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 12th Jun 2014, 06:59
  #381 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Wright plane with a propeller underneath:
Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress
simplex1 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 07:00
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What plane (inventor) does the first red point in 1906 correspond to?
Not sure, but the author's contact info is on the site.
eetrojan is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 07:22
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 9,719
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
What plane (inventor) does the first red point in 1906 correspond to?
Maybe the Vuia No.1?

Traian Vuia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noyade is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 07:36
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Simplex said - As long as the Wright brothers preferred their planes to be shown in newspapers with a propeller underneath and kept all the alleged 1903-1905 pictures for themselves and only after Aug. 8, 1908 started to show them, those hundreds of photos have little historical value.
Simplex then said - A Wright plane with a propeller underneath:
Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress
How in the world did you conclude that the Wright brothers themselves "preferred" that their planes be shown in any particular fashion based on the drawing of a newspaper artist who also drew a butterfly man?



I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not the newspaper drawing above shows a propeller underneath, poorly drawn left and right propellers, or even just a bunch of dark areas that fuel the conspiratorial imagination of an overly biased revisionist.

However, it really doesn't matter.

A newspaper drawing from 1906 does not negate the Wright's many photos from 1903 to 1905 - the early years in their development of powered flight - even if they chose to keep those photos private at the time.
eetrojan is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 09:05
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I do not agree much with Simplex1's methodology of argument and am admittedly a bit disappointed, as I thought he might just have been leading up to "pulling a rabbit out of a hat".
There are many arguments in history that have only been resolved long after the event . Who murdered the Polish officers in Katyn wood in WW2 and the physical reassessment now under way of "Crook-backed Dick" in the U.K. ( Richard III 1452-1485) being examples. New information, linked to new knowledqe and techniques, overturning previously established articles of faith, many based on suspect evidence.
Analysis is often a process of re evaluation with the derogatory "revisionist" epithet often being employed as a rearguard action by those with vested interests in maintaining the Status Quo... Galileo was a "revisionist" regarding the place of the earth. : without him and his ilk today many would still accept previously accepted dogma and argue vehemently in its defence. I offer no verdict, but refer to the arguments of the 'Creationists' ( mainly living in the land of the "airplane") as an ongoing example.
The evaluation of the Wrights themselves has been subject to official "revision" - the prime example being the Smithsonian affair.
The confusion between 3 axis and otherwise "controlled" light will linger on no doubt. I was amused by a recent correspondent justifying "human powered" controlled flight as being able to be flown a round a figure 8 and then quoting in justification a machine that flew under 2 axis control, in direct contradiction of his attempted 3-axis definition of "controlled flight" argument.
The Wrights made a huge contribution along the way in heavier-than-air flight. The use of roll control obviously greatly improves the degree of precision in controlled flight, but it is not essential and I suggest should should not be used as definition of such. .
Interestingly ,where would the Wrights have been without the previously ( European?) invented rudder and elevator? It's indeed fortunate for the progress of aviation in general that these devices weren't subject to restrictive patenting attempts.

Last edited by Haraka; 12th Jun 2014 at 10:04.
Haraka is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 09:20
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
Well then in the absense of a photo so far - I will keep it simple !

It is impossible that the Wrights ever built an aircraft with a prop underneath for the reasons I stated in my previous 2 posts on the subject !

The chain drive through 90 degrees would be extremely difficult to design/build.
It would be impossible to 'swing' the 'lift' prop to start the engine.
It would be impossible to use the launching rail method of take off.

And finally -the Wrights were not short of lifting power from their cambered wings - so why would they even think about a lift prop ?

All they needed was forward thrust from their 2 pusher props to give airspeed,and they were a fairly simple sprocket and chain drive design !
longer ron is online now  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 09:25
  #387 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 90
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
a machine that did it under 2 axis control
Sorry Haraka are you suggesting that 2 axis control does not allow all normal manoeuves to be carried out?
John Farley is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 09:33
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
John, I'm saying that 3 axis control is not essential for "controlled" flight.
"Controlled" being the word in question I think?

Indeed, I have been, albeit unsuccessfully, attempting to reason with others, who are of the opinion that 2 axis control does not allow all normal manoevres to be carried out .

P.S.
I'm thinking specifically in terms of 2 axis control, with positive stability in the third. Thanks for picking up the ambiguity in my statement in #388 which presumed that the reader had been following this diatribe. I have attempted to clarify the point.

Last edited by Haraka; 12th Jun 2014 at 10:10.
Haraka is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 09:49
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 9,719
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
It is impossible that the Wrights ever built an aircraft with a prop underneath for the reasons I stated in my previous 2 posts on the subject !
Mate, I could be wrong, but I think you're missing Simplexes point. He's not suggesting the concept happened - he's saying (I think) since the Wrights didn't correct that article then they're either (at that point in time)...

A) Hiding as per their lawyers request.
or
B)They still (at just prior to 1908) have only been able to perform power-glide mode.

But then again it is hard to know what he's leading up to.
Noyade is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 10:00
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sao Jose dos Campos-Brazil
Age: 54
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Simplex,

1906 red dot was Santos Dumont that flew with his plane in Paris. It was a public flight with press and air club members present.

SANTOS DUMONT e o 14 BIS - YouTube

btw, 14 Bis Replica flew wonderfully on the 100th flight celebration.

http://youtu.be/QBKvTCirI94

All the best,

Sydy
Sydy is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 10:11
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 9,719
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
The 14bis flew September-October. To me that would be the next two red dots for 1906.

Noyade is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 10:53
  #392 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 90
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Haraka

Thanks. Glad you agree rudder and elevator are all you need given positive dihedral effect being present (this does not require dihedral of course - it can be obtained by sweep or high wing and low cg or both as with Harrier).
John Farley is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 11:25
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
You might like to see you p.m.s, Sir.
Haraka is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 13:06
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
eetrojan, many thanks for you reference in post #381, most interesting, though once again simplex will tell us it's all lies.
Brian Abraham is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 14:03
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
regarding not correcting an article (bellyprop)


Have any of you ever tried to get a newspaper or now a days a tv network to correct an article? IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. I called CNN 14 years ago to correct something and they never corrected it on the air. It was a basic precept of flying and they got it wrong.

The artists conception in the article image above does show the pusher props, but much lower than they really were on the real FLYER WHICH WE HAVE A REAL PICTURE OF IT TAKING OFF, WITH A MAN (wilbur) next to it for scale.

What would a smart person do today?

Follow the advice of the leading patent attorney in the state of Ohio?

OR SHOW everyone in the world how to copy their method of control and get zip, nada, nothing for it.


AS to two axis control vs three axis.


For one moment, let's think about all the two axis planes built today. Planes that are big enough to carry human beings (plural)


Somebody please post pictures of all the two axis 747s, 757's (ad infinitum).

Oh, and pictures of flying machines that are on the ground don't count. Nor do artists conceptions of said machine flying over connecticut or anywhere else.

The Wrights were methodical in their note taking, and amazingly enough they took the most modern type of photograph they could to document their experiments. Over 300.

Getting back to the two axis control. I am amused enough to bring up the jimmy stewart version of "the flight of the phoenix" and the designer was a model airplane designer.

simplex refuses the real evidence (300 photos in the library of congress) and instead points to an article with a picture of a BAT MAN even larger than the artists conception of the wright flyer.

mods, do what you like. but if you are pilots , shut down this thread.
jondc9 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 14:18
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,788
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
For one moment, let's think about all the two axis planes built today. Planes that are big enough to carry human beings (plural)
I would suggest that is as fatuous as asking how many aeroplanes built today for carrying human beings are wing warping biplanes that have the elevator at the front, have the pilot lying down on his face steering by levers and hip movement , and are catapulted into the air by a falling weight off of a rail and land on skids.


What the Wrights did with (albeit probably unintentionally) mimicking earlier established ( and indeed U.K. patented) concepts of flight control was but another step on the way, with two axis control and positive stability in the third, remaining acceptably applicable mechanisms for adequate control in flight at the time.

Direct control in roll is but a further refinement in controlled flight , it is not a definition.

Last edited by Haraka; 12th Jun 2014 at 16:40.
Haraka is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 14:23
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Despite my suspicion of revisionists altering history I was planning to write a bit about how "accepted wisdom/history" does sometimes need to be modified, but haraka beat me to it, and I totally agree with his post no. 388.

Unlike some, I welcome Simplex starting this interesting thread even though I am not fully convinced by his opinion. Looking at all the evidence presented here I am more convinced than ever that the Wrights are considerably less significant than their fans and their carefully constructed and rigorously pursued claims would have us believe; claims about which there is genuine doubt.

Even if their claims are accepted as 100% genuine then if the same standards and criteria are applied to various other "first flights" then I think that we cannot be sure that they did not beat the Wrights.

Of course, I still admire their dedication, methodical research and experimentation and achievements and they are of huge importance to flight but I certainly do not place them on a pedestal above other pioneers.

BTW: I am not convinced that the Wrights had a horizontal propeller beneath their plane, but two chains could very simply be made to transmit power at 90 degrees by a pair of small bevel gears or a leather belt running around 4 pulleys, something bicycle mechanics of the time could have achieved quite easily without much extra weight. This could even shorten the length of the chain and thus the "flap" and vibration inherent in long chains.
joy ride is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 17:02
  #398 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Wright brothers did not claim Three Axis Control as their own invention but only Roll Control

There are two letters addressed by the Wright brothers to Octave Chanute (see 1 and 2) in which the two inventors repeated many times they were "the first to maintain the lateral balance by adjusting the wing tips to different angles of incidence" (roll control). They did not mention the notion of "three axis control" and did not claim any breakthrough in governing an airplane on all three axis. Chanute had publicly criticized the two brothers for incorectly claiming roll control as their invention and in the two letters Wilbur Wright was simply furious and did not agree with Chanute maintaining that the world owes roll control only to him and Orville and to nobody else.

(1) Letter from 20 Jan 1910, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mwright&fileName=06/06014/mwright06014.db&recNum=2&itemLink=D?wright:1:./temp/~ammem_naNN

(2) Letter from 29 Jan 1910, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mwright&fileName=06/06014/mwright06014.db&recNum=6&itemLink=D?wright:1:./temp/~ammem_naNN

Last edited by simplex1; 12th Jun 2014 at 17:21.
simplex1 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 17:43
  #399 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Noyade: Maybe the Vuia No.1?
Yes, by following your suggestion, I have found some evidence about his flights in 1906.

(1), (2), (4) - Feb., March and Aug., 1906 - Technical descriptions of Vuia's plane, pictures included. A witnessed ground test (Feb. 5 1906) with the chassis of the plane, without wings, running at 20 km/h, is mentioned.

(3) - Apr. 1906 - An article about a short 12 m flight that took place on March 18, 1906. No witness is mentioned.

(5) - Sep. 1906 - An article about a few takeoffs, the longest being 24 m. An officer is mention as a witness but his name is not given.

(6) - Oct. 1906 - An article about two public and controlled flights performed by Vuia on 7 and 14 October 1906. The first lasted 0.4 sec covering 4 m at a height of 20 cm, the second lasted 0.6 sec. Santos Dumont was one of the witnesses.

(7) - Dec. 1906 - An article with some pictures, one of them showing Vuia's plane running on the ground. A 5-6 m flight is mentioned.

1) "L'AÉROPLANE SUR ROUES DE M. VUIA ", L'Aérophile, pag. 53-54, Feb. 1906, L'Aérophile (Paris)

2) "L'aéroplane Vuia", L'Automobile en Seine-et-Oise. Revue mensuelle. Organe du Club automobile, pag. 7-11, March 5, 1906, L'Automobile en Seine-et-Oise. Revue mensuelle. Organe du Club automobile ["puis" de l'Automobile-club] de Seine-et-Oise

3) "Nouveaux essais de l'Aéroplane Vuia", L'Aérophile, pag. 105-106, April 1906, L'Aérophile (Paris)

4) "L'Aéroplane Vuia", La Nature, No. 1733 - Aug. 11, 1906, pag. 164-166, CNUM - 4KY28.70 : p.165 - ima.169

5) "L'Aéroplane à moteur de M. Vuia", L'Aérophile, pag. 195-196, Sep. 1906, L'Aérophile (Paris)

6) "L'aéroplane Vuia", L'Aérophile, pag. 242-243, Oct. 1906, L'Aérophile (Paris)

7) "Dirigeables et Aéroplanes", LE SPORT UNIVERSEL ILLUSTRÉ, No. 542, pag. 799-800, Dec. 30, 1906, Le Sport universel illustré
simplex1 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 18:07
  #400 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Coming back to the map "Attempts at Flight 1890 - 1909" (see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/540496-wright-brothers-just-glided-1903-they-flew-1908-a-19.html#post8518036 ) I have come to the conclusion it is a total mess.

For instance, the Sep. 12, 1906 flight of Jacob Ellehammer does not appear on the diagram. There is also a green point situated around 1901 and corresponding to a more that 403 feet flight done by the Wright brothers which can not be a powered flight. The chart is a mixture of selected powered flights and glides that does not make too much sense.
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.