent them his congratulations. He also enquired about when they would be ready to make the details of their achievement public knowledge. Wilbur sharply told him, in reply, and for good reason, that they were not yet prepared to furnish pictures or descriptions of their machine or their methods to anyone. However, since the newspapers continued to publish incorrect stories about what had occurred on 17 December, the Wrights prepared an accurate factual statement of their own, dated 3 January 1904, and sent to the Associated Press. When their statement was published in the Dayton Press they clipped out copies of it and mailed them to various friends and associates.

Chanute read the Associated Press statement statement when it was published in his own local newspaper, the Chicago News. Now he too began to send copies of it to his various correspondents in different parts of the world. Indeed he now launched upon a regular campaign to alert all his friends to what had taken place at those far off sand hills on the bleak North Carolina coast. He sent several copies of the Wright statement, together with explanatory letters, to his correspondents in England so that the aeronautical authorities there were soon aware of the exact details of what the Wright brothers had achieved. He wrote twice to Major Baden-Powell and sent him a copy of the Wright statement. He also wrote to Herbert Wenham, the British pioneer who had done so much to increase his own interest in aviation. When he sent a copy of the statement to Wenham he declared “To you, who first called attention to the possibility of artificial flight…..I send the first correct account which has been published of the achievement of the Wright brothers. It is a beginning, and if no accident occurs it may lead to practical results….” (Chanute to Wenham 9 January 1904)

Chanute sent the fullest and most detailed account to Patrick Y. Alexander. Chanute began his letter by telling Alexander about the invitation the Wrights had extended to him, in the previous November (Chanute to Alexander 18 January 1904):

I was very sorry not to find you in Washington, but it turned out for the best. The Wrights had built a new apparatus, provided with a motor and propellers, and were to test it November 5th. They had made a firm resolve that, besides themselves, none but the surgeon & myself be present. I had written to obtain an invitation for you but did not dare advise you. On my arrival in Washington I found a telegram inviting you to the camp, but it was yourself who had flown instead of the Wrights.

He then proceeded to supply details of the Wright success, and about their attitude after it:

I got to the camp on the 5th, only to find that on the preceding day the propeller had been twisted off the shaft in a test. It had to go to Dayton to be rebrazed. On its return the shaft itself was twisted in two, and two new shafts had to be forged and turned at Dayton.

Finally on the 17th of December (I could not stay so long) the first dynamic flight in history took place. I enclose herewith a clipping in which the Wrights state what they did do. It is a first success which cannot be pursued on account of weather. The Wrights are immensely elated. They have grown very secretive and nobody is to be allowed to see the machine at present so your chance is gone….I have not seem them and letters are now very scarce. They delayed over a year after I first advised them to apply for patents, and I suppose that now they have the inventor’s tremors that their secrets will be divulged.
Brian Abraham is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2014, 07:20
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Haraka. I believe the WRIGHTS and their contribution made the airplane what it is today.
Sure , you are entitled to your opinions. The Americans being the first to use an aeroplane in war (against Pancho Villa) being one of them.

I won't bother to risk confusing you with facts when your mind is so obviously made up.
Haraka is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.