The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Just an observation on the progress in official principal altitude and speed records at the year ends from 1909 ( i.e. post the Wright visit to Europe) to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.
Altitude
1909 1,486 ft. Antoinette
1910 10,170ft. Bleriot.
1911 12,828ft. Bleriot.
1912 18,404ft. Morane Saulnier.
1913 20,078ft. Nieuport
Speed
1909 47.83 m.p.h. Bleriot.
1910 69.48 m.p.h. Bleriot.
1911 82.72 m.p.h. Nieuport.
1912 108.17m.p.h. Deperdussin.
1913 126.66 m.p.h. Deperdussin.
I would suggest that these are two indicators on drivers of aviation progress.
Do note that:
a. They are all of French manufacture and design.
and that :
b. They are all tractor propeller configured monoplanes.
Altitude
1909 1,486 ft. Antoinette
1910 10,170ft. Bleriot.
1911 12,828ft. Bleriot.
1912 18,404ft. Morane Saulnier.
1913 20,078ft. Nieuport
Speed
1909 47.83 m.p.h. Bleriot.
1910 69.48 m.p.h. Bleriot.
1911 82.72 m.p.h. Nieuport.
1912 108.17m.p.h. Deperdussin.
1913 126.66 m.p.h. Deperdussin.
I would suggest that these are two indicators on drivers of aviation progress.
Do note that:
a. They are all of French manufacture and design.
and that :
b. They are all tractor propeller configured monoplanes.
I think that there may be some misconceptions about the virtues of flying without direct roll control and the implications of wing warping or wing mounted ailerons.
I would suggest that these early and very under powered aircraft were flying perilously close to the stall, and that the qualitative and potentially dangerous behaviour of aerofoils up to and beyond the stall had been well established for many years.
Attempting to "pick a wing up" with warping or a wing mounted aileron close to the stall could well be disastrous, with the increase in angle of attack on that wing causing it to go through the stall, if it wasn't already in that state.
The European approach was initially primarily that of maintaining stability by ,for example, dihedral and/or sweepback. The aim was to get in to the air safely and with stability at first , before a degree of practical piloting experience had been accumulated
The Wrights, however , by using the catapult ,were perhaps able to get a fair excess flying speed initially ,well ahead of stall speed. As this bled off then certainly initially elegant turning could be accomplished without the risk of spinning in.
I note that the early aileron concepts included those for a separate flying surface to the main wing , thus obviating that main wing surface having the risk of a potentially dangerous increase of angle of attack on the upgoing side (i.e. that of the downwards moving aileron) Once flying speed ranges were increased then ailerons were a safer option.
Turning without aileron or wing warping is fairly straightforward and not so clumsy as some might like to imagine. An initial lead in with rudder induces bank as a secondary control effect. Rate of turn is then controlled primarily on elevator ( as in a modern aeroplane), wing lift holding the aircraft in the turn with rudder being used for balance. Thus it is that there are many pictures of early aircraft in controlled banked turns around pylons, without using wing warping or ailerons.
Mignet was later to dispense with direct roll control on his popular "flying flea" designs-without problems in that regard.
I would suggest that these early and very under powered aircraft were flying perilously close to the stall, and that the qualitative and potentially dangerous behaviour of aerofoils up to and beyond the stall had been well established for many years.
Attempting to "pick a wing up" with warping or a wing mounted aileron close to the stall could well be disastrous, with the increase in angle of attack on that wing causing it to go through the stall, if it wasn't already in that state.
The European approach was initially primarily that of maintaining stability by ,for example, dihedral and/or sweepback. The aim was to get in to the air safely and with stability at first , before a degree of practical piloting experience had been accumulated
The Wrights, however , by using the catapult ,were perhaps able to get a fair excess flying speed initially ,well ahead of stall speed. As this bled off then certainly initially elegant turning could be accomplished without the risk of spinning in.
I note that the early aileron concepts included those for a separate flying surface to the main wing , thus obviating that main wing surface having the risk of a potentially dangerous increase of angle of attack on the upgoing side (i.e. that of the downwards moving aileron) Once flying speed ranges were increased then ailerons were a safer option.
Turning without aileron or wing warping is fairly straightforward and not so clumsy as some might like to imagine. An initial lead in with rudder induces bank as a secondary control effect. Rate of turn is then controlled primarily on elevator ( as in a modern aeroplane), wing lift holding the aircraft in the turn with rudder being used for balance. Thus it is that there are many pictures of early aircraft in controlled banked turns around pylons, without using wing warping or ailerons.
Mignet was later to dispense with direct roll control on his popular "flying flea" designs-without problems in that regard.
Last edited by Haraka; 7th Jun 2014 at 13:24.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wrong about pancho villa expedition being the first use of military aviation in combat.
Perhaps the first US use in combat.
but the first aeronautical unity of the US involved a purchase of a wright military flyer and that same unit was involved a few years later in the pancho villa raids.
I understand the Italians are the first to use the plane in 1911 in a bombing raid.
Perhaps the first US use in combat.
but the first aeronautical unity of the US involved a purchase of a wright military flyer and that same unit was involved a few years later in the pancho villa raids.
I understand the Italians are the first to use the plane in 1911 in a bombing raid.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a letter written on Nov. 9, 1905, Octave Chanute claimed he had seen a 500 m flight performed by the Wright Brothers.
However, from the content of the letter and its general tone, Chanute appears to act as the lawyer of the two brothers, trying to convince Captain Ferber (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Ferber) about things he had not seen.
In December 1905, L'Aérophile dedicated a long text to the Wright brothers and their claimed spectacular flights of Sep-Oct 1905. The most interesting thing in the article is a letter written by Octave Chanute, on Nov. 9, 1905 and addressed to Ferber, in which Chanute advised this french captain to trust the Wright brothers regarding their claims about the long runs in the air that had taken place in 1905. Chanute even mentioned he had witnessed a 500 meters flight at an unspecified date, definitely not in Sep-Oct 1905 or after (this information results from the letter). The only evidence, about the claimed long flights in the beginning of Oct. 1905, was personally obtained by Chanute directly from some eye witnesses, who were close friends of the Wright brothers. They assured him one week before Nov. 9, 1905 (so definitely after the Wrights' last flight on Oct. 5, 1905) that the long runs in the air had taken place, indeed.
The letter written in French by Chanute, as it was published by L'Aérophile:
"D'autre part, le capitaine Ferber avait reçu de M. Chanute la lettre suivante, écrite en français, qu'il avait provoquée pour arriver à un premier contrôle des assertions Wright :
Chicago, III., 9 novembre 1905
Cher capitaine Ferber,
Je viens de recevoir votre lettre du 26 octobre. Je crois que vous pouvez octroyer toute confiance à ce que les Wright vous ont écrit de leurs accomplissements (sic). Je n'ai vu, de mes yeux, qu'une petite envolée d'un demi-kilomètre, mais ils m'ont mandé leurs progrès de semaine en semaine et leurs amis intimes qui ont vu les longs parcours du commencement d'octobre, m'ont confirmé verbalement la semaine dernière, quand j'étais à Dayton, pour voir une envolée projetée de 60 kil. en une heure, qui n'a pu avoir lieu par raison d'un grand orage.
Les Wright se sont inspirés de l'exemple de la France qui a tenu secrets ses progrès de ballons dirigeables depuis 1885. Ils se sont arrangés avec leurs journaux à Dayton. Il y a bien eu une indiscrétion et un article publié, mais sa circulation a été supprimée.
Les Wright devaient vous écrire vers le 4 novembre.
Agréez, cher monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.
(Signé) : O. CHANUTE."
English Translation:
"On the other hand, Captain Ferber had received the following letter, written in French, from Mr. Chanute who had been provoked by him (by Ferber) to verify somehow the assertions of the Wrights:
Chicago, Ill., November 9, 1905
Dear Captain Ferber,
I have just received your letter of October 26. I think you can trust what the Wrights wrote to you regarding their achievements (sic). I have not seen with my own eyes anything excepting a short flight of half a kilometer but they informed me weekly about their progress and their close friends, who saw the long runs from the beginning of October, verbally confirmed to me, last week when I was in Dayton to see a projected 60 km flight in an hour, which did not take place because of a great storm.
The Wrights are inspired by the example of France which has kept the progress of its airships secret since 1885.
They arranged with their newspapers in Dayton. There was an indiscretion and an article got published, but its circulation was suppressed.
The Wrights have to write to you around November 4.
Accept, sir, my best wishes.
(Signed): O. CHANUTE."
Source: "Letter sent by Octave Chanute to captain Ferber and published by L'Aérophile on December 1905 at pag. 268 (middle of the page)", see: L'Aérophile (Paris)
The entire article: "Les Frères Wright et leur Aéroplane à moteur L'origine et les pièces du débat. — Exposé des faits avancés par les Wright. — Objections et possibilités. — Premiers résultats de l'enquête. ", L'AÉROPHILE, Directeur-Fondateur : GEORGES BESANÇON, 13e Annee — N°, 12 Décembre 1905 pag. 165-272, L'Aérophile (Paris)
This letter is quite suspicious. Chanute had seen, without any doubt, some unpowered flights performed by the Wright brothers. From the text in the letter it appears the 500 meters flight witnessed by Chanute was powered and self sustained but it is not clear 100%. It appears Chanute teamed up with the two brothers and he tried to give a plus of credibility to the lies perpetrated by the Wrights.
However, from the content of the letter and its general tone, Chanute appears to act as the lawyer of the two brothers, trying to convince Captain Ferber (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Ferber) about things he had not seen.
In December 1905, L'Aérophile dedicated a long text to the Wright brothers and their claimed spectacular flights of Sep-Oct 1905. The most interesting thing in the article is a letter written by Octave Chanute, on Nov. 9, 1905 and addressed to Ferber, in which Chanute advised this french captain to trust the Wright brothers regarding their claims about the long runs in the air that had taken place in 1905. Chanute even mentioned he had witnessed a 500 meters flight at an unspecified date, definitely not in Sep-Oct 1905 or after (this information results from the letter). The only evidence, about the claimed long flights in the beginning of Oct. 1905, was personally obtained by Chanute directly from some eye witnesses, who were close friends of the Wright brothers. They assured him one week before Nov. 9, 1905 (so definitely after the Wrights' last flight on Oct. 5, 1905) that the long runs in the air had taken place, indeed.
The letter written in French by Chanute, as it was published by L'Aérophile:
"D'autre part, le capitaine Ferber avait reçu de M. Chanute la lettre suivante, écrite en français, qu'il avait provoquée pour arriver à un premier contrôle des assertions Wright :
Chicago, III., 9 novembre 1905
Cher capitaine Ferber,
Je viens de recevoir votre lettre du 26 octobre. Je crois que vous pouvez octroyer toute confiance à ce que les Wright vous ont écrit de leurs accomplissements (sic). Je n'ai vu, de mes yeux, qu'une petite envolée d'un demi-kilomètre, mais ils m'ont mandé leurs progrès de semaine en semaine et leurs amis intimes qui ont vu les longs parcours du commencement d'octobre, m'ont confirmé verbalement la semaine dernière, quand j'étais à Dayton, pour voir une envolée projetée de 60 kil. en une heure, qui n'a pu avoir lieu par raison d'un grand orage.
Les Wright se sont inspirés de l'exemple de la France qui a tenu secrets ses progrès de ballons dirigeables depuis 1885. Ils se sont arrangés avec leurs journaux à Dayton. Il y a bien eu une indiscrétion et un article publié, mais sa circulation a été supprimée.
Les Wright devaient vous écrire vers le 4 novembre.
Agréez, cher monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.
(Signé) : O. CHANUTE."
English Translation:
"On the other hand, Captain Ferber had received the following letter, written in French, from Mr. Chanute who had been provoked by him (by Ferber) to verify somehow the assertions of the Wrights:
Chicago, Ill., November 9, 1905
Dear Captain Ferber,
I have just received your letter of October 26. I think you can trust what the Wrights wrote to you regarding their achievements (sic). I have not seen with my own eyes anything excepting a short flight of half a kilometer but they informed me weekly about their progress and their close friends, who saw the long runs from the beginning of October, verbally confirmed to me, last week when I was in Dayton to see a projected 60 km flight in an hour, which did not take place because of a great storm.
The Wrights are inspired by the example of France which has kept the progress of its airships secret since 1885.
They arranged with their newspapers in Dayton. There was an indiscretion and an article got published, but its circulation was suppressed.
The Wrights have to write to you around November 4.
Accept, sir, my best wishes.
(Signed): O. CHANUTE."
Source: "Letter sent by Octave Chanute to captain Ferber and published by L'Aérophile on December 1905 at pag. 268 (middle of the page)", see: L'Aérophile (Paris)
The entire article: "Les Frères Wright et leur Aéroplane à moteur L'origine et les pièces du débat. — Exposé des faits avancés par les Wright. — Objections et possibilités. — Premiers résultats de l'enquête. ", L'AÉROPHILE, Directeur-Fondateur : GEORGES BESANÇON, 13e Annee — N°, 12 Décembre 1905 pag. 165-272, L'Aérophile (Paris)
This letter is quite suspicious. Chanute had seen, without any doubt, some unpowered flights performed by the Wright brothers. From the text in the letter it appears the 500 meters flight witnessed by Chanute was powered and self sustained but it is not clear 100%. It appears Chanute teamed up with the two brothers and he tried to give a plus of credibility to the lies perpetrated by the Wrights.
Last edited by simplex1; 7th Jun 2014 at 17:37.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite all the confusing and conflicting information on this thread and elsewhere, I accept that the Wrights probably were the first in powered, controlled and sustained flight, but sadly the whole matter is now seen by the general public in terms of:
no-one at all flew, then suddenly out of nowhere the Wrights did.
The reality is that they benefited hugely from a wealth of accumulated experience and wisdom from around the world, were not the first to fly and not the first aloft under power.
By the time of their first flight others were very close, and some of them had a better idea of how to build a plane.
Many inventions, developments and achievements are NOT achieved in a complete vacuum; many have roots in earlier work and some are arrived at by several people.
I certainly do respect the achievements and dedication of the Wrights, but I feel that their Uber-heroic status - particularly in their home country - gives a very, er, warped (!) impression of their aeronautical significance, and it is disturbingly exclusive of the great pioneers and the other close contenders.
no-one at all flew, then suddenly out of nowhere the Wrights did.
The reality is that they benefited hugely from a wealth of accumulated experience and wisdom from around the world, were not the first to fly and not the first aloft under power.
By the time of their first flight others were very close, and some of them had a better idea of how to build a plane.
Many inventions, developments and achievements are NOT achieved in a complete vacuum; many have roots in earlier work and some are arrived at by several people.
I certainly do respect the achievements and dedication of the Wrights, but I feel that their Uber-heroic status - particularly in their home country - gives a very, er, warped (!) impression of their aeronautical significance, and it is disturbingly exclusive of the great pioneers and the other close contenders.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite all the confusing and conflicting information on this thread and elsewhere, I accept that the Wrights probably were the first in powered, controlled and sustained flight, but sadly the whole matter is now seen by the general public in terms of:
no-one at all flew, then suddenly out of nowhere the Wrights did.
The reality is that they benefited hugely from a wealth of accumulated experience and wisdom from around the world, were not the first to fly and not the first aloft under power.
By the time of their first flight others were very close, and some of them had a better idea of how to build a plane.
Many inventions, developments and achievements are NOT achieved in a complete vacuum; many have roots in earlier work and some are arrived at by several people.
I certainly do respect the achievements and dedication of the Wrights, but I feel that their Uber-heroic status - particularly in their home country - gives a very, er, warped (!) impression of their aeronautical significance, and it is disturbingly exclusive of the great pioneers and the other close contenders.
no-one at all flew, then suddenly out of nowhere the Wrights did.
The reality is that they benefited hugely from a wealth of accumulated experience and wisdom from around the world, were not the first to fly and not the first aloft under power.
By the time of their first flight others were very close, and some of them had a better idea of how to build a plane.
Many inventions, developments and achievements are NOT achieved in a complete vacuum; many have roots in earlier work and some are arrived at by several people.
I certainly do respect the achievements and dedication of the Wrights, but I feel that their Uber-heroic status - particularly in their home country - gives a very, er, warped (!) impression of their aeronautical significance, and it is disturbingly exclusive of the great pioneers and the other close contenders.
I wish the "Simplex"es of the world would spend more time teaching me about the rich fabric of other aviation contributors in a positive manner, rather than countless negative posts contending that the Wrights perpetrated lies based on "suspicious" letters.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a great deal of misunderstanding.
Did the WRights invent the engine? no
Did they invent the fabric, thread, the wood? no
Did the invent the wire cables, or pulleys? no
But they did put it all together, and their method of control was patented!
Orville got the first pilot's license.
And it isn't just nationalistic pride.
Did the WRights invent the engine? no
Did they invent the fabric, thread, the wood? no
Did the invent the wire cables, or pulleys? no
But they did put it all together, and their method of control was patented!
Orville got the first pilot's license.
And it isn't just nationalistic pride.
Skepticism relating to that issue is quite healthy.
I think skepticism is a great thing. If my father had been more skeptical of his doctor's advice he may still be alive today.
I don't mind simplex. Reasonably civil, a tad monotonous and maybe a little heavy-handed with the "they all lied" theory, but hey, he's entitled to an opinion and this is the internet after all. He obviously has an axe to grind and I keep waiting for the final conclusion - but I'm now doubting there is one? I thought a while back this was heading to a grand "therefore the real flight belongs to....", or "the first really practical aircraft was...", but not anymore. I can kinda grasp his 1903 power-glide concept, but proving it convincingly in 2014? Very unlikely.
But with over 7,000 views to the thread since late May, wow! - and with many twists and turns along the way, I find it very entertaining! Keep up the good fight mate!
Orville got the first pilot's license.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But they did put it all together, and their method of control was patented!
Meanwhile the Wrights were being very secretive, and then very litigious, in defence of Intellectual Property. The secrecy is a bit surprising if the US patents were, in those days as now, first-to-invent rather than first-to-file. This would suggest that even at the beginning of the 20th c., patent law was hindering progress, rather than fostering invention, which is what it's supposed to be about. Or were the Wrights just a pair of tail-pipes?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wrights took the advice of a leading patent attorney of the time. They also paid the $25.00 fee.
The attorney spoke to them before the powered flight, as the patent was based on the research done with the 1902 glider and overcoming of warp drag with rudder.
HE advised them to keep things hush hush until the patent was granted. NO pictures of the mechanisms involved with control.
AND why shouldn't they patent it? They figured out what others couldn't figure out.
For the record, they offered the use of the control system and understanding of the controls FOR FREE to hobbyists. IT WAS ONLY when someone tried to make money off the wright system that they justifiably got mad.
Some confusion about pilots license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Club_of_America
Both wrights were granted licenses but issued in alphabetical order.
I understand Lindbergh got federal license number 69.
The attorney spoke to them before the powered flight, as the patent was based on the research done with the 1902 glider and overcoming of warp drag with rudder.
HE advised them to keep things hush hush until the patent was granted. NO pictures of the mechanisms involved with control.
AND why shouldn't they patent it? They figured out what others couldn't figure out.
For the record, they offered the use of the control system and understanding of the controls FOR FREE to hobbyists. IT WAS ONLY when someone tried to make money off the wright system that they justifiably got mad.
Some confusion about pilots license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Club_of_America
Both wrights were granted licenses but issued in alphabetical order.
I understand Lindbergh got federal license number 69.
Last edited by glendalegoon; 8th Jun 2014 at 01:39.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AND why shouldn't they patent it? They figured out what others couldn't figure out.
But since the glendalegoon will take this as hostile and adversarial anyway, US patent law has always been idiosyncratic (USA used to be a paradise for copyright violators), is much decried by many in the USA now, and seems set to engulf the rest of the world unless we're careful. Perhaps the early history of aviation is a case in point of law baffling talent and resources, of which there were a ton in the US.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightlessParrot said:
Not pertinent to the patent law in 1903, but just FYI, the U.S. just moved to a first to file patent system. The change became effective a little more than a year ago, March 16, 2013.
The secrecy is a bit surprising if the US patents were, in those days as now, first-to-invent rather than first-to-file.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said previously
And along he comes true to form
You're really getting quite boring, and devoid of facts to back your claims.
beyond doubt that the Wright did what they said they did, unless Octave was in on the deception.
It appears Chanute teamed up with the two brothers and he tried to give a plus of credibility to the lies perpetrated by the Wrights
Just as an aside:
Noting the date of the first American Pilot's Licence
The first eight French aviator's licences were awarded on 7 January 1910 to Louis Blériot, Leon Delagrange, Robert Esnault-Pelterie, Henry Farman, Alberto Santos-Dumont, Captain Ferdinand Ferber and Orville and Wilbur Wright.
On March 8 1910 Moore-Brabazon became the first person to qualify as a pilot in Britain and was awarded Royal Aero Club certificate number 1.
Noting the date of the first American Pilot's Licence
The first eight French aviator's licences were awarded on 7 January 1910 to Louis Blériot, Leon Delagrange, Robert Esnault-Pelterie, Henry Farman, Alberto Santos-Dumont, Captain Ferdinand Ferber and Orville and Wilbur Wright.
On March 8 1910 Moore-Brabazon became the first person to qualify as a pilot in Britain and was awarded Royal Aero Club certificate number 1.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine? No wright patent, no three axis control. No wright flights. And that is what would really have held aviation back!
Read again this post, please: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8510996
The 1902 glider of the Wrights was thoroughly tested in France, in 1904, including the Wing Warping (see the picture).
Source: L'Aerophile, pag. 65, March 1904, L'Aérophile (Paris)
Ailerons were also mounted and tested on the french version of the 1902 glider (see the picture below).
Source: "EXPÉRIENCES D'AVIATION exécutées en 1904, en vérification de celles des frères Wright. Conférence faite le 5 janvier 1905 à l'Aéro-Club de France", L'Aerophile, pag. 132-135 , July 1905, L'Aérophile (Paris)
There is also the May 22, 1906 patent that had been already published in Jan. 1906 in L'Aerophile, pag. 21, see: L'Aérophile (Paris)
In the beginning of 1906, a mountain of data regarding the 1902 glider, built by the Wright brothers, had been accumulated and one conclusion was that the roll control should be maintained automatically while the surfaces responsible of pitch and yaw have to be handled by the pilot.
As a general conclusion, despite all efforts and improvements, the 1902 Wright type gliders did not perform well and were abandoned.
I find Simplex 1's point of view almost identical with that of Gabriel Voisin himself who voiced a lot of doubt on the Wrights' claims.
My copy of "Men Women and 10,000 Kites" is not to hand at present but he did devote an entire chapter in that to denigrating the Wright's "fraud".
I don't subscribe to all of his opinions by a long chalk and feel that the Wrights should have their fair recognition on contributing to aviation development.
The fact that this , in the view of many , had been vastly overblown, supported by the revelation of a structured campaign at American national level, beyond the Smithsonian ( see "History by Contract" q.v. ), is unfortunate and has resulted in a degree of polarization that is understandable, including this wonderfully Gallic riposte by G.V:
“The first balloon… Montgolfier. The first of all dirigible balloons… Charles Renard. The first aeroplane… l’Etoile designed and built by Clément Ader. The first aeroplane officially observed… a Voisin piloted by Henry Farman. Finally the first…to journey from one point to another…also a Voisin. Aeronautics, then, is truly a French science.”
P.S. Noted by Simplex 1 "one conclusion was that the roll control should be maintained automatically while the surfaces responsible of pitch and yaw have to be handled by the pilot." i.e. the reasoned European approach to roll control, direct 3 axis control having been around as an option since the mid 1860's.
P.P.S. Note that the ailerons in the photo above are both pointing in the same direction and that the foreplane "rudder" i.e. elevator appears to be absent. Possible combined elevator and aileron- elevons in 1906 ?
My copy of "Men Women and 10,000 Kites" is not to hand at present but he did devote an entire chapter in that to denigrating the Wright's "fraud".
I don't subscribe to all of his opinions by a long chalk and feel that the Wrights should have their fair recognition on contributing to aviation development.
The fact that this , in the view of many , had been vastly overblown, supported by the revelation of a structured campaign at American national level, beyond the Smithsonian ( see "History by Contract" q.v. ), is unfortunate and has resulted in a degree of polarization that is understandable, including this wonderfully Gallic riposte by G.V:
“The first balloon… Montgolfier. The first of all dirigible balloons… Charles Renard. The first aeroplane… l’Etoile designed and built by Clément Ader. The first aeroplane officially observed… a Voisin piloted by Henry Farman. Finally the first…to journey from one point to another…also a Voisin. Aeronautics, then, is truly a French science.”
P.S. Noted by Simplex 1 "one conclusion was that the roll control should be maintained automatically while the surfaces responsible of pitch and yaw have to be handled by the pilot." i.e. the reasoned European approach to roll control, direct 3 axis control having been around as an option since the mid 1860's.
P.P.S. Note that the ailerons in the photo above are both pointing in the same direction and that the foreplane "rudder" i.e. elevator appears to be absent. Possible combined elevator and aileron- elevons in 1906 ?
Last edited by Haraka; 8th Jun 2014 at 08:27.