The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Hi joy ride
Trial of Maxim's Steam Flying Machine
Scientific American—September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London.]
Not bad for 1894, 2,000+ lb of thrust out of 360 h.p. is unarguably more than sufficiently effective, regardless of later improved propeller efficiency: several years before the Wrights and thus hardly "contemporary".
No comment on the "airplane" statement of faith. I think that perusal of the near 500 submissions to this thread's discussion, plus references, will give unbiased readers an opportunity to make their own minds up.
Old photos of propellers from the not-quite-successful airplanes of people like Samuel P. Langley, Gustave Whitehead, and Hiram Maxim all show the same primitive flaring triangular shape.
The thrust of the screws, when the machine is moored, is 2,100 lb., and when it is running it is 2,000 lb.
Scientific American—September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London.]
Not bad for 1894, 2,000+ lb of thrust out of 360 h.p. is unarguably more than sufficiently effective, regardless of later improved propeller efficiency: several years before the Wrights and thus hardly "contemporary".
No comment on the "airplane" statement of faith. I think that perusal of the near 500 submissions to this thread's discussion, plus references, will give unbiased readers an opportunity to make their own minds up.
Last edited by Haraka; 17th Jun 2014 at 16:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The alleged Thrust/HP obtained by the Wright brothers in 1903 is enormous, well above what Hiram Maxim obtained in 1894
Hiram Maxim 1894
- Power delivered to the propellers = 363 HP
- Propellers thrust = 2000 - 2100 lb
Thrust/Power = 2000 to 2100 lb / 363 HP = 5.51 to 5.78 lb/HP
Wright brothers 1903
- Engine power (we do not know how much of it was delivered to the propellers) = 12 - 16 HP
- Propellers thrust = 132 - 136 lb
Thrust/Power = 132 to 136 lb / 12 to 16 HP = 8.25 to 11.33 lb/HP
From 5.78 lb/HP, the best thrust obtained by Hiram Maxim, to 8.25 lb/HP, the worst of the 1903 Wrights' flyer, there is an increase of 42%, which is enormous and comes out of nothing because the two brothers have never had a convincing story about what exactly they did to improve the thrust of their propellers to such incredible levels for 1903.
1) "The actual horse power delivered to the screws is 363 when the engines are running at 375 revolutions per minute. Of this, we are informed by Mr. Maxim, 150 horse power are expended in slip, 133 horse power in actual lift on the aeroplanes, and 80 horse power in driving the machine, with its frames and wires, through the air. The thrust of the screws, when the machine is moored, is 2,100 lb., and when it is running it is 2,000 lb. We give these figures as they were supplied to us, omitting decimals. The total lift is something over 10,000 lb. at a speed of forty miles an hour and with the aeroplanes making an angle of about 7.25 degrees with the horizontal."
Source: Scientific American-September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London.], http://www.456fis.org/THE_HISTORY_OF...IRAM_MAXIM.htm
2) "By early fall (1903), they had built the propellers that would carry them aloft. The Wright brothers did not have the instrumentation to measure actual propeller performance in flight. However, the Wright notebooks contain static thrust measurements recorded for the actual propeller pair (on Nov. 21, 28, and Dec. 17, 1903). To make these measurements, the Wrights placed the Flyer in a shed and perched it on its launch carriage. They restrained one of the lower wing tips and attached the other wing tip to a line. That line connected to "50 pounds of sand" and then to a grocer's scale, letting the brothers measure the restraining force while the machine was powered in the shed. Since the Wright Flyer had no throttle, the engine speed could not be controlled, but the notebook entries indicate that the average measured static thrust was between 132 and 136 pounds (that is, each propeller produced a thrust of between 66 and 68 pounds) when the propellers were powered at a nominal rotational speed of 350 rpm."
Source: Mechanical Engineering "100 Years of Flight" supplement, Dec. 2003 -- "Prop-Wrights," Feature Article
Hiram Maxim 1894
- Power delivered to the propellers = 363 HP
- Propellers thrust = 2000 - 2100 lb
Thrust/Power = 2000 to 2100 lb / 363 HP = 5.51 to 5.78 lb/HP
Wright brothers 1903
- Engine power (we do not know how much of it was delivered to the propellers) = 12 - 16 HP
- Propellers thrust = 132 - 136 lb
Thrust/Power = 132 to 136 lb / 12 to 16 HP = 8.25 to 11.33 lb/HP
From 5.78 lb/HP, the best thrust obtained by Hiram Maxim, to 8.25 lb/HP, the worst of the 1903 Wrights' flyer, there is an increase of 42%, which is enormous and comes out of nothing because the two brothers have never had a convincing story about what exactly they did to improve the thrust of their propellers to such incredible levels for 1903.
1) "The actual horse power delivered to the screws is 363 when the engines are running at 375 revolutions per minute. Of this, we are informed by Mr. Maxim, 150 horse power are expended in slip, 133 horse power in actual lift on the aeroplanes, and 80 horse power in driving the machine, with its frames and wires, through the air. The thrust of the screws, when the machine is moored, is 2,100 lb., and when it is running it is 2,000 lb. We give these figures as they were supplied to us, omitting decimals. The total lift is something over 10,000 lb. at a speed of forty miles an hour and with the aeroplanes making an angle of about 7.25 degrees with the horizontal."
Source: Scientific American-September 15, 1894 [From Engineering, London.], http://www.456fis.org/THE_HISTORY_OF...IRAM_MAXIM.htm
2) "By early fall (1903), they had built the propellers that would carry them aloft. The Wright brothers did not have the instrumentation to measure actual propeller performance in flight. However, the Wright notebooks contain static thrust measurements recorded for the actual propeller pair (on Nov. 21, 28, and Dec. 17, 1903). To make these measurements, the Wrights placed the Flyer in a shed and perched it on its launch carriage. They restrained one of the lower wing tips and attached the other wing tip to a line. That line connected to "50 pounds of sand" and then to a grocer's scale, letting the brothers measure the restraining force while the machine was powered in the shed. Since the Wright Flyer had no throttle, the engine speed could not be controlled, but the notebook entries indicate that the average measured static thrust was between 132 and 136 pounds (that is, each propeller produced a thrust of between 66 and 68 pounds) when the propellers were powered at a nominal rotational speed of 350 rpm."
Source: Mechanical Engineering "100 Years of Flight" supplement, Dec. 2003 -- "Prop-Wrights," Feature Article
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was many witnesses to the 4 flights of 1903.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, there are the detailed entries in Orville Wright’s diary of 17 December 1903:
Wright Brothers Information Packet Primary Sources: Orville Wright's December 17, 1903 Diary Entry - Special Collections & Archives - Wright State University Libraries
His diary states that the following five men helped the Wright brothers and, thus, were witnesses to the 17 December 1903 flights:
1. John T. Daniels (a USCG Surfman at the Live-Saving Station at Kill Devil Hills, and the man who operated Wilbur Wright’s camera)
2. Adam Etheridge (another Surfman)
3. Will Dough (another Surfman)
4. W.C. Brinkley, a farmer from nearby Manteo, NC
5. Johnny Moore, a 17-year-old from Nags Head who was visiting the life-saving station
I’m sure you’ll unreasonably jump on the word “only,” but here’s an article from 2003
Only five witnessed Wrights' first flight - Technology & science - Science - Tomorrow's Wright Brothers | NBC News
This article, from the United States Coast Guard site, understandably, focuses on the participation of the Surfmen:
The Indispensable Men: USLSS At Kitty Hawk, December, 1903
Wright Brothers Information Packet Primary Sources: Orville Wright's December 17, 1903 Diary Entry - Special Collections & Archives - Wright State University Libraries
His diary states that the following five men helped the Wright brothers and, thus, were witnesses to the 17 December 1903 flights:
1. John T. Daniels (a USCG Surfman at the Live-Saving Station at Kill Devil Hills, and the man who operated Wilbur Wright’s camera)
2. Adam Etheridge (another Surfman)
3. Will Dough (another Surfman)
4. W.C. Brinkley, a farmer from nearby Manteo, NC
5. Johnny Moore, a 17-year-old from Nags Head who was visiting the life-saving station
I’m sure you’ll unreasonably jump on the word “only,” but here’s an article from 2003
Only five witnessed Wrights' first flight - Technology & science - Science - Tomorrow's Wright Brothers | NBC News
This article, from the United States Coast Guard site, understandably, focuses on the participation of the Surfmen:
The Indispensable Men: USLSS At Kitty Hawk, December, 1903
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what exactly did Will Dough, W.C. Brinkley and Johnny Moore declare and when?
About what John Daniels and Adam Etheridge said when they woke up in 1933 and 1935, respectively, we have already discussed. Maybe we are more lucky with the other three alleged witnesses.
About what John Daniels and Adam Etheridge said when they woke up in 1933 and 1935, respectively, we have already discussed. Maybe we are more lucky with the other three alleged witnesses.
Last edited by simplex1; 17th Jun 2014 at 20:32.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surfman John T. Daniels in an interview with Collier's Weekly, September 17, 1927:
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/...ght/wright.pdf (p.11)
We knew that they were going to fly, but we didn’t know what was going to happen when they did.
We had watched them for several years and seen how they figured everything out before they attempted it. We had seen the glider fly without an engine, and when those boys put an engine in it we knew that they knew exactly what they were doing.
Adam Etheridge, Will Dough, W.C. Brinkley, Johnny Moore and myself were there on the morning of December 17th. We were a serious lot. Nobody felt like talking.
Wilbur and Orville walked off from us and stood close together on the beach, talking low to each other for some time. After a while they shook hands, and we couldn’t help notice how they held on to each other’s hand, sort ’o like they hated to let go; like two folks parting who weren’t sure they’d ever see each other again.
Orville climbed into the machine, the engine was started up and we helped steady it down the monorail until it got under way. The thing went off with a rush and left the rail as pretty as you please, going straight out into the air maybe 120 feet when one of its wings tilted and caught in the sand, and the thing stopped.
We got it back up on the hill again, and this time Wilbur got in. The machine got a better start this time and went off like a bird. It flew near about a quarter of a mile, but was flying low, and Wilbur must have miscalculated the height of a sand ridge just where he expected to turn, and the rudder hit the sand. He brought the plane down, and we dragged it back to the hill again.
They were going to fix the rudder and try another flight when I got my first—and, God help me—my last flight.
A breeze that had been blowing about twenty-five miles an hour suddenly jumped to thirty-five miles or more, caught the wings of the plane, and swept it across the beach just like you’ve seen an umbrella turned inside out and loose in the wind. I had hold of an upright of one of the wings when the wind caught it, and I got tangled up in the wire that held the thing together.
The machine was a total reck. The Wrights took it to pieces, packed it up in boxes and shipped it back to their home in Dayton. They gave us a few pieces for souvenirs, and I have a piece of the upright that I had hold of when it caught me up and blew away with me.
We had watched them for several years and seen how they figured everything out before they attempted it. We had seen the glider fly without an engine, and when those boys put an engine in it we knew that they knew exactly what they were doing.
Adam Etheridge, Will Dough, W.C. Brinkley, Johnny Moore and myself were there on the morning of December 17th. We were a serious lot. Nobody felt like talking.
Wilbur and Orville walked off from us and stood close together on the beach, talking low to each other for some time. After a while they shook hands, and we couldn’t help notice how they held on to each other’s hand, sort ’o like they hated to let go; like two folks parting who weren’t sure they’d ever see each other again.
Orville climbed into the machine, the engine was started up and we helped steady it down the monorail until it got under way. The thing went off with a rush and left the rail as pretty as you please, going straight out into the air maybe 120 feet when one of its wings tilted and caught in the sand, and the thing stopped.
We got it back up on the hill again, and this time Wilbur got in. The machine got a better start this time and went off like a bird. It flew near about a quarter of a mile, but was flying low, and Wilbur must have miscalculated the height of a sand ridge just where he expected to turn, and the rudder hit the sand. He brought the plane down, and we dragged it back to the hill again.
They were going to fix the rudder and try another flight when I got my first—and, God help me—my last flight.
A breeze that had been blowing about twenty-five miles an hour suddenly jumped to thirty-five miles or more, caught the wings of the plane, and swept it across the beach just like you’ve seen an umbrella turned inside out and loose in the wind. I had hold of an upright of one of the wings when the wind caught it, and I got tangled up in the wire that held the thing together.
The machine was a total reck. The Wrights took it to pieces, packed it up in boxes and shipped it back to their home in Dayton. They gave us a few pieces for souvenirs, and I have a piece of the upright that I had hold of when it caught me up and blew away with me.
Ah now there is a problem - no FRENCH witnesses !
And just to return to propellers briefly - how many people on here could hand craft/carve two matching but opposite hand propellers ?
I certainly could not do that - but then again I am not a craftsman like the Wright Brothers !
And just to return to propellers briefly - how many people on here could hand craft/carve two matching but opposite hand propellers ?
I certainly could not do that - but then again I am not a craftsman like the Wright Brothers !
We got it back up on the hill again..............He brought the plane down, and we dragged it back to the hill again.
"Up on the hill" seems pretty unambiguous.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting about "back up on the hill".
It seems to me that in support of the Wright's claim of First we are expected to trust their witnesses, but not to trust witnesses to other claimed first flights.
The following video is a bit "off topic" (nice though!) and shows a high level of control with what I assume is not 3 Axis Control as we understand it for normal planes.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/L62faWn-sa8
It seems to me that in support of the Wright's claim of First we are expected to trust their witnesses, but not to trust witnesses to other claimed first flights.
The following video is a bit "off topic" (nice though!) and shows a high level of control with what I assume is not 3 Axis Control as we understand it for normal planes.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/L62faWn-sa8
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting about "back up on the hill".
The proof of the 17 December 1903 flight from the horizontal rail is in, among others, Mr. Daniels' famous photo.
Last edited by eetrojan; 18th Jun 2014 at 19:15. Reason: Substituted a smaller image
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my understanding that the Wrights were launching the Flyer from the hill on the 14th, but as shown in the photo above, they moved the rail to the flats on the 17th.
Per one website - In the John Daniels letter below from 1933, written twenty years after the events, Mr. Daniels "confused some of the events that occurred on Dec. 17th with events that occurred on the 14th. The coin toss he describes occurred on the 14th." (emphasis mine)
In my opinion, the photo trumps the conflated inconsistency in Mr. Daniel's 20 year old memories. Your mileage may vary.
Eyewitness Account of First Flight by John Daniels
Per one website - In the John Daniels letter below from 1933, written twenty years after the events, Mr. Daniels "confused some of the events that occurred on Dec. 17th with events that occurred on the 14th. The coin toss he describes occurred on the 14th." (emphasis mine)
In my opinion, the photo trumps the conflated inconsistency in Mr. Daniel's 20 year old memories. Your mileage may vary.
Manteo NC
June 30 —- 1933
Dear friend,
I Don’t know very much to write about the flight. I was there, and it was on Dec the 17, — 1903 about 10 o’clock. They carried the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track, and started the engine, and they through a coin to see who should take the first go, so it fell on Mr. Orval, and he went about 100 feet or more, and then Mr. Wilbur taken the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track and he went off across the Beach about a half a mile or more before he came Down. He flew so close to the top of a little hill the he Pulled the Rudder off so we had to Bring her back to the camp, and it was there I got tangled up in the machine and she Blew off across the Beach with me hanging in it, and she went all to Pieces. It Didn’t Hurt me much I got bruised me some. They Packed up every thing and went home at Dayton. That ended the Day. I snapped the first Picture of a Plain that ever flew. They were very nice men and we all enjoyed Being out at the Camp with them mostly every Day.
That accident made me the first airoplane causiality in the world and I have Piece of the upright that I was holding on to when It fell.
Would be glad to Render any informattion at any time you need it.
Sincerely,
John T. Daniels
Manteo NC
Box 1W
June 30 —- 1933
Dear friend,
I Don’t know very much to write about the flight. I was there, and it was on Dec the 17, — 1903 about 10 o’clock. They carried the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track, and started the engine, and they through a coin to see who should take the first go, so it fell on Mr. Orval, and he went about 100 feet or more, and then Mr. Wilbur taken the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track and he went off across the Beach about a half a mile or more before he came Down. He flew so close to the top of a little hill the he Pulled the Rudder off so we had to Bring her back to the camp, and it was there I got tangled up in the machine and she Blew off across the Beach with me hanging in it, and she went all to Pieces. It Didn’t Hurt me much I got bruised me some. They Packed up every thing and went home at Dayton. That ended the Day. I snapped the first Picture of a Plain that ever flew. They were very nice men and we all enjoyed Being out at the Camp with them mostly every Day.
That accident made me the first airoplane causiality in the world and I have Piece of the upright that I was holding on to when It fell.
Would be glad to Render any informattion at any time you need it.
Sincerely,
John T. Daniels
Manteo NC
Box 1W
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Suffolk
Age: 57
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Simplex has fallen into the trap of looking for evidence to support his opinion and not looking at the evidence and forming an opinion. As for his assertion that they thought their propeller was 66% efficient and the modern replica was 82% it is likely that this is because a lot of the Wright's figures are comparative as they didn't always have the mathematical equations we would use see the documented notes other wind tunnel experiments. Also see the evolution of the Wright's propellers 1903 1912. This details how the 1903 designs were copied. Let's face it with 12 hp you would work pretty hard to get the most out of them. Especially since they had worked out that they wanted a constant angle of attack to the oncoming airflow. It shows a real understanding of how propellers worked. Unlike most if not all their fore runners and many of those that came later.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before Dec. 1906 the Wright brothers were able to sustain 62 pounds/HP, in 1908 only 35 pounds/HP
According to the Scientific American from Dec. 15, 1906 (see 1), the Wright brothers' planes were capable to fly at 38 mph with only 1 HP for each 62 pounds of their weight. I have to repeat that, in Dec. 1906 the flights of the two brothers were no more than claims.
In Dec. 1908, when the airplanes of the two US inventors were already a reality, the french journal L'Aerophile (see 2) gave a detailed description of the flying machine W. Wright had flown in the preceding months, saying, amongst other things, that the plane weighted bout 400 kg (881.85 pounds) and had an engine developing 25 HP, which means that the aeroplane weight to power ration was about 35 pounds/HP, much worse than it was achieved before Dec. 1906.
Again, another lie of the Wright brothers, that 62 pounds/HP at 38 mph was not a realistic figure, they could not have achieved such a performance before Dec. 1906 as long as about two years later their flying machines were considerably less capable sustaining just 35 pounds/HP.
1) "At 38 miles an hour, they (the Wright brothers) were able to sustain 62 pounds per horse-power"
"Genesis of the first Successful aeroplane", Scientific American Volume 95, Number 24, pag. 442, December 15, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/wright
2) "L'aéroplane complet pèse environ 400 kilogs. ... Le moteur, du poids de 90 kilos, développe 25 chevaux à 1.400 tours ... une vitesse de 55 kilomètres à l'heure au bout du rail."
L'Aerophile, pag. 471 - 474, December 1, 1908, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...20m/f481.image
According to the Scientific American from Dec. 15, 1906 (see 1), the Wright brothers' planes were capable to fly at 38 mph with only 1 HP for each 62 pounds of their weight. I have to repeat that, in Dec. 1906 the flights of the two brothers were no more than claims.
In Dec. 1908, when the airplanes of the two US inventors were already a reality, the french journal L'Aerophile (see 2) gave a detailed description of the flying machine W. Wright had flown in the preceding months, saying, amongst other things, that the plane weighted bout 400 kg (881.85 pounds) and had an engine developing 25 HP, which means that the aeroplane weight to power ration was about 35 pounds/HP, much worse than it was achieved before Dec. 1906.
Again, another lie of the Wright brothers, that 62 pounds/HP at 38 mph was not a realistic figure, they could not have achieved such a performance before Dec. 1906 as long as about two years later their flying machines were considerably less capable sustaining just 35 pounds/HP.
1) "At 38 miles an hour, they (the Wright brothers) were able to sustain 62 pounds per horse-power"
"Genesis of the first Successful aeroplane", Scientific American Volume 95, Number 24, pag. 442, December 15, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientifi.../search/wright
2) "L'aéroplane complet pèse environ 400 kilogs. ... Le moteur, du poids de 90 kilos, développe 25 chevaux à 1.400 tours ... une vitesse de 55 kilomètres à l'heure au bout du rail."
L'Aerophile, pag. 471 - 474, December 1, 1908, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt...20m/f481.image
Last edited by simplex1; 18th Jun 2014 at 22:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wright brothers did not just think, based on calculations, that their propeller was 66% efficient, they claimed they had built a 66% efficient propeller
"Our first propellers, built entirely from calculations, gave in useful work 66 per cent. of the power expended. This was about one third more than had been secured by Maxim or Langley."
Source: "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, O. and W. Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908, pag. 648-649, The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress"
"Our first propellers, built entirely from calculations, gave in useful work 66 per cent. of the power expended. This was about one third more than had been secured by Maxim or Langley."
Source: "The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, O. and W. Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908, pag. 648-649, The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress"
Last edited by simplex1; 18th Jun 2014 at 22:33.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before Dec. 1906 the Wright brothers were able to sustain 62 pounds/HP, in 1908 only 35 pounds/HP
First, mathematical arguments based on numbers gleaned from newspaper reporters are plain silly.
Second, and most importantly - Given the world's skepticism of the time, if your challenge is at all meaningful it would surely have been raised during the 1908 era. So that we can all see if that's true, please show us the same challenge from 1908 or so and how the Wrights responded.
Last edited by eetrojan; 18th Jun 2014 at 23:09.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wright brothers did not just think, based on calculations, that their propeller was 66% efficient, they claimed they had built a 66% efficient propeller
Proves nothing...
Maybe the replica-makers made a better propeller than the Wrights penciled out. It was, after all, a pretty early time in terms of the theories on aeronautical design.
Maybe the Wrights sucked at math, but were awesome propeller builders.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I talk past OP, because he obviously has a fixed idea that the Wrights were lying, but in case anyone still reading is open to argument.
The best contemporary evidence about the credibility of the Wrights' claims is Ernest Archdeacon, who had doubted them until 1908, when he seems to have become convinced not only that they had a good aeroplane in 1908, but that his earlier doubts had been mistaken and they had been telling the truth all along.
As far as the contracts with the Smithsonian, I guess that has to be considered alongside the early alliance of the Smithsonian and Curtiss to assert the priority of Langley (not so much that he did fly, but that he could have done).
None of which proves that the Wrights "invented" the aeroplane, because no one single person invented it, or most other things, but there doesn't seem any reason to perturb the traditional narrative, just to understand better what it means. Is there any really good, non-partisan account of actual exchange of ideas and data between Europe and the USA in the heroic years?
The best contemporary evidence about the credibility of the Wrights' claims is Ernest Archdeacon, who had doubted them until 1908, when he seems to have become convinced not only that they had a good aeroplane in 1908, but that his earlier doubts had been mistaken and they had been telling the truth all along.
As far as the contracts with the Smithsonian, I guess that has to be considered alongside the early alliance of the Smithsonian and Curtiss to assert the priority of Langley (not so much that he did fly, but that he could have done).
None of which proves that the Wrights "invented" the aeroplane, because no one single person invented it, or most other things, but there doesn't seem any reason to perturb the traditional narrative, just to understand better what it means. Is there any really good, non-partisan account of actual exchange of ideas and data between Europe and the USA in the heroic years?