The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expert Witness
eetrojan,
Chanute continues his letter with details of three flight conducted the previous day. Do you interpret his comments as being present for those flights also?
Chanute continues his letter with details of three flight conducted the previous day. Do you interpret his comments as being present for those flights also?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expert Witness
In early September, 1906, Curtiss visited the Wright office and workshop. He was brought there by his friend, Captain Thomas S. Baldwin, a well-known aeronaut, who was giving exhibition flights in Dayton with his dirigible balloon on which he used a motor he had persuaded Curtiss to build for him. It was to make repairs on that motor that Curtiss had come to Dayton.
After that meeting, the four men, Curtiss, Baldwin, and the Wrights, were together much of the time for several days. When in response to questions about their work, the Wrights showed a number of photographs of their flights made at the Huffman pasture during the two previous years. Curtiss seemed much astonished. He remarked that it was the first time he had been able to believe anyone had actually been in the air with a flying-machine.
After that meeting, the four men, Curtiss, Baldwin, and the Wrights, were together much of the time for several days. When in response to questions about their work, the Wrights showed a number of photographs of their flights made at the Huffman pasture during the two previous years. Curtiss seemed much astonished. He remarked that it was the first time he had been able to believe anyone had actually been in the air with a flying-machine.
Last edited by 99Cruiser99; 26th Jun 2014 at 02:03. Reason: added emphasis
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chanute continues his letter with details of three flight conducted the previous day. Do you interpret his comments as being present for those flights also?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt Octave Chanute teamed up with the Wright brothers and this fully explains why he said he had seen an alleged 1904 flight (see: The letter of Octave Chanute to the Scientific American, Volume 94, Number 15, pag. 307, April 14, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi...ge/n5/mode/1up )
As can be remarked from the chronological list of events made by Arthur Renstrom, Chanute together with the Wright brothers were involved (in April 1906) in negotiations with a French commission, interested in buying the perfected plane the two brothers claimed they had.
"MARCH 20–APRIL 5. French commission, composed of Arnold Fordyce, the head, Commander Herni Bonel, Capt. Henry J. Régnier, Capt. Jules H. F. Fournier, and attorney Walter V. R. Berry, which was sent by the French War Ministry to negotiate changes in the contract signed with Fordyce, visits the Wrights but fails to reach agreement and option lapses.
MARCH 21. Wright brothers’ report of successful 1905 flights, submitted to Aero Club of America on March 2, is among articles included in cornerstone laid for new club house being built by the Automobile Club of America in New York.
APRIL 2. At request of Wrights, Octave Chanute comes to Dayton from Chicago to be present at conference with French military mission negotiating purchase of airplane.
APRIL 7. Scientific American publishes results of questionnaire sent to 17 eyewitnesses of the longer 1905 Wright flights, along with text of letter from one of them, Charles Webbert.
APRIL 14. Wrights address identical letters to German, Italian, Japanese, and Russian ministers of war, offering to sell airplane. Scientific American publishes letter from Octave Chanute dated March 31, which confirms report of successful flights by Wright brothers. The letter is in response to editor’s letter of March 19 and a telegram dated March 29 to Chanute seeking verification of a statement attributed to him which appeared in the Illustrierte Aeronautische Mitteilungen, February issue.
APRIL 20. Patrick Y. Alexander, on second visit to Dayton (first was December 24, 1902), is dinner guest at Wright home. The Wrights suspected that he came in the interests of the British government to ascertain if they had entered into a contract with the French.
MAY 8. In response to a communication of February 8, Wrights offer their flying machine to the British War Office."
Source: WILBUR & ORVILLE WRIGHT A Reissue of A Chronology Commemorating the Hundredth Anniversary of the BIRTH OF ORVILLE WRIGHT, AUGUST 19, 1871, By Arthur George Renstrom.
As can be remarked from the chronological list of events made by Arthur Renstrom, Chanute together with the Wright brothers were involved (in April 1906) in negotiations with a French commission, interested in buying the perfected plane the two brothers claimed they had.
"MARCH 20–APRIL 5. French commission, composed of Arnold Fordyce, the head, Commander Herni Bonel, Capt. Henry J. Régnier, Capt. Jules H. F. Fournier, and attorney Walter V. R. Berry, which was sent by the French War Ministry to negotiate changes in the contract signed with Fordyce, visits the Wrights but fails to reach agreement and option lapses.
MARCH 21. Wright brothers’ report of successful 1905 flights, submitted to Aero Club of America on March 2, is among articles included in cornerstone laid for new club house being built by the Automobile Club of America in New York.
APRIL 2. At request of Wrights, Octave Chanute comes to Dayton from Chicago to be present at conference with French military mission negotiating purchase of airplane.
APRIL 7. Scientific American publishes results of questionnaire sent to 17 eyewitnesses of the longer 1905 Wright flights, along with text of letter from one of them, Charles Webbert.
APRIL 14. Wrights address identical letters to German, Italian, Japanese, and Russian ministers of war, offering to sell airplane. Scientific American publishes letter from Octave Chanute dated March 31, which confirms report of successful flights by Wright brothers. The letter is in response to editor’s letter of March 19 and a telegram dated March 29 to Chanute seeking verification of a statement attributed to him which appeared in the Illustrierte Aeronautische Mitteilungen, February issue.
APRIL 20. Patrick Y. Alexander, on second visit to Dayton (first was December 24, 1902), is dinner guest at Wright home. The Wrights suspected that he came in the interests of the British government to ascertain if they had entered into a contract with the French.
MAY 8. In response to a communication of February 8, Wrights offer their flying machine to the British War Office."
Source: WILBUR & ORVILLE WRIGHT A Reissue of A Chronology Commemorating the Hundredth Anniversary of the BIRTH OF ORVILLE WRIGHT, AUGUST 19, 1871, By Arthur George Renstrom.
Last edited by simplex1; 26th Jun 2014 at 03:55.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's recap once again. Thanks to Simplex, we have two viable, competing theories to "fully explain" why Chanute told others that he saw the Wright brothers plane fly 500 m on 15 October 1904:
(1) because he wanted to "team up" with the Wrights to meet with the French military representatives and try to sell them an aircraft that didn't work, and as it turns out wouldn't come close to working for several more years, until 1908 it seems (even though they didn't fly at all in 1906 or 07), and then as soon as they got it to work and were now celebrities and firmly in the public eye, sneak back to Ohio to quickly make dozens of fake photos, diary entries (Wilbur's, Orville's, fathers, etc.), and secure the cooperation of numerous false witnesses (family, friends, farmers, journalists, bee keepers, Surfmen, young boys, fathers, children, etc.), all to corroborate that one specific fake flight that Chanute lied about, and amaze everybody by falsely convincing them that that they were flying back in 1903, 1904, and 1905 ... when they really weren't.
or
(2) because he saw it.
Hmmm. If it's ok with you, I don't think #1 fully explains it.
I choose door #2.
(1) because he wanted to "team up" with the Wrights to meet with the French military representatives and try to sell them an aircraft that didn't work, and as it turns out wouldn't come close to working for several more years, until 1908 it seems (even though they didn't fly at all in 1906 or 07), and then as soon as they got it to work and were now celebrities and firmly in the public eye, sneak back to Ohio to quickly make dozens of fake photos, diary entries (Wilbur's, Orville's, fathers, etc.), and secure the cooperation of numerous false witnesses (family, friends, farmers, journalists, bee keepers, Surfmen, young boys, fathers, children, etc.), all to corroborate that one specific fake flight that Chanute lied about, and amaze everybody by falsely convincing them that that they were flying back in 1903, 1904, and 1905 ... when they really weren't.
or
(2) because he saw it.
Hmmm. If it's ok with you, I don't think #1 fully explains it.
I choose door #2.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"After that meeting, the four men, Curtiss, Baldwin, and the Wrights, were together much of the time for several days. When in response to questions about their work, the Wrights showed a number of photographs of their flights made at the Huffman pasture during the two previous years. Curtiss seemed much astonished. He remarked that it was the first time he had been able to believe anyone had actually been in the air with a flying-machine."
This story, about the photos showing some flights allegedly presented by the Wright brothers to Curtiss in 1906, was spread by Fred Charters Kelly, a journalist born 21 miles from Dayton and friend of Orville Wright. He wrote a book about the two brothers, full of all kind of tales told by O. Wright. There is no independent confirmation Curtiss really saw those pictures in 1906.
I like keeping things simple !
Simplex you have never answered my simple question from the previous page...
So if they were identical - what stopped it flying in 1905 Simplex ?
Simplex you have never answered my simple question from the previous page...
Simplex posted
Quote:
The alleged Flyer III 1905 and and the May 1908 plane were identical so the 1905 pictures showing Flyer III in flight could have been made after May 1908.
Quote:
The alleged Flyer III 1905 and and the May 1908 plane were identical so the 1905 pictures showing Flyer III in flight could have been made after May 1908.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite clear Octave Chanute was ironic and did not believe the Wright brothers had flown a powered plane
"In addition to the great feat of inventing a practical flying machine the Wright brothers have, in my judgment, performed another improbable feat by keeping knowledge of the construction of a machine, which can only be operated in the open, from the incredulous but Argus-eyed American press."
(see: The letter of Octave Chanute to the Scientific American, Volume 94, Number 15, pag. 307, April 14, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi...ge/n5/mode/1up )
Octave Chanute, in his letter to the Scientific American, talks about two feats equally improbable: (1) creating a practical flying machine and (2) flying it in the open and in the same time succeeding in keeping the flights away from the eyes of the press.
There is only one plausible explanation to (1) and (2). The Wright brothers did not have any flight capable machine in 1903 - 1905 and this is the reason the press missed it.
"In addition to the great feat of inventing a practical flying machine the Wright brothers have, in my judgment, performed another improbable feat by keeping knowledge of the construction of a machine, which can only be operated in the open, from the incredulous but Argus-eyed American press."
(see: The letter of Octave Chanute to the Scientific American, Volume 94, Number 15, pag. 307, April 14, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi...ge/n5/mode/1up )
Octave Chanute, in his letter to the Scientific American, talks about two feats equally improbable: (1) creating a practical flying machine and (2) flying it in the open and in the same time succeeding in keeping the flights away from the eyes of the press.
There is only one plausible explanation to (1) and (2). The Wright brothers did not have any flight capable machine in 1903 - 1905 and this is the reason the press missed it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Santos Dumond was inspired by the 1902 Wright glider but also the Wright brothers studied the machine of the Brazilian and in 1908, when they really flew, they pushed the canard wing much further in front of the main wings building a relatively stable plane.
Santos Dumond's 14 Bis 1906
The alleged Flyer III 1905 or the Real Flyer Aug. 1908
Santos Dumond's 14 Bis 1906
The alleged Flyer III 1905 or the Real Flyer Aug. 1908
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dec. 1906 - The Scientific American seemed to have no doubt that Gustav Whitehead had made short powered flights in 1901 and that the Wright brothers had flown a plane equipped with a motor in 1903
In an article, from Dec 1906, about the Second Exhibition of the Aero Club of America (see the text), Gustav Whitehead is credited with short powered flights in 1901 and the Scientific American seems to have no doubt about the existence of these flights and also about a 1903 flight made by the Wright brothers. An apparently serious journal, teamed up with impostors like Whitehead and the Wright brothers making their stories credible and spreading the word about their alleged flights in the entire world.
"THE SECOND ANNUAL EXHIBITION OF THE AERO CLUB OF AMERICA.
...
The body framework of Gustave Whitehead's latest bat-like aeroplane was shown mounted on pneumatic-tired, ball-bearing wire wheels and containing a 3-cylinder, 2-cycle, air-cooled motor of 15 horse-power direct connected to a 6-foot propeller placed in front. This machine ran along the road at a speed of 25 miles an hour in tests made with it last summer. When held stationary, it produced a thrust of 75 pounds. The engine is a 4 1/4 x 4 of an improved type. Whitehead also exhibited the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels of his former bat machine, with which he made a number of short flights in 1901. He is at present engaged in building a 100-horse-power, 8-cylinder gasoline motor with which to propel his improved machine.
...
The Wright brothers' original motor, with which they made a flight three years ago, was much heavier than the new one. ..."
Source: Scientific American Volume 95, Number 24, pag. 447-449, December 15, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/wright
In an article, from Dec 1906, about the Second Exhibition of the Aero Club of America (see the text), Gustav Whitehead is credited with short powered flights in 1901 and the Scientific American seems to have no doubt about the existence of these flights and also about a 1903 flight made by the Wright brothers. An apparently serious journal, teamed up with impostors like Whitehead and the Wright brothers making their stories credible and spreading the word about their alleged flights in the entire world.
"THE SECOND ANNUAL EXHIBITION OF THE AERO CLUB OF AMERICA.
...
The body framework of Gustave Whitehead's latest bat-like aeroplane was shown mounted on pneumatic-tired, ball-bearing wire wheels and containing a 3-cylinder, 2-cycle, air-cooled motor of 15 horse-power direct connected to a 6-foot propeller placed in front. This machine ran along the road at a speed of 25 miles an hour in tests made with it last summer. When held stationary, it produced a thrust of 75 pounds. The engine is a 4 1/4 x 4 of an improved type. Whitehead also exhibited the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels of his former bat machine, with which he made a number of short flights in 1901. He is at present engaged in building a 100-horse-power, 8-cylinder gasoline motor with which to propel his improved machine.
...
The Wright brothers' original motor, with which they made a flight three years ago, was much heavier than the new one. ..."
Source: Scientific American Volume 95, Number 24, pag. 447-449, December 15, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/wright
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI
Can I block posts, emails and messages from specific users?
If there is a particular member that bothers you and you do not want to see their posts, then you can add this members to your 'Ignore List'. There are several ways to do this:
Through your User Control Panel: User CP, Settings & Options, Edit Ignore List. Then, type the name into the empty text box and click 'Okay'. (the above instruction has been modified by me from the forum FAQs)
There is a certain poster here that refuses to engage in a discussion, makes posts that inflame the existing discussion, ignores response, presents information out of context with a biased view and agenda.
The basis of the posters position is:
1. That's a lie
2. You can't prove it
3. Pictures can be faked
4. There was a conspiracy
5. Witnesses are unacceptable
While I find the discussion of early developments in aviation very interesting, I can find no valuable contribution on the subject by this poster. If this behavior continues I for one will use the "Ignore" option.
If there is a particular member that bothers you and you do not want to see their posts, then you can add this members to your 'Ignore List'. There are several ways to do this:
Through your User Control Panel: User CP, Settings & Options, Edit Ignore List. Then, type the name into the empty text box and click 'Okay'. (the above instruction has been modified by me from the forum FAQs)
There is a certain poster here that refuses to engage in a discussion, makes posts that inflame the existing discussion, ignores response, presents information out of context with a biased view and agenda.
The basis of the posters position is:
1. That's a lie
2. You can't prove it
3. Pictures can be faked
4. There was a conspiracy
5. Witnesses are unacceptable
While I find the discussion of early developments in aviation very interesting, I can find no valuable contribution on the subject by this poster. If this behavior continues I for one will use the "Ignore" option.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dec. 15, 1906 - The Scientific American showed a picture with a new motor of the Wright brothers presented as being able to power a plane capable to carry a man at 50 miles/hour for 500 mile, 10 hours of flight!!!
The performances of this engine (see the citation) were evidently highly exaggerated as long as the flight endurance record established 4 years latter, after a lot of development regarding the plane engines, was just 8h:12min:45sec on December 18, 1910. It is clear the Wright brothers were simply throwing inflated figures just to appear much ahead of other inventors connected one way or another to powered flying machines.
The engine also appears to have no exceptional feature. It looks like an ordinary automobile motor of that time.
The 1906 Wright brothers' 4 cylinders vertical engine
Source: Scientific American pag. 449, December 15, 1906
There is another big problem with this engine because the Scientific American said it resembled the previous 16 hp motor in its general contour which is not true. The alleged 1903 had a completely different shape and general aspect. Most likely the 1903 engine has never existed. It was a latter creation of Orville Wright when he rebuilt that mythical Flyer I.
What is certain is that in 1906, the Wright brothers vaguely suggested that the older 1903 motor and the 1906 version were quite similar in their general contour.
Another reason the 1906 engine might have been no more than a pure bluff (a much inferior motor) is the fact that it was displayed with its crankcase opened which revealed all the constructive details to potential competitors that could have copied it in a matter of months at most and fly 10 hours with their planes, leaving the Wright brothers without anybody interested in buying their flying machines.
"The most interesting motor on exhibition was the new 4-cylinder, four-cycle, water-cooled engine built by Messrs. Orville and Wilbur Wright, of Dayton, Ohio, and intended for use on their new aeroplane. The cylinders of this engine are of cast iron and have a bore of 4% inches, while a 4-inch stroke is used. The engine weighs complete only 160 pounds. The cylinders are mounted upon an aluminium crank case, and are jacketed with sheet aluminium. The valves are located in the heads of the cylinders, the exhaust valve only being mechanically operated. The motor is fitted with make-and- break igniters operated by cams on a transverse shaft placed beside the heads of the cylinders, this shaft being driven by bevel gears from the cam shaft of the motor. The time of the spark can be changed by a small handle provided for this purpose. The connecting rods are made of hollow steel tubing. A solid flywheel of light weight is used. The engine looks much heavier than it really is, and one can hardly realize that it weighs but slightly more than 5 pounds to the horse-power. The Wright brothers' original motor, with which they made a flight three years ago, was much heavier than the new one, its weight complete being about 250 pounds. The valves were arranged in chambers upon the end of pipes that screwed into the cylinder heads. The valve chambers were not water-cooled, and it is probably due to this fact that there was a sudden loss of power after the motor had been run half a minute. The former motor developed but 16 horse-power. It was a 4-cylinder motor, water-cooled, and resembled the present motor in general contour. When used in the aeroplane, it is located in a horizontal position. The new motor
is sufficiently powerful to drive an aeroplane carrying two men a distance of 200 miles at 45' miles an hour, or one man can be carried 500 miles at 50 miles an hour."
Source: Source: Scientific American Volume 95, Number 24, pag. 447-449, December 15, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/wright
As a remark, the same Dec. 15, 1906 Scientific American shows a Curtiss 8 cylinder aviation V-Motor developed starting from the initial 2 cylinder V motors for motorbikes. At 30 hp for 125 pounds (4.16 pounds/hp) it was clearly superior to the 28-30 hp at 160 pounds (5.33 -5.71 pounds/hp) engine displayed by the Wright brothers.
The 1906 Curtiss 8 Cylinders 30 hp V-Motor and the Whitehead 2 cylinders 6 hp engine
Source: Scientific American pag. 449, December 15, 1906
It is quite interesting that the engine of Whitehead (displayed together with that of Curtiss and the Wright brothers at THE SECOND ANNUAL EXHIBITION OF THE AERO CLUB OF AMERICA, 1906) had a weight per power ratio equal to 5.83 pounds/hp, roughly identical to that of Wright brothers' motor. In other words, four 2-cylinder motors built by Whitehead would have weighted as much as a Wright engine giving also the same total power.
Sure, the claims of Whitehead and the two brothers can not be trusted so we might never know how much their engines, presented at that 1906 exhibition, really weighted and how much power they could deliver.
The performances of this engine (see the citation) were evidently highly exaggerated as long as the flight endurance record established 4 years latter, after a lot of development regarding the plane engines, was just 8h:12min:45sec on December 18, 1910. It is clear the Wright brothers were simply throwing inflated figures just to appear much ahead of other inventors connected one way or another to powered flying machines.
The engine also appears to have no exceptional feature. It looks like an ordinary automobile motor of that time.
The 1906 Wright brothers' 4 cylinders vertical engine
Source: Scientific American pag. 449, December 15, 1906
There is another big problem with this engine because the Scientific American said it resembled the previous 16 hp motor in its general contour which is not true. The alleged 1903 had a completely different shape and general aspect. Most likely the 1903 engine has never existed. It was a latter creation of Orville Wright when he rebuilt that mythical Flyer I.
What is certain is that in 1906, the Wright brothers vaguely suggested that the older 1903 motor and the 1906 version were quite similar in their general contour.
Another reason the 1906 engine might have been no more than a pure bluff (a much inferior motor) is the fact that it was displayed with its crankcase opened which revealed all the constructive details to potential competitors that could have copied it in a matter of months at most and fly 10 hours with their planes, leaving the Wright brothers without anybody interested in buying their flying machines.
"The most interesting motor on exhibition was the new 4-cylinder, four-cycle, water-cooled engine built by Messrs. Orville and Wilbur Wright, of Dayton, Ohio, and intended for use on their new aeroplane. The cylinders of this engine are of cast iron and have a bore of 4% inches, while a 4-inch stroke is used. The engine weighs complete only 160 pounds. The cylinders are mounted upon an aluminium crank case, and are jacketed with sheet aluminium. The valves are located in the heads of the cylinders, the exhaust valve only being mechanically operated. The motor is fitted with make-and- break igniters operated by cams on a transverse shaft placed beside the heads of the cylinders, this shaft being driven by bevel gears from the cam shaft of the motor. The time of the spark can be changed by a small handle provided for this purpose. The connecting rods are made of hollow steel tubing. A solid flywheel of light weight is used. The engine looks much heavier than it really is, and one can hardly realize that it weighs but slightly more than 5 pounds to the horse-power. The Wright brothers' original motor, with which they made a flight three years ago, was much heavier than the new one, its weight complete being about 250 pounds. The valves were arranged in chambers upon the end of pipes that screwed into the cylinder heads. The valve chambers were not water-cooled, and it is probably due to this fact that there was a sudden loss of power after the motor had been run half a minute. The former motor developed but 16 horse-power. It was a 4-cylinder motor, water-cooled, and resembled the present motor in general contour. When used in the aeroplane, it is located in a horizontal position. The new motor
is sufficiently powerful to drive an aeroplane carrying two men a distance of 200 miles at 45' miles an hour, or one man can be carried 500 miles at 50 miles an hour."
Source: Source: Scientific American Volume 95, Number 24, pag. 447-449, December 15, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/wright
As a remark, the same Dec. 15, 1906 Scientific American shows a Curtiss 8 cylinder aviation V-Motor developed starting from the initial 2 cylinder V motors for motorbikes. At 30 hp for 125 pounds (4.16 pounds/hp) it was clearly superior to the 28-30 hp at 160 pounds (5.33 -5.71 pounds/hp) engine displayed by the Wright brothers.
The 1906 Curtiss 8 Cylinders 30 hp V-Motor and the Whitehead 2 cylinders 6 hp engine
Source: Scientific American pag. 449, December 15, 1906
It is quite interesting that the engine of Whitehead (displayed together with that of Curtiss and the Wright brothers at THE SECOND ANNUAL EXHIBITION OF THE AERO CLUB OF AMERICA, 1906) had a weight per power ratio equal to 5.83 pounds/hp, roughly identical to that of Wright brothers' motor. In other words, four 2-cylinder motors built by Whitehead would have weighted as much as a Wright engine giving also the same total power.
Sure, the claims of Whitehead and the two brothers can not be trusted so we might never know how much their engines, presented at that 1906 exhibition, really weighted and how much power they could deliver.
Last edited by simplex1; 26th Jun 2014 at 20:38.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engine also appears to have no exceptional feature
The Wright engines
The Project Gutenberg e-Book of The Wright Brothers' Engines and their Design; Author: Leonard S. Hobbs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those unique features belonged to the Manley-Balzer engine.
The text is a bit misleading but if you read it twice you will notice that it prizes, in fact, Manley's motor.
"Manly's task was to obtain what was for the time an inordinately light engine and, although the originally specified power was considerably greater than that of the Wrights, it was still reasonable even though Manly himself apparently increased it on the assumption that Langley would need more power than he thought. The cost and time required were very much greater than the Wrights expended. He ended up with an engine of extraordinary performance for its time, containing many features utilized in much later important service engines. His weight per horsepower was not improved upon for many years."
Source: The Wright Brothers' Engines and Their Design, by Leonard S. Hobbs. The Project Gutenberg e-Book of The Wright Brothers' Engines and their Design; Author: Leonard S. Hobbs.
The text is a bit misleading but if you read it twice you will notice that it prizes, in fact, Manley's motor.
"Manly's task was to obtain what was for the time an inordinately light engine and, although the originally specified power was considerably greater than that of the Wrights, it was still reasonable even though Manly himself apparently increased it on the assumption that Langley would need more power than he thought. The cost and time required were very much greater than the Wrights expended. He ended up with an engine of extraordinary performance for its time, containing many features utilized in much later important service engines. His weight per horsepower was not improved upon for many years."
Source: The Wright Brothers' Engines and Their Design, by Leonard S. Hobbs. The Project Gutenberg e-Book of The Wright Brothers' Engines and their Design; Author: Leonard S. Hobbs.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, you miss the point while trying to support your own. Here are some other quotes the same author, Leonard S. Hobbs, in The Wright Brothers' Engines and Their Design:
The Wrights didn't want to wait to buy the world's best engine, didn’t try to build the world's best engine, and didn't try to obtain any engine patents.
I for the life of me cannot figure out why the hell you keep harping on the Wright engine as not being the best. The Wrights wanted fast delivery (built it themselves), smooth operation, and sufficient power. In essence, they understood that perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Wright flyer + Wright/Taylor engine >>> Langley “Aerodrome” + Manly engine
The Wrights no doubt realized that a specially designed, relatively high performance engine in very limited hand-built quantities would not only be an expensive purchased article but would also take considerable time to build, even under the most favorable circumstances.
***
The situations of Manly and the Wrights differed, however, in that whereas the Wrights' objective was certainly a technical performance considerably above the existing average, Manly's goal was that of something so far beyond this average as to have been considered by many impossible.
***
Overall, the Wright engines performed well, and in every case met or exceeded the existing requirements. Even though aircraft engines then were simpler than they became later and the design-development time much shorter, their performance stands as remarkable. As a result, the Wrights never lacked for a suitable powerplant despite the rapid growth in airplane size and performance, and the continual demand for increased power and endurance.
***
The situations of Manly and the Wrights differed, however, in that whereas the Wrights' objective was certainly a technical performance considerably above the existing average, Manly's goal was that of something so far beyond this average as to have been considered by many impossible.
***
Overall, the Wright engines performed well, and in every case met or exceeded the existing requirements. Even though aircraft engines then were simpler than they became later and the design-development time much shorter, their performance stands as remarkable. As a result, the Wrights never lacked for a suitable powerplant despite the rapid growth in airplane size and performance, and the continual demand for increased power and endurance.
I for the life of me cannot figure out why the hell you keep harping on the Wright engine as not being the best. The Wrights wanted fast delivery (built it themselves), smooth operation, and sufficient power. In essence, they understood that perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Wright flyer + Wright/Taylor engine >>> Langley “Aerodrome” + Manly engine
99Cruiser99 ( 11 posts)
The poster being the OP.
Cheerio
While I find the discussion of early developments in aviation very interesting, I can find no valuable contribution on the subject by this poster. If this behavior continues I for one will use the "Ignore" option.
Cheerio
Cheerio brai as well then
I'm sure the rest of us can manage to continue this discussion without you guys .
Thanks for your input.
I'm sure the rest of us can manage to continue this discussion without you guys .
Thanks for your input.
Last edited by Haraka; 27th Jun 2014 at 17:29.
Simplex.
Can you please post some of the Flyer photos which you believe are fake, doctored, re-touched or whatever they did back then. And maybe point out on the photo where and why you believe they're fake - you know, the shadow, perspective, background, that sorta thing.
which proves the Wright brothers were able or knew persons capable to fake pictures.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noyade, I believe he is busy helping these people out.
AntiGravity Tech in B2 - Defense Technology & Military Forum
After taking off conventionally, the B-2 has the option of switching to anti-gravity mode. It has been said that using it's anti-gravitic technology, the B-2 can fly around the world without refueling.
The F-117 stealth fighter also has hybrid propulsion and lift technologies which may be electro-gravitic systems. Utilizing conventional thrust for public take-offs and landings, switching to anti-gravity mode would allow an extended cruising range, lightning fast maneuverability, and for shrouding the airframe in invisibility (by having its local counter-gravity field bend light around the airframe)
The F-117 stealth fighter also has hybrid propulsion and lift technologies which may be electro-gravitic systems. Utilizing conventional thrust for public take-offs and landings, switching to anti-gravity mode would allow an extended cruising range, lightning fast maneuverability, and for shrouding the airframe in invisibility (by having its local counter-gravity field bend light around the airframe)
I doubt many people on here who actually know anything about aircraft design/aerodynamics were ever 'taken in' by the simplex bullshirt,some weeks ago a friend and i had noticed that 'simplex' did not post in the usual pattern,and that either 'simplex' never sleeps or there is more than 1 simplex.
Funnily enough my admiration for the Wrights achievements has increased since the start of this thread because I have had to research them to answer the rambling/bizarre cr@p that 'simplex' has been posting.
The more observant will have seen that I never took any of it seriously anyway.
So my friend has broken down some of 'his' posting times as follows.....
Funnily enough my admiration for the Wrights achievements has increased since the start of this thread because I have had to research them to answer the rambling/bizarre cr@p that 'simplex' has been posting.
The more observant will have seen that I never took any of it seriously anyway.
So my friend has broken down some of 'his' posting times as follows.....
1am - 6 posts * 2am - 1 post ( must be sleeping hour lol) * 3am - 3 posts * 4am - 4 posts * 5am - 6 posts * 6am - 7 posts *
7am - 4 posts * 8am - 13 posts * 9am- 3 posts * 10am - 6 posts * 11am - 3 posts * 12midday - 5 posts *
1pm - 2 posts * 2pm - 6 posts * 3pm - 5 posts * 4pm - 6 posts * 5pm - 11 posts * 6pm - 11 posts * 7pm - 4 posts *
8pm - 7 posts * 9pm - 8 posts * 10pm - 5 posts * 11pm - 7 posts * Midnight - 10 posts *
7am - 4 posts * 8am - 13 posts * 9am- 3 posts * 10am - 6 posts * 11am - 3 posts * 12midday - 5 posts *
1pm - 2 posts * 2pm - 6 posts * 3pm - 5 posts * 4pm - 6 posts * 5pm - 11 posts * 6pm - 11 posts * 7pm - 4 posts *
8pm - 7 posts * 9pm - 8 posts * 10pm - 5 posts * 11pm - 7 posts * Midnight - 10 posts *