The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Quote
There is no trace on the internet of a 40 HP, 120 pounds, 5 cylinders, ignition by compression (of any kind possible) engine working with kerosene, being able to run 1 week continuously and available in 1902, not even in 1910. Whitehead claimed he had used such an engine for his No. 22 plane in an Article that appeared on April 1, 1902 !!
There is no trace on the internet of lots of things we know existed, mainly because nothing appears there without someone taking the trouble to put it there.
e.g. what can you find of the work of Forest?
Equally, there is plenty on the (uncontrolled) internet that is self-serving misrepresentation, passed off as fact, which is nothing of the sort.
There is no trace on the internet of a 40 HP, 120 pounds, 5 cylinders, ignition by compression (of any kind possible) engine working with kerosene, being able to run 1 week continuously and available in 1902, not even in 1910. Whitehead claimed he had used such an engine for his No. 22 plane in an Article that appeared on April 1, 1902 !!
There is no trace on the internet of lots of things we know existed, mainly because nothing appears there without someone taking the trouble to put it there.
e.g. what can you find of the work of Forest?
Equally, there is plenty on the (uncontrolled) internet that is self-serving misrepresentation, passed off as fact, which is nothing of the sort.
However that is perhaps another discussion.
Hi Noyade,
It is indeed a very interesting subject and, in my opinion at least, worthy of discussion, your quote being a good start point.
Without wishing to contribute to thread drift ( and I'm now at a loss to see if there was any direction to this thread in the first place).
" For the impact of the Wright Brothers achievement on the rest of the world was seemingly lost on the American Government: indeed their schemes patriotically proffered, were officially dismissed as if they had been charlatans".
"..realise that the European continent at the nearest was several days' steaming away ,and that in the Pan-American Sphere the United States Army and Navy were the recognised dominant force: then we ourselves should ask, why should Uncle Sam spend money on Aeroplanes?
Not least of the factors to be considered,is the tenor of the times: as a Signal Corps officer once explained-' persons who desired to fly were looked upon as lacking something in their mentality'.
From 'United States Army and Air Force Fighters 1916-61 ( Harleyford) Ed. Bruce Robertson
It is indeed a very interesting subject and, in my opinion at least, worthy of discussion, your quote being a good start point.
Without wishing to contribute to thread drift ( and I'm now at a loss to see if there was any direction to this thread in the first place).
" For the impact of the Wright Brothers achievement on the rest of the world was seemingly lost on the American Government: indeed their schemes patriotically proffered, were officially dismissed as if they had been charlatans".
"..realise that the European continent at the nearest was several days' steaming away ,and that in the Pan-American Sphere the United States Army and Navy were the recognised dominant force: then we ourselves should ask, why should Uncle Sam spend money on Aeroplanes?
Not least of the factors to be considered,is the tenor of the times: as a Signal Corps officer once explained-' persons who desired to fly were looked upon as lacking something in their mentality'.
From 'United States Army and Air Force Fighters 1916-61 ( Harleyford) Ed. Bruce Robertson
Last edited by Haraka; 3rd Jun 2014 at 15:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again about Gustav Whitehead and his miraculous engines
Presenting his 1901, No. 21 plane in an October 1901 German article, Whitehead wrote the 30 HP acetylene engine, that equipped the plane, weighed 2 pounds per horsepower. In comparison the 1903, 52 HP Manly–Balzer engine, that powered Langley's airplane, weighed 2.61 pounds/HP.
see: http://www.flyingmachines.org/Whiteh...O183CFGray.pdf and Manly?Balzer engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The motor for No. 21 was considerably lighter per HP than the Manly–Balzer engine which hold the record in weight per horsepower for many years.
There are also other more flagrant contradictions in the German article. Whitehead talks about three engines: 10, 20 and 30 HP. At one moment he claimed his 30 HP engine needed 60 pounds of fuel to run for 6 hours. In the end of the text he states that, during a test, his engine had run at full power with 10 pounds of fuel for the entire day. 10 pounds would have been enough just for 1 hour! and maxim 3 hours if he referred to the 10 HP engine.
Presenting his 1901, No. 21 plane in an October 1901 German article, Whitehead wrote the 30 HP acetylene engine, that equipped the plane, weighed 2 pounds per horsepower. In comparison the 1903, 52 HP Manly–Balzer engine, that powered Langley's airplane, weighed 2.61 pounds/HP.
see: http://www.flyingmachines.org/Whiteh...O183CFGray.pdf and Manly?Balzer engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The motor for No. 21 was considerably lighter per HP than the Manly–Balzer engine which hold the record in weight per horsepower for many years.
There are also other more flagrant contradictions in the German article. Whitehead talks about three engines: 10, 20 and 30 HP. At one moment he claimed his 30 HP engine needed 60 pounds of fuel to run for 6 hours. In the end of the text he states that, during a test, his engine had run at full power with 10 pounds of fuel for the entire day. 10 pounds would have been enough just for 1 hour! and maxim 3 hours if he referred to the 10 HP engine.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: California
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane's All the World Aircraft's Decision
Jane's All-the-World-Aircraft, decidedly "the world authority" on aviation history, has determined, based on mountains of evidence, that Gustave Whitehead did make powered flights in 1901 and others pre-1903, and thus, is first in powered flight, well ahead of the Wrights. Others may have their unsubstantiated opinions, but this is a fact, as of March, 2013. I agree that the Wrights are NOT on any official record as making a bona fide powered flight taking off from level ground and landing at the same elevation, flying under their own power (vs. "soaring" or "gliding", requiring a 22 mph headwind), and landing without damage. This, Gustave Whitehead DID accomplish, according to 18 witnesses, most on record with affidavits, before the Wrights "fly date" of Dec. 17, 1903. In addition, we have 27 witnesses who saw Whitehead fly up through 1911, except for one, these were up through 1908, and these are on the official record, many with affidavits, interviewed by credible researchers. So if the true flight date of the Wrights is 1908, based on witness statements, Whitehead surpassed them. It depends upon what you are crediting as first. First to make a powered flight carrying a man? First to make a sustained, powered flight? First to make a sustained, powered flight from and landing on level ground, under its own power? First to make the latter under still wind? The criteria counts. But what Orville is now credited with is absolutely wrong. It wasn't a successful flight, nor was it sustained or under its own power, nor, arguably, from and landing on level ground. Accepting Orville's version is unacceptable, he had a massive conflict of interest in wanting fame. The Scientific American solicited responses to a questionnaire concerning the Wrights' flights, to date, in (approx) March, 1906. They received responses from ten "witnesses" of 17. The responses received were only for flights made in 1905, not 1903, or prior to 1905. This is described in a Scientific American article, you can read it for yourselves - it is very interesting. Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906) . Note in that article it credits the Wrights as being first to fly long distances carrying a man, which is far different than crediting Orville Wright for flying 120 feet in 1903, when he actually had an out-of-control plane that nose-dived into the sands of Kitty Hawk, and was not considered a successful flight until he later engineered this, as did his executors with the Smithsonian. We must not assume. We must examine evidence. There it is. Gustave Whitehead First to Fly.
Last edited by GWFirstinFlight; 3rd Jun 2014 at 19:15. Reason: addiing more detail, made a correction also
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to point out that the first use of miliary airplanes was by the USA against pancho villa.
remember too that the european powers were at war from 1914 and the USA didn't join the fight till 1917.
And by 1919 the first transatlantic flight was by a US Navy flying boat.
So don't be blaming the Wrights for progress.
in 1910, the first plane to takeoff from a ship was in the USA
in 1911 the first plane to land on a ship was in the USA.
so far this whole thread has taught me there are people I really don't like on PPrune and they really don't know too much.
remember too that the european powers were at war from 1914 and the USA didn't join the fight till 1917.
And by 1919 the first transatlantic flight was by a US Navy flying boat.
So don't be blaming the Wrights for progress.
in 1910, the first plane to takeoff from a ship was in the USA
in 1911 the first plane to land on a ship was in the USA.
so far this whole thread has taught me there are people I really don't like on PPrune and they really don't know too much.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@glendalegoon
Well, we can agree on that.
so far this whole thread has taught me there are people I really don't like on PPRuNe and they really don't know too much.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the years leading up to ww1, the US was not prepared on many items including but not limited to airplanes.
we didn't have enough rifles for our army
and many men , called to duty, were lacking in essential nutrition including vitamins and were not fit for duty.
wow, this thread is a waste.
we didn't have enough rifles for our army
and many men , called to duty, were lacking in essential nutrition including vitamins and were not fit for duty.
wow, this thread is a waste.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article "The Wright Aeroplane and its Performances", Scientific American, April 7, 1906, pag. 291-292 mentions a single witness name, out of 11 alleged witnesses that answered the letters addressed to them.
see: Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906)
This witness is Charles Webbert who was identified as having a niece named Henrietta Webbert who was the whife of Charlie Taylor the mechanic who allegedly built the 1903 engine that powered the first plane built by the Wright brothers.
see: The Dayton Flight Factory: The Wright Brothers and the Birth of Aviation - Timothy R. Gaffney - Google C?r?i
The witness is highly suspicious and also his letter brought nothing new. He wrote there things told before by the Wright brothers.
Same witness is quoted 1 year latter, in 1907, as saying:
""I wish I could control my automobile as well as Orville Wright managed his flying machine." said Mr. Webbert."
Source: "Fly Over St. Louis at 50 Miles an Hour", Apr. 21, 1907, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-65
It looks like Webbert acted as an advertiser of the two brothers.
see: Scientific American Volume 94 Number 14 (April 1906)
This witness is Charles Webbert who was identified as having a niece named Henrietta Webbert who was the whife of Charlie Taylor the mechanic who allegedly built the 1903 engine that powered the first plane built by the Wright brothers.
see: The Dayton Flight Factory: The Wright Brothers and the Birth of Aviation - Timothy R. Gaffney - Google C?r?i
The witness is highly suspicious and also his letter brought nothing new. He wrote there things told before by the Wright brothers.
Same witness is quoted 1 year latter, in 1907, as saying:
""I wish I could control my automobile as well as Orville Wright managed his flying machine." said Mr. Webbert."
Source: "Fly Over St. Louis at 50 Miles an Hour", Apr. 21, 1907, http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.05001/#seq-65
It looks like Webbert acted as an advertiser of the two brothers.
Last edited by simplex1; 4th Jun 2014 at 05:33.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@simplex1
Please. What is it that you are saying? What is your account of the first steps in powered controlled piloted flight? If the Wrights weren't "flying" in 1903, was anyone else?
It is really easy to find doubts about individual bits of evidence, and even documentary evidence is subject to bias, and the FAI definition of flight, by essentially requiring wheels, could be seen as being designed to exclude the Wrights.
So, what really happened? Or is the evidence so strong against any candidate that nobody was the first to fly? (Which is a possibility.)
Please. What is it that you are saying? What is your account of the first steps in powered controlled piloted flight? If the Wrights weren't "flying" in 1903, was anyone else?
It is really easy to find doubts about individual bits of evidence, and even documentary evidence is subject to bias, and the FAI definition of flight, by essentially requiring wheels, could be seen as being designed to exclude the Wrights.
So, what really happened? Or is the evidence so strong against any candidate that nobody was the first to fly? (Which is a possibility.)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mentions a single witness name, out of 11 alleged witnesses that answered the letters addressed to them.......The witness is highly suspicious and also his letter brought nothing new. He wrote there things told before by the Wright brothers.....It looks like Webbert acted as an advertiser of the two brothers
The full list of observers who had seen the Wrights fly prior to 12 March, 1906.
Mr. E. W. Ellis, Assistant Auditor of the City of Dayton.
Mr. Torrence Huffman, President of the Fourth National Bank.
Mr. C. S. Blllman. Secretary of the West Side Building Association.
Mr. Henry Webbert
Mr. W. H. Shank
Mr. William Fouts
Mr. Frank Hamburger
Mr. Charles Webbert
Mr. Howard M. Myers
Mr. Bernard H. Lambers
Mr. William Webbert
M.r. Reuben Schindler
Mr. William Weber
All the above of Dayton, Ohio
Mr. 0. F. Jamieson, East Germantown, Ind.
Mr. Theodore Waddell, Census Department, Washlington., D. C.
Mr. David Beard, Osborn, Ohio.
Mr. Amos Stauffer, Osborn. Ohio
the FAI definition of flight
Charlie Taylor the mechanic who allegedly built the 1903 engine
In 1901 Taylor started working at Wright Cycle Co. repairing bikes and minding the store. With the Wright Brothers working on a flying machine, they needed an engine and Taylor said he could do it. And he did.
With the machinery that was in the bike shop he succeeded in creating an engine that met specifications and performed in a period of six weeks. The shop contained a 26-inch Crescent band saw, 20-inch Barnes drill press, 14-inch Putnam lathe, 6-inch double end bench grinder, stationary natural gas combustion engine, and a wind tunnel. And on Dec. 17, 1903 history was made with the first powered flight.
Taylor worked with the Wright Brothers on many projects, upgrading engines and fixing the planes after flight testing. With the need to be closer to Dayton for making improvements to their aircraft and the subsequent testing, the Wright Brothers had access to 100 acres of prairie a few miles away. Named Huffman Prairie, Taylor had the new task of airport manager and building a shed (hangar) to assemble and maintain the Flyer II (1904). After the Wrights had a contract with the Army, Taylor helped to develop the engine for the first military plane in 1907.
With the machinery that was in the bike shop he succeeded in creating an engine that met specifications and performed in a period of six weeks. The shop contained a 26-inch Crescent band saw, 20-inch Barnes drill press, 14-inch Putnam lathe, 6-inch double end bench grinder, stationary natural gas combustion engine, and a wind tunnel. And on Dec. 17, 1903 history was made with the first powered flight.
Taylor worked with the Wright Brothers on many projects, upgrading engines and fixing the planes after flight testing. With the need to be closer to Dayton for making improvements to their aircraft and the subsequent testing, the Wright Brothers had access to 100 acres of prairie a few miles away. Named Huffman Prairie, Taylor had the new task of airport manager and building a shed (hangar) to assemble and maintain the Flyer II (1904). After the Wrights had a contract with the Army, Taylor helped to develop the engine for the first military plane in 1907.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have already presented the impossible case of Charlie Taylor.
see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8494418
This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.
Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.
see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8494418
This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.
Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.
I would like to point out that the first use of miliary airplanes was by the USA against pancho villa.
remember too that the european powers were at war from 1914 and the USA didn't join the fight till 1917.
And by 1919 the first transatlantic flight was by a US Navy flying boat.
So don't be blaming the Wrights for progress.
in 1910, the first plane to takeoff from a ship was in the USA
in 1911 the first plane to land on a ship was in the USA.
so far this whole thread has taught me there are people I really don't like on PPrune and they really don't know too much.
remember too that the european powers were at war from 1914 and the USA didn't join the fight till 1917.
And by 1919 the first transatlantic flight was by a US Navy flying boat.
So don't be blaming the Wrights for progress.
in 1910, the first plane to takeoff from a ship was in the USA
in 1911 the first plane to land on a ship was in the USA.
so far this whole thread has taught me there are people I really don't like on PPrune and they really don't know too much.
Also the Brits were the first to take off and land on a vessel that was underway. And also the Brits were the first to fly non stop across the Atlantic. The USA has done great things but credit is also due to the French, Italians, Brits and others. Even us Ozzies had Lawrence Hargrave who invented the Box Kite in 1893 and flew it to 5m altitude the following year!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After an exchange of letters with the US War Department, the Wright brothers received a clear answer to their attempt to take money from the US government and deliver a plane only after that:
The US Board of Ordnance and Fortification met on October 24 and decided as follows:
"That Messrs. Wright be informed that the Board does not care to formulate any requirements for the performance of a flying machine or take any further action on the subject until a machine is produced which by actual operation is shown to be able to produce horizontal flight and to carry an operator."
Source: Analysis--The True Story of the Wright Brothers Contract
The US War Department wanted to see the most basic horizontal flight possible before taking any further action. The reaction of the US officials was normal as long as no reliable known witness had ever seen a man carrying plane flying.
The US Board of Ordnance and Fortification met on October 24 and decided as follows:
"That Messrs. Wright be informed that the Board does not care to formulate any requirements for the performance of a flying machine or take any further action on the subject until a machine is produced which by actual operation is shown to be able to produce horizontal flight and to carry an operator."
Source: Analysis--The True Story of the Wright Brothers Contract
The US War Department wanted to see the most basic horizontal flight possible before taking any further action. The reaction of the US officials was normal as long as no reliable known witness had ever seen a man carrying plane flying.
I have already presented the impossible case of Charlie Taylor.
see: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.
Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.
I have already presented the impossible case of Charlie Taylor.
see: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.
Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.
see: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.
Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.
I have already presented the impossible case of Charlie Taylor.see: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
This mechanic simply did not have the knowledge and experience to build an internal combustion engine, a motor that could not be found on the market in 1903.
Add to this the fact the 1903 engine has not survived. Its existence is just a claim. What is presented now as the 1903 motor is a latter alleged reconstruction of the original, same as the 1903 Flyer itself.
You have not proved anything so far except perhaps something about your own character -
G'day Chris.
Well, I think ya right mate. And since Simplex appears to be unable to answer a simple question posed by longer ron, "If not the Wrights, then who?", then it must be time for thread drift?
I believe the Pancho Villa affair occurred in 1916, and it didn't go well for the USA?...
Happy to be proved wrong though.
I believe the Pancho Villa affair occurred in 1916, and it didn't go well for the USA?...
Last edited by Noyade; 4th Jun 2014 at 09:36. Reason: Wine and listening to the Angels. RIP.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And since Simplex appears to be unable to answer a simple question posed by longer ron, "If not the Wrights, then who?"
Very Earliest Early Birds
If the Wright brothers flew in 1908 as Alpheus Drinkwater said in 1951 than there are clear names of people who flew before the two US inventors.