Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight breaking news
In passing, Fish Salmon sadly died on the job: ferrying a Super Constellation in 1980, although prior to that, the Society of Experimental Test Pilots named their annual "best paper" award after him.
IIRC, the first winner of that award is posting slightly higher up on this thread.
G
IIRC, the first winner of that award is posting slightly higher up on this thread.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 17th Jul 2015 at 17:18.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Encino, CA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does it mean to fly ?
At first glance, the answer to the question "What does it mean to fly ?" seems to be obvious, yet is it, truly obvious ?
To many, probably most, people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries merely getting into the air through some mechanical means, using a power source or gravity or moving air, would have qualified as "flying."
A surprising number of people managed to make hops of 100 or more feet during that early period, and it can be easily understood that they and anyone who saw them do what they did would have thought they had witnessed a human flying.
Of course, this plays into any discussion of "who flew first."
It's also important to remember that at that earlier time there was no fixed standard as to what constituted human flight, everyone was free to set their own standard.
A quick review of some of the more outlandish designs of that period demonstrates that there was also no fixed standard as to what constituted an aeroplane.
I think it's difficult for us, in the present age, to fully comprehend what all this meant to people in that earlier time.
To many, probably most, people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries merely getting into the air through some mechanical means, using a power source or gravity or moving air, would have qualified as "flying."
A surprising number of people managed to make hops of 100 or more feet during that early period, and it can be easily understood that they and anyone who saw them do what they did would have thought they had witnessed a human flying.
Of course, this plays into any discussion of "who flew first."
It's also important to remember that at that earlier time there was no fixed standard as to what constituted human flight, everyone was free to set their own standard.
A quick review of some of the more outlandish designs of that period demonstrates that there was also no fixed standard as to what constituted an aeroplane.
I think it's difficult for us, in the present age, to fully comprehend what all this meant to people in that earlier time.
I'm in absolute agreement with Carroll's latest comments. The definition of "who flew first" is largely dictated by assigned ( and popular) criteria, some of which are applied retrospectively.
There were a range of pioneers and institutions who ,internationally, were contributing to the evolution of a practicable aeroplane . The tipping point came around the turn of the 20th century with structural and aerodynamic (including propeller) knowledge coming together and combining with increasingly efficient engines.
I don't think that the absence of any single source of input over that period would have seriously delayed the overall evolution toward a useful aeroplane . Which is NOT a dig at the Wrights , whose contribution was enormous.
In defence of the B.E. 2c, do remember that it first flew pre-war and it was committed to mass production primarily as an observation machine, before the concept of air-to-air combat was generally appreciated.
The impact of such combat , particularly of course the Fokker monoplanes whose machine gun interrupter gear combined with aerial fighting tactics developed by such as Immelman, arrived almost a year and a half after the commencement of hostilities.
Such attacks, usually from the stern against unarmed, or poorly armed, B.E. types ( with their observer then in the front cockpit and unable to usefully defend the 2 seater) led to the "Fokker Fodder" appellation.
Certainly the comparative lack of maneuverability of the B.E.'s also contributed to a huge and often fatal disadvantage for the type from then on.
As is well known, that situation continued to escalate up to a political scandal as the war developed.
There were a range of pioneers and institutions who ,internationally, were contributing to the evolution of a practicable aeroplane . The tipping point came around the turn of the 20th century with structural and aerodynamic (including propeller) knowledge coming together and combining with increasingly efficient engines.
I don't think that the absence of any single source of input over that period would have seriously delayed the overall evolution toward a useful aeroplane . Which is NOT a dig at the Wrights , whose contribution was enormous.
In defence of the B.E. 2c, do remember that it first flew pre-war and it was committed to mass production primarily as an observation machine, before the concept of air-to-air combat was generally appreciated.
The impact of such combat , particularly of course the Fokker monoplanes whose machine gun interrupter gear combined with aerial fighting tactics developed by such as Immelman, arrived almost a year and a half after the commencement of hostilities.
Such attacks, usually from the stern against unarmed, or poorly armed, B.E. types ( with their observer then in the front cockpit and unable to usefully defend the 2 seater) led to the "Fokker Fodder" appellation.
Certainly the comparative lack of maneuverability of the B.E.'s also contributed to a huge and often fatal disadvantage for the type from then on.
As is well known, that situation continued to escalate up to a political scandal as the war developed.
Last edited by Haraka; 21st Jul 2015 at 11:07.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last 2 posts say what I think but expressed much better!
I am not "anti-Wright" and agree that their contribution and dedication was huge, but I feel that the "podium" built for them by their fans is too high and too exclusive; in my opinion the Montgolfier Brothers, Sir George Cayley, Otto Lillienthal, Clement Ader (among others) made equally significant historical contributions; Percy Pilcher would probably have joined this elite group if he had not been killed.
From what I have learned here and elsewhere I am not convinced that Whitehead is in this group.
Finally the "criteria" seem to me to be debatable, especially as heavier-than-air craft can and do fly without 3 axis control mechanisms. Clement Ader has been ruled out of being the "first" because Eole did not have "proper" 3 axis controls, but if we now know that 3AC is not imperative, then why is it still classed as a defining criterion?
For example, I believe that some modern military jets would be incapable of controlled flight without their computers, so by the very criteria used to place the Wrights at Number One, we would logically have to say that modern planes are NOT planes!
I am not "anti-Wright" and agree that their contribution and dedication was huge, but I feel that the "podium" built for them by their fans is too high and too exclusive; in my opinion the Montgolfier Brothers, Sir George Cayley, Otto Lillienthal, Clement Ader (among others) made equally significant historical contributions; Percy Pilcher would probably have joined this elite group if he had not been killed.
From what I have learned here and elsewhere I am not convinced that Whitehead is in this group.
Finally the "criteria" seem to me to be debatable, especially as heavier-than-air craft can and do fly without 3 axis control mechanisms. Clement Ader has been ruled out of being the "first" because Eole did not have "proper" 3 axis controls, but if we now know that 3AC is not imperative, then why is it still classed as a defining criterion?
For example, I believe that some modern military jets would be incapable of controlled flight without their computers, so by the very criteria used to place the Wrights at Number One, we would logically have to say that modern planes are NOT planes!
I personally think that the Wrights qualify a little higher than most purely because of the impressive hard work that they put in to further proper scientific/engineering aviation research.
They of course should not have got bogged down in all the legal issues but to an extent it was understandable,it was also understandable that they felt aggrieved about the shenanigans with some of the American scientific community/smithsonian et al.
rgds LR
They of course should not have got bogged down in all the legal issues but to an extent it was understandable,it was also understandable that they felt aggrieved about the shenanigans with some of the American scientific community/smithsonian et al.
rgds LR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As people have said, the development of heavier-than-air aviation does not depend on a single invention. Some advances were by invention, some by integration of previously existing knowledge.
Trying to decide who was the first to fly is a parlour game, which is OK until some kind of fervour, nationalistic or other, leads people to denigrate great pioneers, such as the Wrights.
You can't even establish a criterion for "practical flight," since what counts as "practical" changes in the light of existing developments. By the standards of 1903, the Wrights achieved practical flight (passage from point A to point B, in the air, not by inertia, where point B is not lower than point A, and where the aeroplane is available for re-use after only minor fettling), but by the standards of 1908, established in part by the Wrights, it was a marginal hop.
But it is interesting to learn about the progress of development, the contributions and sometimes strange omissions of the pioneers.
Trying to decide who was the first to fly is a parlour game, which is OK until some kind of fervour, nationalistic or other, leads people to denigrate great pioneers, such as the Wrights.
You can't even establish a criterion for "practical flight," since what counts as "practical" changes in the light of existing developments. By the standards of 1903, the Wrights achieved practical flight (passage from point A to point B, in the air, not by inertia, where point B is not lower than point A, and where the aeroplane is available for re-use after only minor fettling), but by the standards of 1908, established in part by the Wrights, it was a marginal hop.
But it is interesting to learn about the progress of development, the contributions and sometimes strange omissions of the pioneers.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longer Ron : I personally think that the Wrights qualify a little higher than most purely because of the impressive hard work that they put in to further proper scientific/engineering aviation research.
After this, the previous Wrights thread, and other reading, I reckon I more-or-less agree with this!
However, it seems to me that as soon as they were elevated to "a little higher than most" (by criteria which I find debatable) then all the other pioneers were classed as also-rans and failures, which is absolutely wrong, and often further skewed by nationalistic pride..
Achieving flight was truly a multi-national endeavour, starting long before the Wrights were born. If I were to design a monument to flight it would have to have at least five steps: Montgolfiers, Cayley, Lillienthal, Ader, Wrights.
After this, the previous Wrights thread, and other reading, I reckon I more-or-less agree with this!
However, it seems to me that as soon as they were elevated to "a little higher than most" (by criteria which I find debatable) then all the other pioneers were classed as also-rans and failures, which is absolutely wrong, and often further skewed by nationalistic pride..
Achieving flight was truly a multi-national endeavour, starting long before the Wrights were born. If I were to design a monument to flight it would have to have at least five steps: Montgolfiers, Cayley, Lillienthal, Ader, Wrights.
