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 27th May 2014, 04:30
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: California
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are correct - many conflicts exist over Wright claims

I have to say that in studying the Wrights for over thirty years, using primary source documents that rarely have seen the light of day, their true story is far from that which we have been spoonfed. First of all, the "evidence" for what occurred on Dec. 17, 1903, is based entirely on the stories told us by the Wrights themselves, who had just a "wee" conflict of interest at the time of the first tellings. Orville was trying to capture the limelight even while Wilbur was alive - his stories increasingly gave himself credit he didn't deserve (and admitted to this in the earlier years). Reading their letters at the Library of Congress, and rarely seen files at Smithsonian attest to this. But there is far more!

For instance, we have been bamboozled for well over a century about who was "first in flight". It was necessary for the Wrights to claim being first in flight in order to expand their patent rights as pioneer inventors. While they deserve credit for their development of the art, there is at least one other who flew before them and Curtis, who also further developed the art. There are those who contributed to what we use today who also deserve credit. But after Wilbur died (in 1912, during the patent wars), Orville, known as "the lesser brother", did a poor job with the Wright Company and had to sell it, then devoting his life to immortalizing himself for that which he did not do. During their shared lifetimes, Wilbur was the one who was considered to have flown "successfully" on Dec. 17, 1903, even though the flights were all out of control and the last one (the longest, Wilbur's) crashed into the sand. They took off from a rail and required a headwind that was not present during the Centennial celebration in 2003, when all the world saw the Flyer reproduction fail to fly. When Orville died in 1948, his executors arranged for an Agreement (known by most as "the Contract" to be signed by the Smithsonian crediting Orville as "first in flight" even though he wasn't, if it was between the two brothers, it was Wilbur on that date. As Orville and the executors and Orville's closest friends knew, Gustave Whitehead of CT had an existing claim to that title, over two years before (in 1901). In fact, Whitehead had flown in Pennsylvania and crashed, in 1899 (since crashing and being out of control apparently is ok). What the Smithsonian got from that deal was the Wright Flyer for $1. Under the terms of the Contract, the Flyer will revert to the heirs if Smithsonian or any of its nearly 200 affiliates or research facilities recognizes anyone else as first in flight or any other airplane.This was, indeed, "history by contract", and a sorry mess it has caused. Currently, Gustave Whitehead, with his 18 witnesses who watched him fly with power ahead of the Wrights, from 1899-1902, has been recognized (as of March 2013) as "first in flight" by Jane's All the World Aircraft (the bible of aviation history) and by the state of CT. The state of NC is giving up its slogan "first in flight" as a result and adopting another shortly. The Wrights were a wily pair, don't forget they not only waited 5 years to show they could fly, and to produce the photo of Orville's FAILED flight, but they pulled many legal tricks to try to sue all other inventors and aviators, to control world aviation and profit whenever anyone flew or sold a plane for profit. They trotted their invention around to sell to European countries on the brink of war, knowing full well what their planes could be used for. In their own time, they were not known to be saints, this is a fact. And in fact, they were not. Ultimately, Orville stole the title of first in flight posthumously acquired through his closest friends and family, this was the dream of his life and they gave it to him. So don't be so sure you know history if you haven't read the documents. Go to www.gustavewhitehead.info for more information on this topic.
GWFirstinFlight is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 05:37
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,787
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
An interesting discussion - which seems to be generating some passionate responses! And a topic connected to some research I had been doing for an article. According to the FAI, the body which is the keeper of such records, the Wrights are credited with "The first sustained, controlled, powered heavier-than-air manned flight". The question that has to be asked was what was different about their achievement which gives it the distinction.

Their flight was the culmination of a long development of flying machines which properly stated with George Cayley in the UK who was the first to appreciate birds flew due to the shape of their wings and not because of flapping. He also identified stability as a factor for flight and devised a control system. it was proved when his coachman (Cayley was not prepared to try it himself) was the first man to fly a controllable heavier than air machine in 1853. The problem with flight was power and 19th century experiments with steam engines produced powered short hops with one 3hp powered aircraft achieving an altitude of 6 inches.

The Wright brother's real achievement was developing an engine with sufficient power and to realise that sustained flight would require a control system. They had done a lot of research in their own wind tunnel and come up with a system which emphasised control but lacked stability. The engine produced 16hp at peak, but this was barely enough to get the flyer airborne. When they tried to fly subsequent versions without the strong winds of Kittyhawk, they needed a catapult assist, despite the engine having five more horse power. Only when they obtained 30hp could they achieve take off from level ground without assistance. By then, other people had achieved successful powered flight with different designs - largely due to the Wright's vigorous enforcement of their wing-warping patent. Ailerons (which had been first patented in England by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1886) had become the standard, and with better stability characteristics.

There have been other claims to the title including Gustave Whitehead's, but it is the Wright's which is officially recognised. And that is important - just as Chuck Yeager's supersonic flight is recognised as being the first despite quite clearly not being so. (Big can of worms opened here!)
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 05:45
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The following video gives some idea of the elevator/pitch stability and control. This film was taken in Italy on April 24, 1909. It is the first time a motion picture was ever shot from a plane in flight. The footage shows what it was like to fly on one of the early Wright craft, with Wilbur at the helm.
https://ia600700.us.archive.org/29/i...Italy_1909.mp4
The plane that flew in Italy on April 24, 1909 was similar (according to the Wright brothers, there is no independent confirmation) to the last version of Flyer III which allegedly flew in 1905 (see the picture). There is a significant difference between this 1905 model and the 1903 plane. The stability in pitch increased significantly. The 1909 (1905) airplane had also dihedral stability (auto roll control) while the 1903 machine did not have. We talk about two sensible different airplanes having two totally different engines. Just because the 1909 model was flyable it does not automatically mean the 1903 plane could take off and fly stably.

simplex1 is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 07:02
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Their flight was the culmination of a long development of flying machines which properly stated with George Cayley in the UK who was the first to appreciate birds flew due to the shape of their wings and not because of flapping.
Not because of flapping?! I do not belieave George Cayley could have said such an enormity. Maybe he said "not only because of flapping" which is something totally different.

The problem with flight was power and 19th century experiments with steam engines produced powered short hops with one 3hp powered aircraft achieving an altitude of 6 inches.
It would be curious to read a few more details about that mysterious plane. Was it a heavier than air man carrying flying machine?
simplex1 is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 07:54
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I accept that Ader probably did hop into the air in his steam powered planes, but these had no means of 3 Axis control. By some accounts his hop was longer and better witnessed than the Wrights' first flights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cl%C3%A9ment_Ader

Maxim's experimental steam powered plane is reported to have been deliberately prevented from flying by its guide rail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Maxim

Lillienthal made many successful flights in gliders, and by the end of the 19th century it was clear that petrol engines would make heavier than air, powered, sustained and controlled flight inevitable, probably within the first decade of 20th century.

I believe that Percy Pilcher was getting very close to full flightl but was killed in a gliding accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Pilcher

Chanute studied Cayley and the Wrights learned from Chanute.
joy ride is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 08:29
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 77
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Click here for a big picture..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_Museum-1.jpg

Richard Pearse built an aeroplane in 1903 (or 1902 or 1904 depending on who you are talking to).

His aircraft had ailerons, rudder and elevator. It also had a two cylinder double acting four stroke engine (i.e. four combustion chambers).

Unfortunately for him he did not have effective airfoil shape and his propeller was not up to much either.
John Hill is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 09:28
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Actually Hiram Maxim's aircraft ( minus some of its wing panels) generated so much lift that it actually broke its restraining rails. A very much underrated engineer in popular literature.
Surely the real issue is the evolution of the practicable aircraft.
Well over a decade after the Wrights' experiments, during the first World War the U.S.A. was still incapable of generating any significant indigenous aviation product, having to rely almost totally on European engines and airframes for its front-line aircraft.
Even by 1908, at the Le Mans meeting, European aircraft were freely taking-off and landing on wheeled undercarriages. The Wrights were using ground support in the form of a primitive falling weight catapult to get airborne and were still basically landing on skids.

Last edited by Haraka; 31st May 2014 at 13:17. Reason: sp
Haraka is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 09:46
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
Yes this gentleman has been spouting on the key forum as well,seems to have an angle/grudge against the Wrights,I am sure the Wrights would agree that the 1903 Flyer was not perfect but one of their flights on dec17 1903 has been deemed by the FAI as the first controlled/practical power flight (or similar wording).
He was even casting doubts on their 1905 Flyer - which was a much improved aircraft...somebody has to have been first and even if you didnt like the 1903 Flyer - then the 1905 one should help redress the balance by flying for 30 mins (from memory) ... still far ahead of any other contender.
The Wrights tackled the whole thing in a much more scientific and common sense way than any other team/person.
Sure they were not perfect and got too embroiled in legal cr@p and were slow to adopt wheels but other than that they ended up with a very practical flying machine by 1905 !
longer ron is online now  
Old 27th May 2014, 09:54
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
There is a significant difference between this 1905 model and the 1903 plane. The stability in pitch increased significantly. The 1909 (1905) airplane had also dihedral stability (auto roll control) while the 1903 machine did not have. We talk about two sensible different airplanes having two totally different engines. Just because the 1909 model was flyable it does not automatically mean the 1903 plane could take off and fly stably.

No 5hit 5herlock...it is called development...funnily enough this is still going on in aircraft design...the perfect aircaft has still not been built and even in fairly recent times the first flight of an aircraft has been a fairly fraught affair

I am sure the Wrights would agree that the 1903 Flyer was imperfect...which is why they redesigned/improved it for the 1905 flights,they did have a self built wind tunnel - and remember not many people at that time knew much about stability etc
longer ron is online now  
Old 27th May 2014, 10:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Its interesting that the Wright's were slow to fit wheels to their aircarft considering they made a living as bicycle manufacturers.
This is all the more intriguing when its realised that the tensioned wire spoked wheel (universally known these days as a bicycle wheel) was the invention of Sir George Cayley who had realised that a light weight wheel was needed for his flying machines.
VX275 is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 11:38
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Wheels

Perhaps they knew they couldn't.
With wheels on skids, in rough pasture with an aircraft unstable in pitch and with marginal excess power available, the catapult and rail was maybe a better option for getting airborne within a reasonable distance in still air.
Haraka is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 12:06
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
Wheels

Perhaps - but they had greatly improved pitch stability by 1905,I would go more along the lines of trying to keep weight/drag down and also maybe partly a throwback to starting out on sand - where wheels would not have been good .
By the time they were flying at Huffman in 1905 they could have incorporated wheels and still used the catapult launch but maybe they were more interested in the pure flight characteristics/aerodynamics/stability etc ... whatever the reason -I would have thought it would have been written down somewhere !
longer ron is online now  
Old 27th May 2014, 13:07
  #33 (permalink)  
 
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
Simplex, instead of posting alaskan nutter dribble I'd suggest you read two texts.

"Sir George Cayley's Aeronautics 1796 - 1855" by C.H. Gibbs-Smith.
published by HMSO in 1962.

"Kill Devil Hill, the epic of the wright brothers 1899-1909" by Harry B. Combs with Martin Caidin.
published by Secker and Warburg, London. 1980.

both texts are exceptionally well researched.

btw Harry Combs was the president of Gates Learjet.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 13:56
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Wright brothers bought french engines Bariquand & Marre to power the planes they finally flew in front of credible witnesses starting with Aug. 8, 1908

The articles, "Aviation in US. Seven french engines for the Wright brothers, L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127" (see: L'Aérophile (Paris) ) which says that the french company "Barriquaud-Mare" had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and "Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23, 1908 (see: Progress of the Wright Aeroplane Experiments [Scientific American, 1908] | Library of Congress ) that also talks about french engines, demonstrate, both of them, that the brothers needed in May 1908 (at Kitty Hawk in strong headwinds) far more powerful engines for far less spectacular flights than the ones allegedly performed in 1905 (atHuffman Prairie, over a flat pasture, without significant winds).

Also on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers using same french engines flew only 1 min and 45 sec in France, far from the claimed record 24.5 miles (39.4 km), 38 minutes flight in Dayton in 1905 when a considerable weaker engine was used. These brothers have simply no credibility and only their officially witness flights can be trusted. The rest is their own fiction.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 15:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Anyone for

“History by Contract” by O’Dwyer and Randolph

(This brought about by the mention of Charles Gibbs-Smith)
Haraka is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 15:55
  #36 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do not rely on aviation history books about the Wright brothers. They are highly inaccurate and basically repeat the brother's own version of events, published in Sep. 1908 (see: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress )

I always go to primary sources (especially old articles that can be found at the Library of Congress but also in L'Aerophile collection) to find serious evidence about the powered flights the brothers claimed they had achieved in 1903 - 1905. I have found nothing reliable.

Serious articles - before Dec. 17, 1903

The articles (about the Wright brothers' gliders) written before Dec. 17, 1903 are reliable, illustrated with credible pictures and drawings.

Examples:
- "Daring Men Make Notable Success of Aerial Navigation Experiments", The Dayton Daily News, Jan. 25, 1902 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress )
- "Some Aeronautical Experiments", Scientific American, Feb. 22, 1902 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress )
- "Gliding Machines. The Latest Aeronautical Experiments.", The Illustrated Scientific News, Feb. 1903, pag. 73 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress )
- "Aerial Locomotion in United States", Le Monde Illustre, Paris, 28 March 1903, pag. 293 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress )

Not serious articles - between Dec. 17, 1903 and 1908
After Dec. 17, 1903 what was published about the two inventors diverges considerably from the official story the Wright brothers and history books have tried to accredit. (This is the official version of events: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress )

Examples:
- "Airship that Flew in North Carolina and Its Inventors", Sunday Tribune, Chicago, December 20, 1903 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress ) - One propeller is placed underneath the plane!!
- "The Machine That Flies", New York Herald, Jan. 17, 1904, pag. 3 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress ) - Same, a big propeller appears under the plane.
- "Real Story of the First Real Airship Flight Ever Made", New York Herald, May 19, 1907 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress ) - The Wright brother's plane is shown with a single propeller placed in front of the wings!! The plane also does not have a front elevator!
simplex1 is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 16:33
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I do not rely on aviation history books about the Wright brothers. They are highly inaccurate and basically repeat the brother's own version of events, published in Sep. 1908 (see: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress )


Yup! It's called circular reporting.

Keep going!
Haraka is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 17:31
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In May 1904, the Wright brothers just glided in front of journalists according to their own September 1908 account.

The brothers also said the newspapers in May 1904 "in kindness, had concealed" the reality, they had lied!

This is what the Wright brothers themselves declared in 1908 about their witnessed flight attempts in 1904:

"In the spring of 1904 … the new machine was heavier and stronger … When it was ready for its first trial, every newspaper in Dayton was notified, and about a dozen representatives of the press were present. … When preparations had been completed … The machine, after running the length of the track, slid off the end without rising into the air at all. Several of the newspaper men returned the next day, but they were again disappointed. The engine performed badly, and after a glide of only sixty feet, the machine came to the ground. The reporters had now, no doubt, lost confidence in the machine, though their reports, in kindness, concealed it. Later, when they heard that we were making flights of several minutes' duration, knowing that longer flights had been made with air-ships, … they were but little interested."
Source: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, The Century Magazine, Sep. 1908, pag 649, columns 3 and 4, The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress

And here you find what the newspapers wrote in May 1904:

"Flying Machine. Given a Successful Test by Messrs. Wright This Afternoon. Rose Twelve Feet in the Air and Sped Along a Distance of Twenty-Five Feet..Propellers Broke.", Dayton Press, May 26, 1904 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress )

Did the brothers glide 60 feet in May 1904 or fly 25 feet?

Also in the Sep. 1908 article, the Wright brothers claimed that "when they (the journalists) heard that we were making flights of several minutes' duration, knowing that longer flights had been made with air-ships, … they were but little interested." which is a big lie. They pretended the journalists had not been interested and this was the reason there was no serious witness for their flights in 1904 - 1905 when it was known the two inventors had refused systematically to show their planes or made public demonstrations before Aug 8. 1908.

Last edited by simplex1; 27th May 2014 at 17:54.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 19:47
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I looked up the synonyms for glide. remember folks, flying as we know it today did not have the terms we use today.

one of the synonyms for glide is: FLY

another: WING

so, if someone said : glide , he could have meant FLY, like we use the term today.

AS someone who dealt with many famous news organizations I can tell you that even today, some of the stuff is just made up. AND imagine, how would someone (a reporter/writer) know what to write to describe flight, in 1903?

Quick Jimmy, write something about the wrights and their flying machine. we have to have it ready for the type setter in 10 minutes.

In 1903 the aviation reporters of the day were even more poorly informed than Richard Quest is today!

THE WRIGHTS invented and perfected 3 axis control with rudder countering the effect of wing warp drag. this was the key to the turn. cannonballs have been flying pretty straight for years before the wrights, but they really couldn't do a 360, now could they? The WRIGHTS taught the world to fly airplanes.

Orville wright was given pilot license number1
His godson, Bob Cummings (whom orville taught to fly( became the first licensed flight instructor in the USA

Courts gave the wrights the patent after lengthy hearing. Don't you think that someone on curtiss's side would have found people to prove the wright's hadn't flown?

AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT THEN, not 30 years later, or 100 years later.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 20:36
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I looked up the synonyms for glide. remember folks, flying as we know it today did not have the terms we use today.
one of the synonyms for glide is: FLY
Synonyms are not words with the same meaning 100%.

The verb "to glide" is clearly explained in the dictionary
see: Glide - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

and means "to fly without engine power", "to descend gradually in controlled flight"

Regarding the meaning of "glide" in 1904-1905, it was the same as today.

Talking about the Wright brothers, a certain Amos I. Root wrote in January 1905:

"I shall have to apologize a little, friends, for giving a picture of the gliding-machine instead of a flying-machine" (Source: NOVA | Wright Brothers' Flying Machine | The First Reporter | PBS ).
Root made a clear distinction between gliding and flying.
simplex1 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.