The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
I'm sure the rest of us can manage to continue this discussion without you guys
Actually Haraka most people have already left the 'discussion' LOL
I will miss this thread as it has been my entertainment for weeks
Youtube 2013 Interview with Jackson of Janes AWA and Brown the 'historian' - who obviously believes what he reads in newspapers LOL.
I watched this some weeks ago and came to the conclusion that Jackson never said anything stronger than 'could have' in support of the GW revisionists
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...D5t8tevVB8U3Ag
I watched this some weeks ago and came to the conclusion that Jackson never said anything stronger than 'could have' in support of the GW revisionists
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...D5t8tevVB8U3Ag
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.
longer ron
Like yourself , I've learned a lot during the rambling course of this thread and not just about the Wrights.
Joy ride I think has summed it up pretty well as we've been going along.
Something of substance might yet turn up ...........
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@longer ron (not forgetting your brother, shorter ron)
Me too. And I must say that, although I think we have been trolled, I have also learned a lot about the early history of powered flight, and the extent to which there was an inevitability about eventual success.
Did any of the other pioneers keep such meticulous records as the Wrights? I've asked this before, but it might have seemed to have been directed at OP.
I assume that a lot of the pioneers favoured a canard elevator in part because their machines were marginal. With a canard, if you want to climb, the elevator produces increased lift (if I have got this right, and thinking of early 20th c. circumstances, when they couldn't increase power at will). This looks a lot more logical and efficient than the alternative, and presumably indicates that even the Wrights weren't at first fully aware of how critical controllability, and positive stability, were for successful flight. Does this seem plausible?
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.
Did any of the other pioneers keep such meticulous records as the Wrights? I've asked this before, but it might have seemed to have been directed at OP.
I assume that a lot of the pioneers favoured a canard elevator in part because their machines were marginal. With a canard, if you want to climb, the elevator produces increased lift (if I have got this right, and thinking of early 20th c. circumstances, when they couldn't increase power at will). This looks a lot more logical and efficient than the alternative, and presumably indicates that even the Wrights weren't at first fully aware of how critical controllability, and positive stability, were for successful flight. Does this seem plausible?
@longer ron (not forgetting your brother, shorter ron)
Did any of the other pioneers keep such meticulous records as the Wrights? I've asked this before, but it might have seemed to have been directed at OP.
The work with gliders in Germany by the Lilienthal brothers, Otto and Gustav (1849-1933), was, arguably, the most important aerial effort prior to that of the Wright brothers, Wilbur and Orville. Otto Lilienthal's numerous flights, over 2,000 in number, demonstrated beyond question that unpowered human flight was possible, and that total control of an aerial device while aloft was within reach.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite Simplex's unique style of persuasion I have found this thread extremely interesting, and my respect for the Wrights has actually increased.
Partly this is because, as a self-employed craftsman, I find it amazing that from the proceeds of a bicycle business they managed to find so much spare time and so much money to purchase all the materials and tools needed, cameras, glass plates and film, chemicals etc.. We are used to the cheap prices of an international consumer market, many of their purchases would have been expensive, so hats off to them!
It seems to me that there was a lot of research and development long before the Wrights, with France being particularly credit-worthy in the development of "the plane", with UK (RAeS) and Germany also playing a huge part.
This led to the Lillienthal's making what I consider to be the most important individual steps in human flight, which showed the world that it really could be done.
Others around the world came up with control mechanisms and other refinements, and added knowledge and experience.
The next step was to add a motor. Everyone knew that steam engines had power-to-weight and efficiency problems and would have limited usefulness (with certain exceptions like Bessler).
When the Internal Combustion engine was developed (by several people and in several stages) it was clearly the right motor to achieve flight and it was obvious that flight would happen in the first decade of the 20th Century. The Wrights were not the only ones to see the potential. Even IC engines were not invented in a single "stroke"! For instance before Diesel invented the Diesel engine, Stuart invented the Diesel engine! Diesel refined Stuart's design and did not need pre-heating, so he has been universally credited as the inventor, but to me is is only part of the story; don't get me started on Mercedes Benz's dishonest claim to have "invented the car"!
My problem with the Wrights is that their supporters have tended to single them out for unquestioning and ill-informed adulation to the exclusion of other important pioneers. For instance, that University of Houston article (posted earlier) stating that the WBs certainly did "invent the airplane" is just plain WRONG ! Truly shocking that a University can publish a paper without even the most basic research into who invented the various parts of the aeroplane. This is the sort of simplistic hogwash that really annoys me, no matter who or where it comes from!
This obsession with "The First" is misguided and does not represent the reality of what was a continuous international process of development, invention, research and experimentation. Yes, someone was the first and probably it was the Wrights, but they were part of a process, not the whole process.
Partly this is because, as a self-employed craftsman, I find it amazing that from the proceeds of a bicycle business they managed to find so much spare time and so much money to purchase all the materials and tools needed, cameras, glass plates and film, chemicals etc.. We are used to the cheap prices of an international consumer market, many of their purchases would have been expensive, so hats off to them!
It seems to me that there was a lot of research and development long before the Wrights, with France being particularly credit-worthy in the development of "the plane", with UK (RAeS) and Germany also playing a huge part.
This led to the Lillienthal's making what I consider to be the most important individual steps in human flight, which showed the world that it really could be done.
Others around the world came up with control mechanisms and other refinements, and added knowledge and experience.
The next step was to add a motor. Everyone knew that steam engines had power-to-weight and efficiency problems and would have limited usefulness (with certain exceptions like Bessler).
When the Internal Combustion engine was developed (by several people and in several stages) it was clearly the right motor to achieve flight and it was obvious that flight would happen in the first decade of the 20th Century. The Wrights were not the only ones to see the potential. Even IC engines were not invented in a single "stroke"! For instance before Diesel invented the Diesel engine, Stuart invented the Diesel engine! Diesel refined Stuart's design and did not need pre-heating, so he has been universally credited as the inventor, but to me is is only part of the story; don't get me started on Mercedes Benz's dishonest claim to have "invented the car"!
My problem with the Wrights is that their supporters have tended to single them out for unquestioning and ill-informed adulation to the exclusion of other important pioneers. For instance, that University of Houston article (posted earlier) stating that the WBs certainly did "invent the airplane" is just plain WRONG ! Truly shocking that a University can publish a paper without even the most basic research into who invented the various parts of the aeroplane. This is the sort of simplistic hogwash that really annoys me, no matter who or where it comes from!
This obsession with "The First" is misguided and does not represent the reality of what was a continuous international process of development, invention, research and experimentation. Yes, someone was the first and probably it was the Wrights, but they were part of a process, not the whole process.
Despite Simplex's unique style of persuasion I have found this thread extremely interesting, and my respect for the Wrights has actually increased.
I have always viewed the 'How we invented the Airplane' title as purely a commercial decision - a book entitled 'How we did not invent the Airplane' probably would not have sold so well
- he was a businessman ! As I have said previously - the Wrights did not claim to be first at anything but they certainly were craftsmen and had to build most components etc from scratch at that time,the prop build was really impressive !
As a result of this thread, I am rereading some of my Wright material , including a series of articles by Dr. Richard P. Hallion.
I rather like his comment on the Wrights having " Taught the World to fly" as being perhaps better phrased as having "Taught the World to fly better".
I rather like his comment on the Wrights having " Taught the World to fly" as being perhaps better phrased as having "Taught the World to fly better".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a result of this thread, I am rereading some of my Wright material , including a series of articles by Dr. Richard P. Hallion.
I rather like his comment on the Wrights having " Taught the World to fly" as being perhaps better phrased as having "Taught the World to fly better".
I rather like his comment on the Wrights having " Taught the World to fly" as being perhaps better phrased as having "Taught the World to fly better".
I ask, how much did they actual teach the other pioneers? Obviously, they impressed in France, but were later developments dependent on knowledge gained by the Wrights, or were they rather a stimulus to the others to do better?
There are people here who could answer this question, I'm sure: it is a genuine question.
FP
I think that the Wrights certainly brought in direct roll control as a demonstrable contribution to controlled flight. Indeed their aircraft were initially unstable in all three axes, requiring continuous control input all round and consequently making them very demanding to fly ( in contrast to the established "European" stable aircraft approach).
I see an exchange of knowledge in 1908 following Wilbur's visit to France. Voisin/Farman type aircraft began to adopt direct roll control, whilst the Wrights for their part moved to the more European influenced "Headless " Wright aircraft with increased natural lateral stability ( dihedral ), the front elevator moved to the rear and the Centre of Gravity brought forward. Also the Wrights finally adopted a wheeled undercarriage, initially wheels on the skids then a "European " type assembly - all moves toward a more stable and practicable aircraft.
Already though ,from 1909 , the Antoinette and other directly driven tractor propellered aircraft, featuring ailerons, a control column, a covered fuselage, separate tailplane and elevator, were demonstrating successful configurations that were pointing the way to the future.
Indeed the final Wright aircraft (the "L") , incorporated all of these "European" features when it appeared in 1916 , but by then was hopelessly far behind aircraft in squadron service in Europe and failed to go in to production.
I think that the Wrights certainly brought in direct roll control as a demonstrable contribution to controlled flight. Indeed their aircraft were initially unstable in all three axes, requiring continuous control input all round and consequently making them very demanding to fly ( in contrast to the established "European" stable aircraft approach).
I see an exchange of knowledge in 1908 following Wilbur's visit to France. Voisin/Farman type aircraft began to adopt direct roll control, whilst the Wrights for their part moved to the more European influenced "Headless " Wright aircraft with increased natural lateral stability ( dihedral ), the front elevator moved to the rear and the Centre of Gravity brought forward. Also the Wrights finally adopted a wheeled undercarriage, initially wheels on the skids then a "European " type assembly - all moves toward a more stable and practicable aircraft.
Already though ,from 1909 , the Antoinette and other directly driven tractor propellered aircraft, featuring ailerons, a control column, a covered fuselage, separate tailplane and elevator, were demonstrating successful configurations that were pointing the way to the future.
Indeed the final Wright aircraft (the "L") , incorporated all of these "European" features when it appeared in 1916 , but by then was hopelessly far behind aircraft in squadron service in Europe and failed to go in to production.
Last edited by Haraka; 28th Jun 2014 at 16:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Email sent to Tom Crouch (senior curator, Aeronautics Department, National Air and Space Museum. A Smithsonian employee since 1974 and author of books and articles about the Wright brothers, see: Dr. Tom Crouch | National Air and Space Museum ) and the answer received from him.
"Dear sir,
There is a clear slope, going down in front of the 1903 Wright Flyer, that can be clearly noticed on the large size digitized copy (TIFF 17.2 MB) of the original negative ( [First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina] ). The fact the plane had been brought up on a hill, before the picture was taken, was confirmed also, by the witness who took the photo, in a 1933 letter to one of his friends.
This picture together with the 1933 letter of John T. Daniels and the 1951 declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater might prove the two brothers just made powered assisted glides on december 17, 1903.
See also the topic (it can be found using Google) The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew a powered plane, for the first time, in 1908, http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ew-1908-a.html
June 26, 2014"
Answer received from Tom Crouch:
Crouch Tom, [email protected], Jun 26
"You are wrong. They flew from the sand flats. Drinkwater was not there that morning. Look at the other two pictures taken that morning. This is so well documented that it is not worth arguing about.
Tom Crouch
Sent from my iPhone"
Basically, Tom Crouch is in denial!
"Dear sir,
There is a clear slope, going down in front of the 1903 Wright Flyer, that can be clearly noticed on the large size digitized copy (TIFF 17.2 MB) of the original negative ( [First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina] ). The fact the plane had been brought up on a hill, before the picture was taken, was confirmed also, by the witness who took the photo, in a 1933 letter to one of his friends.
This picture together with the 1933 letter of John T. Daniels and the 1951 declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater might prove the two brothers just made powered assisted glides on december 17, 1903.
See also the topic (it can be found using Google) The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew a powered plane, for the first time, in 1908, http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ew-1908-a.html
June 26, 2014"
Answer received from Tom Crouch:
Crouch Tom, [email protected], Jun 26
"You are wrong. They flew from the sand flats. Drinkwater was not there that morning. Look at the other two pictures taken that morning. This is so well documented that it is not worth arguing about.
Tom Crouch
Sent from my iPhone"
Basically, Tom Crouch is in denial!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom Crouch replies to the majority of people. Try to send him an email and you will get an answer from him.
Honestly I would have preferred him to study that picture ([First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina]) carefully and think about it instead of quickly answering, directly from his mobile phone (no urgent answer was needed), "You are wrong".
The picture of the "first flight" is not something that can be analyzed on the screen of a mobile phone.
Tom Crouch takes good money from the government of US, he earns a salary without doing anything excepting acting as the official lawyer of the Wright brothers. I am also not convinced Tom Crouch really believes the Wright brothers flew a powered plane in 1903, 1904 and 1905. He acts just as a well paid propagandist.
The story of the Wright brothers has so many holes, detectable in (all 1903 - 1907) primary sources, like: people seeing the Wright flyer flapping, witnesses declaring the plane was pushed by hand to help it take off, the plane displayed in newspapers with a propeller underneath, huge stability problems discovered by Fred Culick, etc., that no serious researcher, historian can draw the conclusion the two brothers flew a plane before 1908.
Honestly I would have preferred him to study that picture ([First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina]) carefully and think about it instead of quickly answering, directly from his mobile phone (no urgent answer was needed), "You are wrong".
The picture of the "first flight" is not something that can be analyzed on the screen of a mobile phone.
Tom Crouch takes good money from the government of US, he earns a salary without doing anything excepting acting as the official lawyer of the Wright brothers. I am also not convinced Tom Crouch really believes the Wright brothers flew a powered plane in 1903, 1904 and 1905. He acts just as a well paid propagandist.
The story of the Wright brothers has so many holes, detectable in (all 1903 - 1907) primary sources, like: people seeing the Wright flyer flapping, witnesses declaring the plane was pushed by hand to help it take off, the plane displayed in newspapers with a propeller underneath, huge stability problems discovered by Fred Culick, etc., that no serious researcher, historian can draw the conclusion the two brothers flew a plane before 1908.
Last edited by simplex1; 28th Jun 2014 at 17:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that a lot of the pioneers favoured a canard elevator in part because their machines were marginal. With a canard, if you want to climb, the elevator produces increased lift (if I have got this right, and thinking of early 20th c. circumstances, when they couldn't increase power at will). This looks a lot more logical and efficient than the alternative, and presumably indicates that even the Wrights weren't at first fully aware of how critical controllability, and positive stability, were for successful flight. Does this seem plausible?
It is not just a simple coincidence that the majority of planes do not have canard wings. Some early inventors and plane builders adopted in 1906, 1907 the canard wings likely under the influence of the noise made by the wright brothers regarding their 1902 glider. Most of them quickly dropped either the canard configuration or the pusher propeller.
Santos-Dumont renounced the canard wings in the beginning of 1907, Bleriot dropped them in spring 1907, even the Voisin brothers finally gave up canards.
Important disadvantages of canard wings:
- "if the canard is controllable and provides pitch control, it cannot be allowed to stall before the wing stalls. In order to accomplish this, normally the travel of the control surface is limited. This noticeably reduces effectiveness in the landing flare, requiring higher approach airspeeds and longer landing distances."
Source: Effect of CG , see also the pictures.
- "Finally, and perhaps most importantly, canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. By choosing a canard which is somewhat too big or too small the aircraft performance can be severely affected. It is easy to make a very bad canard design."
Source: Canard Advantages and Disadvantages
Last edited by simplex1; 28th Jun 2014 at 20:09.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still here, simplex1?
I should, perhaps, have said that the canard looked logical at first, despite the fact that a conventional tail-plane was the way forward, as we now know. They had to find that out, but a canard must have looked appealing for essentially independent workers like the Wrights and Santos Dumont both to choose it.
I should, perhaps, have said that the canard looked logical at first, despite the fact that a conventional tail-plane was the way forward, as we now know. They had to find that out, but a canard must have looked appealing for essentially independent workers like the Wrights and Santos Dumont both to choose it.
Honestly I would have preferred him to study that picture ([First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina]) carefully and think about it instead of quickly answering, directly from his mobile phone (no urgent answer was needed), "You are wrong"
But I am looking closely at the photos....
Now, with that famous one - do you believe the wings are parallel to the shoreline? Is that in fact the shoreline? Wave crests? A ship on the horizon?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Book "Aérostation, aviation", (Paris), 1914. A lot of tractor monoplanes and not so many canards.
see: Max de Nansouty, "Aérostation, aviation", Boivin (Paris), 1914,
- 1. Aérostation, aviation, par Max de Nansouty,...
- 2. Aérostation, aviation, par Max de Nansouty,...
see: Max de Nansouty, "Aérostation, aviation", Boivin (Paris), 1914,
- 1. Aérostation, aviation, par Max de Nansouty,...
- 2. Aérostation, aviation, par Max de Nansouty,...
Last edited by simplex1; 28th Jun 2014 at 23:45.