The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, the Caproni-Campini, that's the one I was thinking of, thanks Noyade!
That and the Coanda are certainly important steps, but having a jet powered by a piston engine adds a massive amount of complexity and weight whilst still being restricted by the limitations of a piston engine.
Like the discussion of early flights we come down to the issue of Practicality, and that can never be completely defined. Is a land plane "practical" if its engines fail over the ocean, or a sea plane over land? Is a modern military plane practical and controllable if its computers fail?
That and the Coanda are certainly important steps, but having a jet powered by a piston engine adds a massive amount of complexity and weight whilst still being restricted by the limitations of a piston engine.
Like the discussion of early flights we come down to the issue of Practicality, and that can never be completely defined. Is a land plane "practical" if its engines fail over the ocean, or a sea plane over land? Is a modern military plane practical and controllable if its computers fail?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
June 1912, a plane without ailerons won the first place in Aspern - Wien airshow (Austria) for flying the smallest circle (Jane's All The World's Aircraft)
As late as 1912 there still were inventors, plane builders, who did not use ailerons and their flying machines excelled in making tight turns.
So, in the early years of aviation, ailerons were not considered as important as it was claimed by the Wright brothers and their fans.
1) "VLAICU Monoplane.
Designed by Aurel Vlaicu. First shown at the Vienna Exhibition, 1911. Modified; it flew very well indeed at Aspern, June, 1912. The 1912 model is of entirely novel type, a tail first monoplane with a propeller either end of the main planes, and a triangular tail aft. Principal details are:
Length, 34-2/3 feet (10.50 m.)
Span, 30 feet (9.15 m.)
Height, 12 feet (3.65 m.)
Wing frame in three sections with gap between.
Motor, 50 h.p., Gnome chain driven.
Fuselage, old style; landing chassis on three wheels only, with a single ash skid in front.
Covered in engine driving the 31 foot propeller shaft for the 2 propellers.
Rear tail consists of 2 fixed planes, a triangular damping plane and a triangular keel plane.
Forward, an elevator and two semi-circular rudders (double faced).
From this combination remarkable results are achieved, and all gyrostatic effect from the propellers eliminated.
Control, horizontal wheel on column. Elevator depressed or otherwise by action on column.
Note.—At Vienna, 1912, this machine took first prize for the smallest circle and also for accurate bomb-dropping."
Source:The Project Gutenberg eBook of Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1913, Edited by Fred T. Jane
2) "His (Aurel Vlaicu's) airplanes lacked ailerons, relying on just rudder and elevators for control" (Wikipedia)
Aurel Vlaicu's airplane that did not have ailerons
As late as 1912 there still were inventors, plane builders, who did not use ailerons and their flying machines excelled in making tight turns.
So, in the early years of aviation, ailerons were not considered as important as it was claimed by the Wright brothers and their fans.
1) "VLAICU Monoplane.
Designed by Aurel Vlaicu. First shown at the Vienna Exhibition, 1911. Modified; it flew very well indeed at Aspern, June, 1912. The 1912 model is of entirely novel type, a tail first monoplane with a propeller either end of the main planes, and a triangular tail aft. Principal details are:
Length, 34-2/3 feet (10.50 m.)
Span, 30 feet (9.15 m.)
Height, 12 feet (3.65 m.)
Wing frame in three sections with gap between.
Motor, 50 h.p., Gnome chain driven.
Fuselage, old style; landing chassis on three wheels only, with a single ash skid in front.
Covered in engine driving the 31 foot propeller shaft for the 2 propellers.
Rear tail consists of 2 fixed planes, a triangular damping plane and a triangular keel plane.
Forward, an elevator and two semi-circular rudders (double faced).
From this combination remarkable results are achieved, and all gyrostatic effect from the propellers eliminated.
Control, horizontal wheel on column. Elevator depressed or otherwise by action on column.
Note.—At Vienna, 1912, this machine took first prize for the smallest circle and also for accurate bomb-dropping."
Source:The Project Gutenberg eBook of Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1913, Edited by Fred T. Jane
2) "His (Aurel Vlaicu's) airplanes lacked ailerons, relying on just rudder and elevators for control" (Wikipedia)
Aurel Vlaicu's airplane that did not have ailerons
The Janes books are really more for kids etc...when I was at school I used to go to my local library and thumb through them and find exciting things like Bushby Long mini mustangs etc (long time ago - may not have that name exactly correct) but that is really all they are - I have not referred to a 'Janes' since circa 1967 
June 1912, a plane without ailerons won the first place in Aspern - Wien airshow (Austria) for flying the smallest circle (Jane's All The World's Aircraft)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He not only just flew, Vlaicu, flying without ailerons, took the first place (for performing the smallest circle) in a competition with 42 participants (42 planes). This is quite important. His aeroplane, without ailerons, behaved better, in making tight turns, than the other 41 of various types. That man, Vlaicu, built a highly maneuverable airplane which was stable and perfectly steerable up, down, left, right.
For the early planes, ailerons were more a gadget than a necessity.
For the early planes, ailerons were more a gadget than a necessity.
FFS Simplex - just because somebody flew without ailerons does not necessarily make it a good idea
If positive lateral stability has been deliberately designed in, ( by dihedral , sweepback or low c.of g., or a combination ) , pitch and yaw are sufficient for full control, , with bank coming in as a secondary effect of yaw as was well understood in Europe, controlled banked turns then being easily demonstrated.
Direct roll control was a refinement of course , as was the subsequent emergence on wings of a family of various flaps, slats, slots, balanced ailerons (inc. mass, aerodynamic and Frise) , servo tabs, l/e droop and spoilers.
Regarding the differential angles of wing incidence, claimed by the Wrights in patenting wing warping ( and aileron) claims for themselves , I offer up, as yet further evidence of European originality, the Pole Tański, who in the evolution of his work, adjusted models to fly in circles by differential wing incidence: as supported by photographic evidence ( of a sequence) of one of his large models in banked circling free flight in 1896. As he noted, birds changed their direction in flight flight by suitable deflections of their wings (no separate three-axis control imperative being required in natural flight. )
Ref: Jerzy Cynk. Polish Aircraft 1893-1939.Putnam.
Yes , but the point is that many pioneers demonstrated well controlled flight without either ailerons or wing warping,showing, I suggest , that roll control cannot be argued as a prerequisite for controlled flight
Relying on secondary effect of rudder for turns is ponderous - especially near the ground !
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised that the anti wright crowd didn't try to dock points for not having a chair for the pilot to sit in.
I flew a plane without ailerons. Fast Turboprop called an MU2, but it had spoilers for roll (trim ailerons too).
And somehow we got to 1912, even though the wrights had taken a former president flying by then.
Control. Do you need ailerons? maybe not. Do you need rudders? not if you have two engines. Do you need an elevator? Not really. Just set everything and depend on the engines to futz around.
And then you would have a landing like KSUX/DC10?
I lost the ailerons in a piper single once. Flew ok with rudder.
But I got emergency handling at the airport.
Yes, lets all fly without ailerons, without rudders, without elevators.
We could have a paraplane.
I'm a Wright pilot. But I guess there are some non wright pilots out there. Would that make them wrong pilots? ;-)
I flew a plane without ailerons. Fast Turboprop called an MU2, but it had spoilers for roll (trim ailerons too).
And somehow we got to 1912, even though the wrights had taken a former president flying by then.
Control. Do you need ailerons? maybe not. Do you need rudders? not if you have two engines. Do you need an elevator? Not really. Just set everything and depend on the engines to futz around.
And then you would have a landing like KSUX/DC10?
I lost the ailerons in a piper single once. Flew ok with rudder.
But I got emergency handling at the airport.
Yes, lets all fly without ailerons, without rudders, without elevators.
We could have a paraplane.
I'm a Wright pilot. But I guess there are some non wright pilots out there. Would that make them wrong pilots? ;-)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are by now TWO quite separate issues in this thread.
1. OP's original contention: the Wrights did NOT do in 1903 what they claimed they did, and engaged in deliberate misrepresentation until 1908, when they demonstrated a clearly practical aeroplane.
2. Contrariwise, another discussion accepts that the Wrights did what the conventional history says, but questions how important their achievements were.
On 2. there will never be an end in sight, because debating it is how we understand history. I have learned that roll control is by no means necessary, but most people wouldn't willingly do without it. On the other hand, the Wrights did without some things that would now be considered pretty important to a practical aeroplane (like longitudinal stability: they did without modern fly-by-wire by means of astonishing human anticipation). The launch track: it's not what we would do nowadays, but OTOH, if you said to someone in 1903 that in order to get a practical aeroplane, you first need to lay a kilometer or two of concrete, they would reply that you had a funny definition of practical (and this was a real issue in the 1940s and 1950s, too, to the detriment of British commercial aviation).
On 1., though, the claim that the Wrights were lying runs into problems of internal consistency. I think it is not disputed that in 1900 to 1902 they were flying pretty good gliders, based on previous work (Chanute?). In 1908, they gave public displays in France which were regarded at the time as very impressive. So, if they weren't doing what they said they were doing in the intervening years, they had to have been doing something else to get from state-of-the-art gliders to powered flight that was regarded as advanced in its own day, all in the space of five years. Either way, the Wrights end up looking like pretty competent aeronautical engineers, but on simplex1's account, they were also highly successful disinformation operators. Occam's razor is a methodological ploy, not a guide to the truth, but, really....
1. OP's original contention: the Wrights did NOT do in 1903 what they claimed they did, and engaged in deliberate misrepresentation until 1908, when they demonstrated a clearly practical aeroplane.
2. Contrariwise, another discussion accepts that the Wrights did what the conventional history says, but questions how important their achievements were.
On 2. there will never be an end in sight, because debating it is how we understand history. I have learned that roll control is by no means necessary, but most people wouldn't willingly do without it. On the other hand, the Wrights did without some things that would now be considered pretty important to a practical aeroplane (like longitudinal stability: they did without modern fly-by-wire by means of astonishing human anticipation). The launch track: it's not what we would do nowadays, but OTOH, if you said to someone in 1903 that in order to get a practical aeroplane, you first need to lay a kilometer or two of concrete, they would reply that you had a funny definition of practical (and this was a real issue in the 1940s and 1950s, too, to the detriment of British commercial aviation).
On 1., though, the claim that the Wrights were lying runs into problems of internal consistency. I think it is not disputed that in 1900 to 1902 they were flying pretty good gliders, based on previous work (Chanute?). In 1908, they gave public displays in France which were regarded at the time as very impressive. So, if they weren't doing what they said they were doing in the intervening years, they had to have been doing something else to get from state-of-the-art gliders to powered flight that was regarded as advanced in its own day, all in the space of five years. Either way, the Wrights end up looking like pretty competent aeronautical engineers, but on simplex1's account, they were also highly successful disinformation operators. Occam's razor is a methodological ploy, not a guide to the truth, but, really....
FP - common sense and logic do not exist in the Simplex world
Whilst the 1903 Wright Flyer was longitudinally unstable - by 1905 the Wrights had developed their aircraft into a very practical machine.
I suspect (as I posted previously) that the dimensions of the 1903 Flyer were controlled by the width of their shed at KDH which probably did not help !
rgds LR
Whilst the 1903 Wright Flyer was longitudinally unstable - by 1905 the Wrights had developed their aircraft into a very practical machine.
I suspect (as I posted previously) that the dimensions of the 1903 Flyer were controlled by the width of their shed at KDH which probably did not help !
rgds LR
I have learned that roll control is by no means necessary, but most people wouldn't willingly do without it.
Admittedly I was only (and unqualified on type) in the RHS when the ailerons locked once for real - in a Hastings , which was a four (piston) engine tail-dragger transport. Fortunately , after an interesting interlude, the problem solved itself on approach . (Suspected icing ).
one is not really in full control of a conventional aircraft unless one has roll control
To have incorporated this feature it into a vehicle type that had been under evolution for decades , whilst very significant, does not support the claim, believed by so many of U.S. citizens, that the Wright brothers pretty much single handedly invented heavier-then-air flight and designed the "airplane" in the USA, ahead of the rest of the world.
Last edited by Haraka; 15th Jun 2014 at 09:39.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightlessParrot, I totally agree with your comments about definitions like "practical"; any one person's definition of practical is virtually certain to rule out another's, and so the debate goes.
It could be argued that Louis Bleriot's 1909 flight from one country to another across open water was perhaps the first demonstration of a "practical" aeroplane, even though he had already made a longer non-international flight. Oddly, in my experience Bleriot is virtually unknown in USA.
It could be argued that Louis Bleriot's 1909 flight from one country to another across open water was perhaps the first demonstration of a "practical" aeroplane, even though he had already made a longer non-international flight. Oddly, in my experience Bleriot is virtually unknown in USA.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
joy ride
I am a US citizen.
I know of bleriot.
Haraka: What US citizens believe is their business.
The truth is the Wrights put it all together and overcame the last great hurdle to powered, controlled wingborne flight.
Someone wrote about a plane making the smallest circle and not having ailerons. You also get a very, very small circle, by flying very slowly.
I no longer write to convince the simplex1s, harakas or joy rides. Believe what you wish.
I'll fly the Wright way. You fly anyway you like, based more on ego, or national origin.
Who invented the wing? God.
Who created/invented the atmosphere through which we fly? GOD.
I am a US citizen.
I know of bleriot.
Haraka: What US citizens believe is their business.
The truth is the Wrights put it all together and overcame the last great hurdle to powered, controlled wingborne flight.
Someone wrote about a plane making the smallest circle and not having ailerons. You also get a very, very small circle, by flying very slowly.
I no longer write to convince the simplex1s, harakas or joy rides. Believe what you wish.
I'll fly the Wright way. You fly anyway you like, based more on ego, or national origin.
Who invented the wing? God.
Who created/invented the atmosphere through which we fly? GOD.
Last edited by jondc9; 15th Jun 2014 at 13:53.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was Bleriot the real disigner of the planes that bear his name or more a businessman and test pilot?
"Louis Peyret, who had unsuccessfully attempted to fly the Blériot III floatplane and had designed the Blériot VI, a tandem wing aircraft, was a friend of Louis Blériot."
Source: Peyret Tandem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It appears that the real designer of Bleriot VI, a plane that flew over 100 meters many times during the interval July - September 1907, was Louis Peyret and Bleriot just financed the project and acted as a test pilot, much like Farman and Delagrange who ordered planes to the Voisin brothers and after that flew them.
"Louis Peyret, who had unsuccessfully attempted to fly the Blériot III floatplane and had designed the Blériot VI, a tandem wing aircraft, was a friend of Louis Blériot."
Source: Peyret Tandem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It appears that the real designer of Bleriot VI, a plane that flew over 100 meters many times during the interval July - September 1907, was Louis Peyret and Bleriot just financed the project and acted as a test pilot, much like Farman and Delagrange who ordered planes to the Voisin brothers and after that flew them.
Was Bleriot the real designer of the planes that bear his name or more a businessman and test pilot
He went on to get involved in S.P.A.D., who's fighter aircraft were subsequently used by the Americans (understandably) post their entry into WW1 in 1917.
Hispano-Suiza engines , which powered the S.P.A.D.s ( among others ) were also manufactured under licence in the States by Wright-Martin.
Wright: "having failed to keep abreast of aeroplane and engine technology ( producing) their last engine in 1915"
Bill Gunston's words not mine.
(Aero Engines- Patrick Stephens Ltd.)
Last edited by Haraka; 15th Jun 2014 at 16:35.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jondc9, I really am not a conspiracy theorist as you seem to think and I do not agree with quite a lot which has been said here. I am debating the facts dispassionately to examine all possible truths; my only conclusion is that the Wrights are an important part of a long process but not as stand-alone important as is often claimed. This does not diminish what they did.
Glad to know you do know of Bleriot! I said he was "virtually unkonwn" not "totally unknown", and that has been my experience of years living in USA; I am always glad to hear of more people around the world being aware of his (and his constructor's!) achievements.
I see inventions and break-throughs in global and historic terms, and I consider this is often the way to a fuller understanding.
Glad to know you do know of Bleriot! I said he was "virtually unkonwn" not "totally unknown", and that has been my experience of years living in USA; I am always glad to hear of more people around the world being aware of his (and his constructor's!) achievements.
I see inventions and break-throughs in global and historic terms, and I consider this is often the way to a fuller understanding.
Patents
G'day joy ride.
I'm trying to get my head around patents, the Wrights and their lack of commercial success. Maybe you can help.
From what I've read, holding a patent doesn't guarantee automatic protection? This seems to be true even back in the days of the Wright's and they must have known this as well? Now at times here we've mentioned the Wright's "secret squirrel" phase and simply put it down to keeping a lid on their discoveries until the patent came through. Simplex puts it down to lies - they never achieved flight till 1908 - hence this thread.
But this patent of theirs (for their control system) was approved in Belgium, France and Great Britain in 1904. So why didn't they then go abroad and start flogging them off?
According to one author, despite the patent approval, the Wright's held a firm belief that..."the wisest course of action was to reveal as little as possible until a sales contract was in their hands. They had to sell their aeroplane without showing anybody". And the Wright's felt they had more than enough time to do this, believing they had a five-year technological lead over everyone (they completely underestimated the opposition).
So, why did they think that this commercial tactic was "the wisest course of action?"
Now, how hard would that gave been back then? Be like trying to sell a flying saucer today?
(Pssst, wanna buy a flying saucer mate, no demonstration and I want the money up front!)
I'm trying to get my head around patents, the Wrights and their lack of commercial success. Maybe you can help.
From what I've read, holding a patent doesn't guarantee automatic protection? This seems to be true even back in the days of the Wright's and they must have known this as well? Now at times here we've mentioned the Wright's "secret squirrel" phase and simply put it down to keeping a lid on their discoveries until the patent came through. Simplex puts it down to lies - they never achieved flight till 1908 - hence this thread.
But this patent of theirs (for their control system) was approved in Belgium, France and Great Britain in 1904. So why didn't they then go abroad and start flogging them off?
According to one author, despite the patent approval, the Wright's held a firm belief that..."the wisest course of action was to reveal as little as possible until a sales contract was in their hands. They had to sell their aeroplane without showing anybody". And the Wright's felt they had more than enough time to do this, believing they had a five-year technological lead over everyone (they completely underestimated the opposition).
So, why did they think that this commercial tactic was "the wisest course of action?"
Now, how hard would that gave been back then? Be like trying to sell a flying saucer today?
(Pssst, wanna buy a flying saucer mate, no demonstration and I want the money up front!
)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think you have invented something then you can apply for a patent. Your application is immediately read to see if there are any security or other implications which would require it to be classified. Mistakes and serious errors of judgement DO sometimes occur, as in Sir Frank Whittle's case!
On payment of fees a first search is made to see if anything similar to your invention has been found in the archives, national and international.
If nothing is found, or if anything found can be shown to be significantly different, and if your invention is not "trivial", "obvious" or "impossible" (i.e. bonkers in the nut!) a more expensive Substantive Search is made.
For me on one occasion this brought up 2 US Patents for other inventions, but I was easily able to detail significant mechanical and conceptual differences between them and my own and I was granted UK and US patents on this particular invention.
A patent does not have any financial guarantee except to empty the holder's bank account!
Once patented you can manufacture or sell/licence your product, but if you get ripped off you have to take your own action. The Patent Certificate is only a piece of evidence.
On payment of fees a first search is made to see if anything similar to your invention has been found in the archives, national and international.
If nothing is found, or if anything found can be shown to be significantly different, and if your invention is not "trivial", "obvious" or "impossible" (i.e. bonkers in the nut!) a more expensive Substantive Search is made.
For me on one occasion this brought up 2 US Patents for other inventions, but I was easily able to detail significant mechanical and conceptual differences between them and my own and I was granted UK and US patents on this particular invention.
A patent does not have any financial guarantee except to empty the holder's bank account!
Once patented you can manufacture or sell/licence your product, but if you get ripped off you have to take your own action. The Patent Certificate is only a piece of evidence.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I am not a Patent Lawyer, but that is exactly why it is worth having one to word your patent very carefully indeed using exact definitions.
In theory everything mechanical is some form of wheel or lever, so theoretically nothing mechanical since their invention is "new". A gear wheel is a wheel with levers around its circumference.
Often a mechanical invention combines familiar parts arranged in novel ways or with a new purpose or concept in mind. A turbine existed before the steam turbine, which in turn existed before turbo jet. A compressor pre-existed in the form of a piston in a cylinder.
So to the extent of my knowledge a patent can be granted if familiar elements are arranged in a novel way and/or for a novel purpose.
So it comes down to LEGAL definitions of novel, and a Legal decision is not necessarily the right one!
It is getting much harder to Patent mechanical inventions; I am not discussing electronic, chemical or other inventions because they are not my area of work. Over the years I have gleaned enough to re-state with some confidence what I said earlier about the US (and some other) Patent Offices at the time of the Wright brothers, indeed I believe that internationally the USPO became notorious and eventually had to act to reduce corruption, partisanship and vested interests. I do NOT mean to insult Americans, just to state what I believe is a matter of record. I cannot be sure yet, but I have reason to believe that one or more of the Wright Brothers' patents would probably not have been granted elsewhere.
I must admit that I had heard of some controversy over the Wrights long before this thread, but I had always accepted them as "the First", and I also accepted that they invented the Wind Tunnel and 3 Axis control. Now I am starting to wonder if Legal Definitions have decreed their priority at least as much as some of the facts. For instance, I now know that they did not invent the wind tunnel and were not the first to use it for aeronautical research.
I still do not agree with much of Simplex's words, but I enjoy the debate that they have started.
And I still have great respect for the Wright Brothers; whatever the facts, personalities and Legal niceties, they worked hard, studied, practicesd, achieved a lot and were true pioneers.
In theory everything mechanical is some form of wheel or lever, so theoretically nothing mechanical since their invention is "new". A gear wheel is a wheel with levers around its circumference.
Often a mechanical invention combines familiar parts arranged in novel ways or with a new purpose or concept in mind. A turbine existed before the steam turbine, which in turn existed before turbo jet. A compressor pre-existed in the form of a piston in a cylinder.
So to the extent of my knowledge a patent can be granted if familiar elements are arranged in a novel way and/or for a novel purpose.
So it comes down to LEGAL definitions of novel, and a Legal decision is not necessarily the right one!
It is getting much harder to Patent mechanical inventions; I am not discussing electronic, chemical or other inventions because they are not my area of work. Over the years I have gleaned enough to re-state with some confidence what I said earlier about the US (and some other) Patent Offices at the time of the Wright brothers, indeed I believe that internationally the USPO became notorious and eventually had to act to reduce corruption, partisanship and vested interests. I do NOT mean to insult Americans, just to state what I believe is a matter of record. I cannot be sure yet, but I have reason to believe that one or more of the Wright Brothers' patents would probably not have been granted elsewhere.
I must admit that I had heard of some controversy over the Wrights long before this thread, but I had always accepted them as "the First", and I also accepted that they invented the Wind Tunnel and 3 Axis control. Now I am starting to wonder if Legal Definitions have decreed their priority at least as much as some of the facts. For instance, I now know that they did not invent the wind tunnel and were not the first to use it for aeronautical research.
I still do not agree with much of Simplex's words, but I enjoy the debate that they have started.
And I still have great respect for the Wright Brothers; whatever the facts, personalities and Legal niceties, they worked hard, studied, practicesd, achieved a lot and were true pioneers.