The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Moderator
New Zealander Richard Pearse flew and landed a powered heavier-than-air machine on 31 March 1903, some nine months before the Wright brothers flew their aircraft.
Richard William Pearse Monument
And I'm not convinced Pearce was the first but he certainly pre dated the Wright brothers.
Richard William Pearse Monument
And I'm not convinced Pearce was the first but he certainly pre dated the Wright brothers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the distinction has to be understood between "officials" and "official witnesses".
"He was witnessed by two officials who were official witnesses"?!
There are differences but perfect synonyms rarely exist.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have searched on the net and I do not find a big difference.
"He was witnessed by two officials who were official witnesses"?!
There are differences but perfect synonyms rarely exist.
"He was witnessed by two officials who were official witnesses"?!
There are differences but perfect synonyms rarely exist.
Your English headline has two possible meanings, like the silly example of "Children make nutritious snacks."
I think that Haraka intepreted your headline to mean that Ader flew, but did not do so in front of "official witnesses." In other words, that you were implying that his alleged flight was suspicious or that the witnesses had zero credibility because they were not official.
I suspect that Haraka thought you were drawing a distinction between "official witnesses" and mere "officials."
I believe the intended meaning of your headline is not only did Ader fail to fly, he dramatically failed to do so in front of "official witnesses."
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 77
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just look at that plane! Elevator, rudder, ailerons. But the engine is really interesting, he built a very light weight four cylinder four stroke engine with only two pistons which were arranged in the style of a double acting steam engine. That is, his pistons had combustion spaces above and below. He built the engine himself and small parts of it survive.
His propeller could have been better and although the monument shows two blades there is some evidence he made a four blade propeller as we
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Zealander Richard Pearse flew and landed a powered heavier-than-air machine on 31 March 1903, some nine months before the Wright brothers flew their aircraft.
Richard William Pearse Monument
And I'm not convinced Pearce was the first but he certainly pre dated the Wright brothers.
Richard William Pearse Monument
And I'm not convinced Pearce was the first but he certainly pre dated the Wright brothers.
I know there is a drawing from an application for a patent, dated 19 July
1906 and titled “An Improved Aerial or Flying Machine” (see the image).
I would like to see the entire patent and when it was published.
The Richard Pearse aircraft did not have (afaik) an aerofoil wing and the vertical 'tail' (stabiliser) is errr in the wrong place - so would doubt the aircraft came even vaguely into the 'controllable' category .
Moderator
How can you make that statement after looking at a model of Pearce's aircraft on a public monument? 
I believe the Wrights claim to fame is a fabrication by the "interests" that negotiated the return of the Wright Flyer in the 1940s.
I am not even sure Richard Pearse was the first. I seem to recall reading of (I think) a Frenchman who achieved heavier than air flight around 1899 or 1900, but can't find the reference now.
Of course, the various proponents usually start "hair splitting" arguments over definitions of "powered flight" "controlled flight" or as we see above, "official witness". There was no handbook or manual on the principals of flight pre 1900, no book of proven aircraft designs. Any man that built a successful "flying machine" around 1900 had to be something of a pioneering aeronautical genius!
I think of the definition of first/early flight as the ability of a heavier than air machine to climb above the ground and fly in level flight, from which the pilot survived without broken bones.
There is one intriguing common aspect relative to Richard Pearce, Wilbur and Orville Wright and Harry Ferguson (who built and flew the first aircraft in Ireland and later developed the Ferguson tractor) - they were all bicycle mechanics with their own bicycle repair shops!!
Pearse made several attempts to fly in 1901, but due to insufficient engine power he achieved no more than brief hops. The following year he redesigned his engine to incorporate double-ended cylinders with two pistons each. Researchers recovered components of his engine (including cylinders made from cast-iron drainpipes) from rubbish dumps in 1963. Replicas of the 1903 engine suggest that it could produce about 15 horsepower (11 kW).
Verifiable eyewitnesses describe Pearse crashing into a hedge on two separate occasions during 1903. His monoplane must have risen to a height of at least three metres on each occasion. Good evidence exists that on 31 March 1903 Pearse achieved a powered, though poorly controlled, flight of several hundred metres.
Pearse himself said that he had made a powered takeoff, "but at too low a speed for [his] controls to work". However, he remained airborne until he crashed into the hedge at the end of the field.
With a 15 horsepower (11 kW) engine, Pearse's design had an adequate power-to-weight ratio to become airborne (even without an aerofoil). He continued to develop the ability to achieve fully controlled flight. Pearse incorporated effectively located (albeit possibly rather small) "ailerons". The design's low centre-of-gravity provided pendulum stability. However, diagrams and eye-witness recollections agree that Pearse placed controls for pitch and yaw at the trailing edge of the low-aspect ratio kite-type permanently stalled wing. This control placement (located in turbulent air-flow, and close to the centre of gravity) would have had minimal, possibly inadequate, turning moment to control the pitch or yaw of the aircraft. The principles of his design, however, accord precisely with modern thinking on the subject. The Wright brothers, in comparison, successfully applied the principles of airfoil wing-profile and three-axis control to produce fully controlled flight, although their design, using wing-warping and forward mounted stabilizer, soon became obsolete.
Verifiable eyewitnesses describe Pearse crashing into a hedge on two separate occasions during 1903. His monoplane must have risen to a height of at least three metres on each occasion. Good evidence exists that on 31 March 1903 Pearse achieved a powered, though poorly controlled, flight of several hundred metres.
Pearse himself said that he had made a powered takeoff, "but at too low a speed for [his] controls to work". However, he remained airborne until he crashed into the hedge at the end of the field.
With a 15 horsepower (11 kW) engine, Pearse's design had an adequate power-to-weight ratio to become airborne (even without an aerofoil). He continued to develop the ability to achieve fully controlled flight. Pearse incorporated effectively located (albeit possibly rather small) "ailerons". The design's low centre-of-gravity provided pendulum stability. However, diagrams and eye-witness recollections agree that Pearse placed controls for pitch and yaw at the trailing edge of the low-aspect ratio kite-type permanently stalled wing. This control placement (located in turbulent air-flow, and close to the centre of gravity) would have had minimal, possibly inadequate, turning moment to control the pitch or yaw of the aircraft. The principles of his design, however, accord precisely with modern thinking on the subject. The Wright brothers, in comparison, successfully applied the principles of airfoil wing-profile and three-axis control to produce fully controlled flight, although their design, using wing-warping and forward mounted stabilizer, soon became obsolete.
I am not even sure Richard Pearse was the first. I seem to recall reading of (I think) a Frenchman who achieved heavier than air flight around 1899 or 1900, but can't find the reference now.
Of course, the various proponents usually start "hair splitting" arguments over definitions of "powered flight" "controlled flight" or as we see above, "official witness". There was no handbook or manual on the principals of flight pre 1900, no book of proven aircraft designs. Any man that built a successful "flying machine" around 1900 had to be something of a pioneering aeronautical genius!
I think of the definition of first/early flight as the ability of a heavier than air machine to climb above the ground and fly in level flight, from which the pilot survived without broken bones.
There is one intriguing common aspect relative to Richard Pearce, Wilbur and Orville Wright and Harry Ferguson (who built and flew the first aircraft in Ireland and later developed the Ferguson tractor) - they were all bicycle mechanics with their own bicycle repair shops!!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question of definitions, inventorship and Patents is very complex and open to interpretation, and being an inventor and Patent holder myself I know a little about it. For one thing, all mechanical inventions and devices are effectively developments and groupings of just two ancient inventions: the lever and the wheel. Therefore legally all mechanical inventions (for example a plane's control surfaces) could technically be classed as "Obvious" and therefore non patentable!
Really, up to about the middle of the 20th Century the US Patent Office was notorious for being too exclusive on some occasions and far too inclusive on others. Countless Patents were granted without any clear reference to other "Prior Art" (for example Patents already existing in other territories). Patents were also frequently granted when there was clearly a conflict of interest or partiality for one claimant over another.
Edison was particularly adept at exploiting the weaknesses and lack of impartiality of the US Patent Office, and his skills of manipulation, PR and plagiarism were at least as significant as his inventiveness!
I would therefore NOT rely exclusively on any US Patent at the time of the Wrights for deciding who invented what.
As an example of how people's perception of "inventions" can be misinformed, most people think of James Watt as the inventor of the Steam Engine
However, decades earlier in 1712 Newcomen built the first Atmospheric Engine, a steam engine powered by condensing the steam rather than by the pressure of the steam.
Newcomen could not have made his engine without the earlier work of Denys Papin who invented the cylinder, piston and "Digester" (Pressure Cooker).
Papin built on the earlier work of Boyle, and particular Savery's "Minor's Friend" or "Fire Engine", (a steam pump for mines). No doubt Savery was probably aware of the ancient steam device designed by Hero of Alexandria, and Hero probably knew of "prior art" to his whirlygig.
I see the Wright Bothers and all other "first to fly" claimants in a very comparable context to the above. They were not isolated inventive geniuses but part of a process which had been going on for hundreds of years before them, and is still going on today.
Today's aviation is so far removed from the remarkably short period in which the various "first flights" were claimed. The current "invention", development and improvement in aviation is now done more by teams of scientists and technologists, so perhaps since Whittle no single person has become publicly famous as a significant aviation "inventor", but I for one am profoundly grateful that I can now fly anywhere in the world in virtually complete safety.
I regard the arguments for and against specific "first to fly" claimants, and the partisan hero worship of the various specific individuals is a distraction from a full understanding of how humanity figured out how to fly.
Really, up to about the middle of the 20th Century the US Patent Office was notorious for being too exclusive on some occasions and far too inclusive on others. Countless Patents were granted without any clear reference to other "Prior Art" (for example Patents already existing in other territories). Patents were also frequently granted when there was clearly a conflict of interest or partiality for one claimant over another.
Edison was particularly adept at exploiting the weaknesses and lack of impartiality of the US Patent Office, and his skills of manipulation, PR and plagiarism were at least as significant as his inventiveness!
I would therefore NOT rely exclusively on any US Patent at the time of the Wrights for deciding who invented what.
As an example of how people's perception of "inventions" can be misinformed, most people think of James Watt as the inventor of the Steam Engine
However, decades earlier in 1712 Newcomen built the first Atmospheric Engine, a steam engine powered by condensing the steam rather than by the pressure of the steam.
Newcomen could not have made his engine without the earlier work of Denys Papin who invented the cylinder, piston and "Digester" (Pressure Cooker).
Papin built on the earlier work of Boyle, and particular Savery's "Minor's Friend" or "Fire Engine", (a steam pump for mines). No doubt Savery was probably aware of the ancient steam device designed by Hero of Alexandria, and Hero probably knew of "prior art" to his whirlygig.
I see the Wright Bothers and all other "first to fly" claimants in a very comparable context to the above. They were not isolated inventive geniuses but part of a process which had been going on for hundreds of years before them, and is still going on today.
Today's aviation is so far removed from the remarkably short period in which the various "first flights" were claimed. The current "invention", development and improvement in aviation is now done more by teams of scientists and technologists, so perhaps since Whittle no single person has become publicly famous as a significant aviation "inventor", but I for one am profoundly grateful that I can now fly anywhere in the world in virtually complete safety.
I regard the arguments for and against specific "first to fly" claimants, and the partisan hero worship of the various specific individuals is a distraction from a full understanding of how humanity figured out how to fly.
The Richard Pearse aircraft did not have (afaik) an aerofoil wing
Verifiable eyewitnesses describe Pearse crashing into a hedge on two separate occasions during 1903
Last edited by Noyade; 9th Jun 2014 at 10:33. Reason: Bigger pics...
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one intriguing common aspect relative to Richard Pearce, Wilbur and Orville Wright and Harry Ferguson (who built and flew the first aircraft in Ireland and later developed the Ferguson tractor) - they were all bicycle mechanics with their own bicycle repair shops!!
cars were in their infancy, the predominant non horse mode of transport was the bicycle. these guys were entrepreneurs in the new technology.
lots of people "flew" before the wright brothers. so what?
even glenn curtiss the main contemporary rival of the wrights admitted that he couldn't turn his aircraft until he saw how the wright brothers achieved the control and incorporated the fundamentals of their ideas into his aircraft.
I really wonder what idiots like simplex are trying to achieve. they can't turn back the clock and claim the invention of the aeroplane for themselves so what do they achieve???? ...useless hot air?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The case of Richard Pearse is by far the weakest of all cases about which we discussed here. I do not find any document, article in a newspaper, application for a patent, etc., regarding Pearse's planes, that can be dated before July 1906.
Tests with at least two tractor monoplanes (quite similar the one of Pearse - July 1906) had been already performed before May 1906. Both these machines had wheeled undercarriages, tractor propellers placed in front of the plane and bicycle type wheels with tires. They can be seen in "The Detroit Free Press", Sunday, May 13, 1906, see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress
One site about Richard Pearse says:
"He kept in touch with what was happening in the world of flight by reading the magazine Scientific American."
see: Richard William Pearse - Kids - Christchurch City Libraries
So Pearse had up to date information about what was going on in the aeronautic world. He was not so isolated. His July 19, 1906 application for a patent proves just he had an idea for a flying machine, had its drawings before July 1906, and tried to get a patent for it. There is no evidence the plane in the application was already a reality and more it had already flown.
Tests with at least two tractor monoplanes (quite similar the one of Pearse - July 1906) had been already performed before May 1906. Both these machines had wheeled undercarriages, tractor propellers placed in front of the plane and bicycle type wheels with tires. They can be seen in "The Detroit Free Press", Sunday, May 13, 1906, see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress
One site about Richard Pearse says:
"He kept in touch with what was happening in the world of flight by reading the magazine Scientific American."
see: Richard William Pearse - Kids - Christchurch City Libraries
So Pearse had up to date information about what was going on in the aeronautic world. He was not so isolated. His July 19, 1906 application for a patent proves just he had an idea for a flying machine, had its drawings before July 1906, and tried to get a patent for it. There is no evidence the plane in the application was already a reality and more it had already flown.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ Chortle. Of course, technically even aerostats are actually "powered" flight, because without the power of flame or gas they would simply be Terrastats!
aviation is aerodynes old chap.
According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, Aviation is the flying or operation of aircraft. (i.e. a machine capable of flight)
This includes the two basic categories of aircraft:
(1)aerodynes : primarily aeroplanes and helicopters which use self-generated aerodynamic force to stay airborne ( and which does not include sailplanes) and:
(2) aerostats, including dirigible airships, which do not require using self-generated aerodynamic force to stay airborne.
I have noted in the U.S.A. already that the definition of "aerostat" has begun to be misunderstood by the scientifically illiterate, being increasingly confused with that of "tethered aerostat"
Perhaps you would like to give the many writers of aviation history reference books who have , mistakenly according to your reasoning , started with the history of the pioneers of ballooning and gliding and the developers of airships, the benefit of your superior knowledge?
But then of course, according to you, the Wright Brothers "invented the airplane".
P.S.
I'll save you the first stop on your search:
The modern age of aviation began with the first untethered human lighter-than-air flight on November 21, 1783 of a hot air balloon designed by the Montgolfier brothers.
(Doubtless, like Simplex1 ,you will be able to find some other "definition". )
Last edited by Haraka; 9th Jun 2014 at 16:02. Reason: Using less demanding language.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ailerons (small wings) added by Robert Esnault Pelterie in 1904, when he performed various tests with modified 1902 Wright type gliders, were not air-brakes (they were responsible for the lateral control of a Pelterie's glider and also for its stability in pitch).
The text in L'Aerophile from July 1905 (see below) is clear, the Wing Warping employed by the Wright borthers for mentaining the lateral control of their 1902 glider (and 1903 alleged plane) was replaced, after some tests, by Esnault Pelterie and his team by two horizontal rudders placed in front of the wings toward their extremities. The two surfaces could be steered independently by the pilot using two wheels which if maneuvered in the same sense controlled the stability in pitch and if turned in opposite directions controlled the lateral stability (roll).
Also not as effective as the Wing Warping method the two surfaces (ailerons) behaved well, according to Pelterie. The reason they were employed was to avoid a sudden break in flight of one wing due to the fatigue induced by repeatedly modifying the shape of the wing tips.
"La torsion des surfaces, préconisée par les frères Wright et que nous avions essayée donne d'assez bons résultats pour le maintien de l'équilibre transversal, mais nous considérons ce système comme dangereux. Il peut, à notre avis, provoquer des tensions exagérées sur les haubans ; nous craignions, par suite, d'avoir des ruptures en l'air, ce qui ne saurait se produire avec le système rigide ordinaire. Les ruptures à l'atterrissage, dont nous n'avons, du reste, jamais eu une seule dans ces secondes expériences, n'ont qu'une importance, en somme, secondaire ; les ruptures en l'air seraient naturellement fatales à l'expérimentateur. Nous avons donc cru devoir abandonner la torsion.
Pour pouvoir, néanmoins, agir sur l'équilibre transversal, nous avons alors employé deux gouvernails horizontaux à l'avant, indépendants et placés chacun à une extrémité de l'aéroplane. Ces deux gouvernails étaient reliés chacun à un petit volant de direction, à portée des deux mains de l'opérateur. (Voir fig. 5 et 6.).
Lorsque ces deux gouvernails étaient manœuvres simultanément, ils agissaient sur la stabilité antéro-postérieure ; quand, au contraire, on les manœuvre en sens inverse ; ils agissent sur la stabilité transversale.
Ce dispositif nous a donné satisfaction, quoiqu'il ne soit pas aussi puissant que la torsion des surfaces."
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. 132-138, July 1905, (see pag. 136) L'Aérophile (Paris)
The text in L'Aerophile from July 1905 (see below) is clear, the Wing Warping employed by the Wright borthers for mentaining the lateral control of their 1902 glider (and 1903 alleged plane) was replaced, after some tests, by Esnault Pelterie and his team by two horizontal rudders placed in front of the wings toward their extremities. The two surfaces could be steered independently by the pilot using two wheels which if maneuvered in the same sense controlled the stability in pitch and if turned in opposite directions controlled the lateral stability (roll).
Also not as effective as the Wing Warping method the two surfaces (ailerons) behaved well, according to Pelterie. The reason they were employed was to avoid a sudden break in flight of one wing due to the fatigue induced by repeatedly modifying the shape of the wing tips.
"La torsion des surfaces, préconisée par les frères Wright et que nous avions essayée donne d'assez bons résultats pour le maintien de l'équilibre transversal, mais nous considérons ce système comme dangereux. Il peut, à notre avis, provoquer des tensions exagérées sur les haubans ; nous craignions, par suite, d'avoir des ruptures en l'air, ce qui ne saurait se produire avec le système rigide ordinaire. Les ruptures à l'atterrissage, dont nous n'avons, du reste, jamais eu une seule dans ces secondes expériences, n'ont qu'une importance, en somme, secondaire ; les ruptures en l'air seraient naturellement fatales à l'expérimentateur. Nous avons donc cru devoir abandonner la torsion.
Pour pouvoir, néanmoins, agir sur l'équilibre transversal, nous avons alors employé deux gouvernails horizontaux à l'avant, indépendants et placés chacun à une extrémité de l'aéroplane. Ces deux gouvernails étaient reliés chacun à un petit volant de direction, à portée des deux mains de l'opérateur. (Voir fig. 5 et 6.).
Lorsque ces deux gouvernails étaient manœuvres simultanément, ils agissaient sur la stabilité antéro-postérieure ; quand, au contraire, on les manœuvre en sens inverse ; ils agissent sur la stabilité transversale.
Ce dispositif nous a donné satisfaction, quoiqu'il ne soit pas aussi puissant que la torsion des surfaces."
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. 132-138, July 1905, (see pag. 136) L'Aérophile (Paris)
Last edited by simplex1; 9th Jun 2014 at 18:54.
How can you make that statement after looking at a model of Pearce's aircraft on a public monument?
But also your own quote seems to suggest stability/control problems
,the aircraft also would appear to have ultra low aspect ratio wings and would prob have been a little draggy.As I explained to simplex - I am neutral on this subject but I do not see why any of the pioneers should be discredited - simplex accused the wrights of lying about flying before 1908 - when even if one is unhappy with the criteria for the 1903 flight - the wrights 1905 flights were way ahead of any other pioneers and I would say also again that the wrights tackled the whole powered flight problem in a very structured practical and intuitive way !
They were not perfect and allowed themselves to get sidetracked by legal wrangles etc but that should not detract from their aviation achievements !
Pearse made several attempts to fly in 1901, but due to insufficient engine power he achieved no more than brief hops. The following year he redesigned his engine to incorporate double-ended cylinders with two pistons each. Researchers recovered components of his engine (including cylinders made from cast-iron drainpipes) from rubbish dumps in 1963. Replicas of the 1903 engine suggest that it could produce about 15 horsepower (11 kW).
Verifiable eyewitnesses describe Pearse crashing into a hedge on two separate occasions during 1903. His monoplane must have risen to a height of at least three metres on each occasion. Good evidence exists that on 31 March 1903 Pearse achieved a powered, though poorly controlled, flight of several hundred metres.
Verifiable eyewitnesses describe Pearse crashing into a hedge on two separate occasions during 1903. His monoplane must have risen to a height of at least three metres on each occasion. Good evidence exists that on 31 March 1903 Pearse achieved a powered, though poorly controlled, flight of several hundred metres.