The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wright brothers plane was highly suspicious according to the Scientific American from Nov. 3, 1906
In an article dedicated to the flight performed by Santos Dumont on Oct. 23, 1906, the Scientific American rose a question regarding the credibility of the 1905 Wright's plane which was miraculously capable to fly at 38 mph (significantly faster than the Brazilian's machine that did not go over 25 mph) being twice as heavy as Santos' plane and using half the power.
"In comparing the results of Santos Dumont’s experiment with those which the Wright brothers claim to have attained, there is one striking fact, viz., the young Brazilian, although having an apparatus of the same general type as that used by the American experimenters, but of about one-half its weight, found that a 50-horse-power motor was necessary to drive his flier up into the air and forward through it at a speed of 25 miles per hour; while the Wrights, with a machine of twice the weight and half the power, claim to have made nearly double the speed (38 miles per hour). In the experiment just described, Santos Dumont‘s machine lifted only about 10 pounds to the horse-power, while the Wright brothers’ aeroplane, it is claimed, lifted 60"
Surce: "Successful Flight of Santos Dumont's Aeropane", Scientific American, Volume 95, Number 18, pag. 318-319, Nov. 3, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/santos
In an article dedicated to the flight performed by Santos Dumont on Oct. 23, 1906, the Scientific American rose a question regarding the credibility of the 1905 Wright's plane which was miraculously capable to fly at 38 mph (significantly faster than the Brazilian's machine that did not go over 25 mph) being twice as heavy as Santos' plane and using half the power.
"In comparing the results of Santos Dumont’s experiment with those which the Wright brothers claim to have attained, there is one striking fact, viz., the young Brazilian, although having an apparatus of the same general type as that used by the American experimenters, but of about one-half its weight, found that a 50-horse-power motor was necessary to drive his flier up into the air and forward through it at a speed of 25 miles per hour; while the Wrights, with a machine of twice the weight and half the power, claim to have made nearly double the speed (38 miles per hour). In the experiment just described, Santos Dumont‘s machine lifted only about 10 pounds to the horse-power, while the Wright brothers’ aeroplane, it is claimed, lifted 60"
Surce: "Successful Flight of Santos Dumont's Aeropane", Scientific American, Volume 95, Number 18, pag. 318-319, Nov. 3, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/santos
Last edited by simplex1; 11th Jun 2014 at 19:06.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wright brothers plane was highly suspicious according to the Scientific American from Nov. 3, 1906
In an article dedicated to the flight performed by Santos Dumont on Oct. 23, 1906, the Scientific American rose a question regarding the credibility of the 1905 Wright's plane which was miraculously capable to fly at 38 mph (significantly faster than the Brazilian's machine that did not go over 25 mph) using a plane twice as heavy and powered by an engine having half the power of that utilized by Santos.
"In comparing the results of Santos Dumont’s experiment with those which the Wright brothers claim to have attained, there is one striking fact, viz., the young Brazilian, although having an apparatus of the same general type as that used by the American experimenters, but of about one-half its weight, found that a 50-horse-power motor was necessary to drive his flier up into the air and forward through it at a speed of 25 miles per hour; while the Wrights, with a machine of twice the Weight and half the power, claim to have made nearly double the speed (38 miles per hour). In the experiment just described, Santos Dumont‘s machine lifted only about 10 pounds to the horse-power, while the Wright brothers’ aeroplane, it is claimed, lifted 60"
Surce: "Successful Flight of Santos Dumont's Aeropane", Scientific American, Volume 95, Number 18, pag. 318-319, Nov. 3, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/santos
In an article dedicated to the flight performed by Santos Dumont on Oct. 23, 1906, the Scientific American rose a question regarding the credibility of the 1905 Wright's plane which was miraculously capable to fly at 38 mph (significantly faster than the Brazilian's machine that did not go over 25 mph) using a plane twice as heavy and powered by an engine having half the power of that utilized by Santos.
"In comparing the results of Santos Dumont’s experiment with those which the Wright brothers claim to have attained, there is one striking fact, viz., the young Brazilian, although having an apparatus of the same general type as that used by the American experimenters, but of about one-half its weight, found that a 50-horse-power motor was necessary to drive his flier up into the air and forward through it at a speed of 25 miles per hour; while the Wrights, with a machine of twice the Weight and half the power, claim to have made nearly double the speed (38 miles per hour). In the experiment just described, Santos Dumont‘s machine lifted only about 10 pounds to the horse-power, while the Wright brothers’ aeroplane, it is claimed, lifted 60"
Surce: "Successful Flight of Santos Dumont's Aeropane", Scientific American, Volume 95, Number 18, pag. 318-319, Nov. 3, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/santos
I find it amazing that Jane's All the World Aircraft (the bible of aviation history) could issue its (accurate) findings that Gustave Whitehead of CT was inventor of the first successful airplane
Anybody who believes that No 21 or 22 (can never remember which !) actually flew for 7 miles is extremely naive
I could not sum it up better than The Aviation Historian...
Sorry if it looks a little disjointed but it is a direct copy from a magazine page and i have not amended it ---and of course does not include the mentioned photos...
Enter Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft. If you are still with me, then congratulations; and I expect you are asking why on earth TAH is devoting several pages to the highly questionable theory that Mr Brown is promoting.
The sole reason is that, extraordinarily, Paul Jackson, the editor of the Development & Production component of Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft (JAWA) — that long-established bible of aviation reference (albeit not aviation history reference) — chose, in March this year, in the foreword to its milestone 100th edition, to place his reputation and that of Jane’s on the line by (a) summarising Brown’s research, (b) describing it as “meticulous”, and (c) accepting it as fact, concluding with the snappy slogan “The Wrights were right, but Whitehead was ahead”. This endorsement of bad pseudo history in a normally highly-respected aviation publication simply must not, in TAH’s view, be allowed to go unchallenged.
In fairness to Mr Jackson, we all make mistakes. I speak from experience, as an aviation-history journalist and editor of 30 years’ standing. Sometimes, those of us who write or edit will end up committing those mistakes (through error or misjudgment) to print, where they squat indelibly
upon the page forever. From this unassailable position they glare at us balefully, making us squirm every time they catch our mind’s eye.
This usually makes us very keen indeed to avoid making further such mistakes.
The sole reason is that, extraordinarily, Paul Jackson, the editor of the Development & Production component of Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft (JAWA) — that long-established bible of aviation reference (albeit not aviation history reference) — chose, in March this year, in the foreword to its milestone 100th edition, to place his reputation and that of Jane’s on the line by (a) summarising Brown’s research, (b) describing it as “meticulous”, and (c) accepting it as fact, concluding with the snappy slogan “The Wrights were right, but Whitehead was ahead”. This endorsement of bad pseudo history in a normally highly-respected aviation publication simply must not, in TAH’s view, be allowed to go unchallenged.
In fairness to Mr Jackson, we all make mistakes. I speak from experience, as an aviation-history journalist and editor of 30 years’ standing. Sometimes, those of us who write or edit will end up committing those mistakes (through error or misjudgment) to print, where they squat indelibly
upon the page forever. From this unassailable position they glare at us balefully, making us squirm every time they catch our mind’s eye.
This usually makes us very keen indeed to avoid making further such mistakes.
Last edited by longer ron; 11th Jun 2014 at 19:49.
I love a little Irony Simplex
I am a simple aircraft engineer - not an IT expert LOL
I do not sit at a computer all day - and I have no idea how to reformat the text...
It is easy to interpret the point of the article anyway
Edit
OK Simplex - I have removed the picture references - hope that helps
I am a simple aircraft engineer - not an IT expert LOL
I do not sit at a computer all day - and I have no idea how to reformat the text...
It is easy to interpret the point of the article anyway
Edit
OK Simplex - I have removed the picture references - hope that helps
Last edited by longer ron; 11th Jun 2014 at 19:52. Reason: tidying up earlier post
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just looked up "JANES all the worlds aircraft" on wikipedia and NOWHERE does it say it is the BIBLE of aviation history.
There are many sources of history. One may even want to watch the film, "the man who shot liberty valance" for my view on some written histories.
So just because JANES says anything about gustave whitehead doesn't mean anything. Hear THIS GWFIRSTINFLIGHT?
DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH of gustav's flight? Not an artist's conception or drawing!
Have you seen what CNN says about MH370? Does that make it so? ISN'T CNN THE BIBLE OF NEWS? (kidding here for emphasis)
I'm new to this thread. I've read it and wonder what proof would make simplex1 happy to admit the Wrights flew and did what many of us believe they did.
I know! Lets fund a time machine, and go back and look around connecticut for gustav's plane, and then go down to north carolina and take a look on Dec 17, 1903. (which is six years prior to JANES first plane book)
Science! Remember when science said there were canals on mars? And it turned out to be an error in translation from the italian word for lines, canali (sorry for spelling if i am wrong).
I guess you should all believe what you want. Me, THE WRIGHT BROTHERS impress the hell out of me. The others, don't. I also see the Wrights being honored by many people. Many more than those honoring the others. And they were alive at the time of the first flight by the wrights, not some editor 100 years later looking at reports of others flying.
Some guy indicated a plane shouldn't be considered for the award of being a plane if it flew with a headwind.
Maybe you should tell it to the USNavy and the USMC? They usually (aboard ship anyway) takeoff into a head wind.
There are many sources of history. One may even want to watch the film, "the man who shot liberty valance" for my view on some written histories.
So just because JANES says anything about gustave whitehead doesn't mean anything. Hear THIS GWFIRSTINFLIGHT?
DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH of gustav's flight? Not an artist's conception or drawing!
Have you seen what CNN says about MH370? Does that make it so? ISN'T CNN THE BIBLE OF NEWS? (kidding here for emphasis)
I'm new to this thread. I've read it and wonder what proof would make simplex1 happy to admit the Wrights flew and did what many of us believe they did.
I know! Lets fund a time machine, and go back and look around connecticut for gustav's plane, and then go down to north carolina and take a look on Dec 17, 1903. (which is six years prior to JANES first plane book)
Science! Remember when science said there were canals on mars? And it turned out to be an error in translation from the italian word for lines, canali (sorry for spelling if i am wrong).
I guess you should all believe what you want. Me, THE WRIGHT BROTHERS impress the hell out of me. The others, don't. I also see the Wrights being honored by many people. Many more than those honoring the others. And they were alive at the time of the first flight by the wrights, not some editor 100 years later looking at reports of others flying.
Some guy indicated a plane shouldn't be considered for the award of being a plane if it flew with a headwind.
Maybe you should tell it to the USNavy and the USMC? They usually (aboard ship anyway) takeoff into a head wind.
Last edited by jondc9; 11th Jun 2014 at 20:21.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good lord people. These various events occurred more than a century ago, and history has already been written.
It’s nonsense to believe that you’re in a better position than were the percipient witnesses and motivated skeptics who were alive at the time. The motivated skeptics from that era include at least journalists and competitors. You cannot overturn history by cherry picking quotes from the internet at this late date, grossly misconstruing them, and then daftly proclaim a new ranking as to historic significance.
However, for reasons I fail to understand, I'm sure you'll continue trying.
It’s nonsense to believe that you’re in a better position than were the percipient witnesses and motivated skeptics who were alive at the time. The motivated skeptics from that era include at least journalists and competitors. You cannot overturn history by cherry picking quotes from the internet at this late date, grossly misconstruing them, and then daftly proclaim a new ranking as to historic significance.
However, for reasons I fail to understand, I'm sure you'll continue trying.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JANES (plane) came out first in 1909.
IF JANES is so smart, how come they didn't crown gustave whitehead king pilot then? Waiting 100 years proves they didn't do their job way back when.
And how come gustave whitehead didn't come to france to fly like the wrights!
IF JANES is so smart, how come they didn't crown gustave whitehead king pilot then? Waiting 100 years proves they didn't do their job way back when.
And how come gustave whitehead didn't come to france to fly like the wrights!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard Pearse - He claimed in Nov. 1909 in front of a journalist, who saw his plane and published an article, that he had flown one week before. No credible witness has ever seen Pearse flying.
Gustav Whitehead - There are many articles about him, at least one of them, published on Apr. 1, 1902, shows pictures with a plane having two propellers. Whitehead made some incredible claims regarding the characteristics of the engines (extremely light and powerful) he had used and the length and durations of his first flights made with two planes in 1901 and 1902. No credible witness has ever seen Whitehead flying a powered plane.
Wright Brothers - They claimed spectacular flights in 1903, 1904 and 1905. However, they refused to be witnessed by credible people or to publish pictures or drawings of their planes till Aug. 8, 1908. After that date they have been seen flying and established many records.
Hiram Maxim - All four rear wheels of his huge plane left the rails where they rolled, during a test in 1894. Maxim himself was not sure 100% whether there had been an interval of time when all the for main wheels of his machine had been in the air simultaneously. His flight also does not have official witnesses.
Clement Ader - His plane was seen in 1897 by two officials, from the War Department, repeatedly leaving the ground with one wheel.
Gustav Whitehead - There are many articles about him, at least one of them, published on Apr. 1, 1902, shows pictures with a plane having two propellers. Whitehead made some incredible claims regarding the characteristics of the engines (extremely light and powerful) he had used and the length and durations of his first flights made with two planes in 1901 and 1902. No credible witness has ever seen Whitehead flying a powered plane.
Wright Brothers - They claimed spectacular flights in 1903, 1904 and 1905. However, they refused to be witnessed by credible people or to publish pictures or drawings of their planes till Aug. 8, 1908. After that date they have been seen flying and established many records.
Hiram Maxim - All four rear wheels of his huge plane left the rails where they rolled, during a test in 1894. Maxim himself was not sure 100% whether there had been an interval of time when all the for main wheels of his machine had been in the air simultaneously. His flight also does not have official witnesses.
Clement Ader - His plane was seen in 1897 by two officials, from the War Department, repeatedly leaving the ground with one wheel.
Last edited by simplex1; 11th Jun 2014 at 23:22.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try to arrange the text, and put it in a more intelligible format, if you really want your comments be read.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wright Brothers - They claimed spectacular flights in 1903, 1904 and 1905. However, they refused to be witnessed by credible people or to publish pictures or drawings of their planes till Aug. 8, 1908. After that date they have been seen flying and established many records.
The Wright Brothers photographs
including dozens from 1903, 1904, and 1905:
1903 Wright Powered Flight Photographs
1904 Wright Powered Flight Photographs
1905 Wright Powered Flight Photographs
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
contrary to some belief, this is not simplex1's first attempt at flight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BepyTSzueno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BepyTSzueno
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Simplex" says (emphasis added) - 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.
If only the Wright brothers had know of Simplex1's rules.
Last edited by eetrojan; 12th Jun 2014 at 06:03.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This chart is somewhat interesting too:
Excerpt re chart:
The Tale of the Airplane
Excerpt re chart:
The blue points in Figure 1 depict the progress made during the period 1894 to 1905. Although an occasional craft flew farther than 100 meters (about the length of a football field), this level of performance was exceptional. Unfortunately, inventors at the time were unable to capitalize on their success. Often times a new generation craft did not perform as well as its predecessor. Thus, the blue regression line in Figure 1 is essentially flat. This tendency is usually true for individual inventors as well as the field as a whole.
Against this backdrop, we see the Wright brothers efforts to develop an airplane, plotted in green on Figure 1. The Wrights first craft in 1900 was approximately equal to the best that had been done prior to that time. They made steady progress in 1901 and 1902. The 1902 glider was the first truly effective heavier-than-air craft. In 1903 the Wrights created their first powered craft, which successfully flew on December 17, 1903. More capable airplanes were developed in 1904 and 1905, which culminated in their stunning European and American flights in 1908.
Against this backdrop, we see the Wright brothers efforts to develop an airplane, plotted in green on Figure 1. The Wrights first craft in 1900 was approximately equal to the best that had been done prior to that time. They made steady progress in 1901 and 1902. The 1902 glider was the first truly effective heavier-than-air craft. In 1903 the Wrights created their first powered craft, which successfully flew on December 17, 1903. More capable airplanes were developed in 1904 and 1905, which culminated in their stunning European and American flights in 1908.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also enjoyed reading the the once private correspondence between the Wright brothers and Octave Chanute, retired engineer, author of "Progress in Flying Machines," and promoter of early heavier-than-air flying machines, spanning the years 1900 to 1910:
Digital Library by Sources
It's also from originals in the United States Library of Congress.
Too bad the Wrights didn't know about "the rules," i.e. that they should have invited Simplex1's journalistic ancestors to officially witness such communications for it all to count as historical evidence.
Digital Library by Sources
It's also from originals in the United States Library of Congress.
Too bad the Wrights didn't know about "the rules," i.e. that they should have invited Simplex1's journalistic ancestors to officially witness such communications for it all to count as historical evidence.
Simplex posted
You have mentioned this before Simplex...I have never seen a picture of a Wright aircraft with a propeller underneath - please do post one !
I have questioned this before -
How would you design a prop drive system using chains...one chain to the pusher prop,and then another chain with a 90 degree change of direction to underneath the aircraft ?
Also how would that underside prop be swung by hand to start the engine ?
And finally with this large prop under the aircraft - how would you mount it on a launching rail ?
Simple basic engineering questions Simplex - so please answer in a logical engineerinf fashion !
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.
I have questioned this before -
How would you design a prop drive system using chains...one chain to the pusher prop,and then another chain with a 90 degree change of direction to underneath the aircraft ?
Also how would that underside prop be swung by hand to start the engine ?
And finally with this large prop under the aircraft - how would you mount it on a launching rail ?
Simple basic engineering questions Simplex - so please answer in a logical engineerinf fashion !
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen here ( http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8518036 ) an interesting diagram with an explanation:
"Figure 1 above depicts the longest flights made by various aircraft in the period 1890 to 1909 ... red points represent non-Wright craft made from 1906 to 1909"
What plane (inventor) does the first red point in 1906 correspond to?
"Figure 1 above depicts the longest flights made by various aircraft in the period 1890 to 1909 ... red points represent non-Wright craft made from 1906 to 1909"
What plane (inventor) does the first red point in 1906 correspond to?