The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not agree much with Simplex1's methodology of argument and am admittedly a bit disappointed, as I thought he might just have been leading up to "pulling a rabbit out of a hat".
There are many arguments in history that have only been resolved long after the event . Who murdered the Polish officers in Katyn wood in WW2 and the physical reassessment now under way of "Crook-backed Dick" in the U.K. ( Richard III 1452-1485) being examples. New information, linked to new knowledqe and techniques, overturning previously established articles of faith, many based on suspect evidence.
Analysis is often a process of re evaluation with the derogatory "revisionist" epithet often being employed as a rearguard action by those with vested interests in maintaining the Status Quo... Galileo was a "revisionist" regarding the place of the earth. : without him and his ilk today many would still accept previously accepted dogma and argue vehemently in its defence. I offer no verdict, but refer to the arguments of the 'Creationists' ( mainly living in the land of the "airplane") as an ongoing example.
The evaluation of the Wrights themselves has been subject to official "revision" - the prime example being the Smithsonian affair.
The confusion between 3 axis and otherwise "controlled" light will linger on no doubt. I was amused by a recent correspondent justifying "human powered" controlled flight as being able to be flown a round a figure 8 and then quoting in justification a machine that flew under 2 axis control, in direct contradiction of his attempted 3-axis definition of "controlled flight" argument.
The Wrights made a huge contribution along the way in heavier-than-air flight. The use of roll control obviously greatly improves the degree of precision in controlled flight, but it is not essential and I suggest should should not be used as definition of such. .
Interestingly ,where would the Wrights have been without the previously ( European?) invented rudder and elevator? It's indeed fortunate for the progress of aviation in general that these devices weren't subject to restrictive patenting attempts.
There are many arguments in history that have only been resolved long after the event . Who murdered the Polish officers in Katyn wood in WW2 and the physical reassessment now under way of "Crook-backed Dick" in the U.K. ( Richard III 1452-1485) being examples. New information, linked to new knowledqe and techniques, overturning previously established articles of faith, many based on suspect evidence.
Analysis is often a process of re evaluation with the derogatory "revisionist" epithet often being employed as a rearguard action by those with vested interests in maintaining the Status Quo... Galileo was a "revisionist" regarding the place of the earth. : without him and his ilk today many would still accept previously accepted dogma and argue vehemently in its defence. I offer no verdict, but refer to the arguments of the 'Creationists' ( mainly living in the land of the "airplane") as an ongoing example.
The evaluation of the Wrights themselves has been subject to official "revision" - the prime example being the Smithsonian affair.
The confusion between 3 axis and otherwise "controlled" light will linger on no doubt. I was amused by a recent correspondent justifying "human powered" controlled flight as being able to be flown a round a figure 8 and then quoting in justification a machine that flew under 2 axis control, in direct contradiction of his attempted 3-axis definition of "controlled flight" argument.
The Wrights made a huge contribution along the way in heavier-than-air flight. The use of roll control obviously greatly improves the degree of precision in controlled flight, but it is not essential and I suggest should should not be used as definition of such. .
Interestingly ,where would the Wrights have been without the previously ( European?) invented rudder and elevator? It's indeed fortunate for the progress of aviation in general that these devices weren't subject to restrictive patenting attempts.
Galileo promoted evidence of a scientific fact that competed with non-scientific belief. Simplex’s frenetic effort to discredit the Wright brothers is based on crazy interpretations and willful disregard for competing evidence.
Simplex is a revisionist, and it seems, not a very good one. It’s vapid nonsense. I doubt that he believes it and suspect that he’s a troll.
His mindset is clear based on his repeated assertion that the Wrights should be labeled as liars because they don’t have any photos from their non-public developmental years, followed by his immediate dismissal of actual flight photographs from 1903, 1904,and 1905 based solely on a newspaper cartoon that he believes shows a downward facing propeller.
He speaks about "primary sources" but scours the net for hearsay.
I am pleased that he has zero affect on the world’s perceptions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all the pictures in newspapers show the Wrights' plane with a propeller underneath. There are examples (see the photo in Washington Times) when the plane appears quite similar to what the two brothers showed starting with Aug. 1908. However the plane in Washington Times does not correspond, if we analyze its details with care, to any of the 1903, 1904, 1905, or later, models.
"French Government Has Bought Up Airship of The Two Brothers of Ohio", The Washington Times., January 21, 1906, Page 10, The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, January 21, 1906, Page 10, Image 10 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
"The Wright Brother's aeroplane in flight"
The picture is a clear fake and the title of the article a lie because the French Government or somebody else in France had not bought anything from the Wrights in 1906 or before.
"French Government Has Bought Up Airship of The Two Brothers of Ohio", The Washington Times., January 21, 1906, Page 10, The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, January 21, 1906, Page 10, Image 10 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
"The Wright Brother's aeroplane in flight"
The picture is a clear fake and the title of the article a lie because the French Government or somebody else in France had not bought anything from the Wrights in 1906 or before.
Not all the pictures in newspapers show the Wrights' plane with a propeller underneath. There are examples (see the photo in Washington Times) when the plane appears quite similar to what the two brothers showed starting with Aug. 1908. However the plane in Washington Times does not correspond, if we analyze its details with care, to any of the 1903, 1904, 1905, or later, models.
It is a newspaper article,written by somebody who knows nothing about flying and with an 'artistic' picture LOL
Personally I am very bored with this now Simplex,your posts are bizarre to say the least...where are you going with this ??
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more articles from 1903, 1904 and 1906 showing the Wrights plane with a propeller underneath
1) "Airship That Flew in North Carolina and its Inventors", Sunady Tribune, Chicago, Dec. 20, 1903, Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (This is the most ridiculous!)
2) "The Machine That Flies", New York Herald, Jan. 17, 1904, Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress
3) "Claim Successful Aeroplane", The Muskogee cimeter., April 12, 1906, The Muskogee cimeter. (Muskogee, Indian Territory, Okla.) 1901-19??, April 12, 1906, Image 8 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
4) "Claim Successful Aeroplane", The Cook County herald., June 09, 1906, The Cook County herald. (Grand Marais, Minn.) 1893-1909, June 09, 1906, Image 4 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
5) "Have Cruised 160 Miles in Air Yachts", The Abbeville press and banner., July 04, 1906, The Abbeville press and banner. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, July 04, 1906, Image 7 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
1) "Airship That Flew in North Carolina and its Inventors", Sunady Tribune, Chicago, Dec. 20, 1903, Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress (This is the most ridiculous!)
2) "The Machine That Flies", New York Herald, Jan. 17, 1904, Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress
3) "Claim Successful Aeroplane", The Muskogee cimeter., April 12, 1906, The Muskogee cimeter. (Muskogee, Indian Territory, Okla.) 1901-19??, April 12, 1906, Image 8 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
4) "Claim Successful Aeroplane", The Cook County herald., June 09, 1906, The Cook County herald. (Grand Marais, Minn.) 1893-1909, June 09, 1906, Image 4 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
5) "Have Cruised 160 Miles in Air Yachts", The Abbeville press and banner., July 04, 1906, The Abbeville press and banner. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, July 04, 1906, Image 7 « Chronicling America « Library of Congress
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand your point. What should this mean to us? That the Wright's didn't publicly disclose their early flyer? We already know that to be true?
The headline only reference to the French government and the illustration of a plane that does not reveal the Wright's actual plane is consistent with the Wright's decision to initially develop in secrecy, and also with Scientific American from 7 April 1906, cited by you, which says:
The Scientific American article, not surprisingly, only showed photos of the Wright's glider.
The headline only reference to the French government and the illustration of a plane that does not reveal the Wright's actual plane is consistent with the Wright's decision to initially develop in secrecy, and also with Scientific American from 7 April 1906, cited by you, which says:
Owing to the fact that as soon as they had met with success the two brothers attempted to sell their machine to the French government for war purposes and that, having it unprotected as yet by patents, they did not wish to disclose anything about it, photographs or data of interest are not available for publication.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more articles from 1903, 1904 and 1906 showing the Wrights plane with a propeller underneath.
Perhaps the first illustrator believed that such a propeller was required and later illustrators followed the first one's lead. Perhaps the Wright's were happy to let the newspapers draw somewhat fanciful representations of the airplane, even guiding them to do so, so as to confuse and annoy the competition. Who knows?
The successful flights that the Wrights had in later years would lead one to conclude that they got there through success in earlier years - even if their efforts were not sufficiently public for your liking. Kind of like how the street being wet is evidence of it having rained.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of us understand his point eetrojan...bizarre or what ?
rgds LR
rgds LR
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story that the Wright brothers did not want to show their plane because they did not have a patent is a pure myth because:
1) The May 22, 1906 patent was for a glider not a powered airplane and offered no protection regarding the propellers, engine, transmission chains, etc.
2) Everything relevant in the brevet had been already published by Octave Chanute in Aug. 1903 in L'Aerophile and replicas of this glider with of without modifications had been tested thoroughly in France during 1904.
3) The only thing that might have been protected by the patent (at least according to what the Wrights believed) had been the wing warping (ailerons, roll control) which would not have been visible on pictures with the plane flying.
4) Anyway, the patent was published on May 22, 1906 and there would have been no logical reason after that date not to show, at least, photos with the plane flying, to gain credibility.
The Wright brothers were bluffing. They did not have any workable airplane before 1908.
1) The May 22, 1906 patent was for a glider not a powered airplane and offered no protection regarding the propellers, engine, transmission chains, etc.
2) Everything relevant in the brevet had been already published by Octave Chanute in Aug. 1903 in L'Aerophile and replicas of this glider with of without modifications had been tested thoroughly in France during 1904.
3) The only thing that might have been protected by the patent (at least according to what the Wrights believed) had been the wing warping (ailerons, roll control) which would not have been visible on pictures with the plane flying.
4) Anyway, the patent was published on May 22, 1906 and there would have been no logical reason after that date not to show, at least, photos with the plane flying, to gain credibility.
The Wright brothers were bluffing. They did not have any workable airplane before 1908.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REALLY SIMPLEX,you are quite wrong.
The Wright's patented the coordinated use of rudder, wingwarping//ailerons based on experiements of the 1902 glider. EVEN BEFORE they strapped an engine to it.
IT was the method of control which they patented as they did not invent the engine or prop, or even sewing thread. The method of control that we use today, with rudder overcoming the drag which they called warp drag and we call adverse aileron yaw.
There is a picture of them flying, on Dec 17, 1903. And it is proof enough for me.
THEY FLEW on Dec 17, 1903 with full control, from level. YOU can't take that away from history. Their planes evolved when back home in dayton.
Simplex, believe what you want to believe. Say, are you even a pilot?
YOUR STATEMENTS are simply not justified or truthful. Someone else called you a revisionist crank and that is what you are.
Sort of sad.
The Wright's patented the coordinated use of rudder, wingwarping//ailerons based on experiements of the 1902 glider. EVEN BEFORE they strapped an engine to it.
IT was the method of control which they patented as they did not invent the engine or prop, or even sewing thread. The method of control that we use today, with rudder overcoming the drag which they called warp drag and we call adverse aileron yaw.
There is a picture of them flying, on Dec 17, 1903. And it is proof enough for me.
THEY FLEW on Dec 17, 1903 with full control, from level. YOU can't take that away from history. Their planes evolved when back home in dayton.
Simplex, believe what you want to believe. Say, are you even a pilot?
YOUR STATEMENTS are simply not justified or truthful. Someone else called you a revisionist crank and that is what you are.
Sort of sad.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) The May 22, 1906 patent was for a glider not a powered airplane and offered no protection regarding the propellers, engine, transmission chains, etc.
What's applicable to gliders from a control point of view is equally applicable to powered airplanes. That's why the Wrights, and others I'm sure, started with gliders.
An equally correct but more meaningful statement would be that patent offered protection without regard to whether or not there were propellers, engine, transmission chains, etc.
In other words, the patent claims were directed to a "flying-machine" and were broad enough to cover a glider or a powered airplane.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at all the evidence presented here I am more convinced than ever that the Wrights are considerably less significant than their fans and their carefully constructed and rigorously pursued claims would have us believe; claims about which there is genuine doubt.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lewis A. Boswell, patent published May 26, 1903, Three Axis Control
see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8499673
see: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8499673
Haraka - Your comments are always measured and respectful, but comparing Galileo and Simplex is a horribly false analogy.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I initially thought that, once having drawn people out , Simplex was going to reveal some hitherto unpublished or unknown information or well founded analysis.
This Galileo did, Simplex hasn't.
To Simplex's credit though , he does bring out documents that are worth reading ,e.g. that referred to in #421:
and I don't think that he is , "off his rocker". The use of irrelevant ad hominem insults doesn't really reflect very positively on the initiator's basis for discussion.
P.S. jondc9 I think it was me who was also called
a revisionist crank
Last edited by Haraka; 13th Jun 2014 at 05:47.
The 3 axis control that Simplex has referred to is for a dirigible airship not for an aeroplane (airplane) - totally different stability and control reqirements - a dirigible is probably more akin to a submarine in control requirements
Mornin LR.
Agreed. However the patent does cover a 3 axis aerodynamic controller as I read it: albeit bolted on to the deck (?) of the dirigible.
I have talked to submariners on their vessels' similarities to airships and apparently they bank at speed underwater.
I expect you know that in practice most airships are flown slightly "heavy" for better control response- even being seen to do rolling take -offs on occasion.
Agreed. However the patent does cover a 3 axis aerodynamic controller as I read it: albeit bolted on to the deck (?) of the dirigible.
I have talked to submariners on their vessels' similarities to airships and apparently they bank at speed underwater.
I expect you know that in practice most airships are flown slightly "heavy" for better control response- even being seen to do rolling take -offs on occasion.