gabriel voisin

!

TFF

You can get a hold of anything Wright in the US, but it is not going to be in one place. Many places you need research credentials to see the good stuff. Wright State U has the archive, Smithsonian has good stuff, The National Archive has stuff. There are compilations everywhere, but with the real stuff mostly in the US, you go to the real places. Everybody else comes here and brings back the data.

abufletcher

This is one of the things that keeps me from wanting to build an RC model of these very early fliers. They just don't (didn't) fly like anything we currently fly. By the time WWI rolled around the basics of flight control were all there.

gabriel voisin

!

buzzard bait

James Tobin, in his fine biography of the Wrights, has an appendix that is essentially a whole chapter on his sources, with interesting annotations.

He makes clear that the starting point is McFarland's edition of the Wrights' papers, so that's what I'm reading now. I might be interested in other sources later. I do know about the unique 1908 Wright airplane in Germany. It's wonderful to know there is such interest there.

What really amazes me is that I have been to Kitty Hawk and Dayton and both places showed movie clips that are not nearly as good and complete as the ones Matz posted.

The Huffman Prairie affected me more than anything else. It is quiet and tastefully preserved as the native prairie that it was at the time. The perimeters are marked by simple white flags. They allow you to picture those flights, which the Wrights made in an amazingly small space. They had to be turning almost all the time. As you can see from Matz's video, that's how it was at Fort Myer also. I've attached a few photos I took there, including a couple of the interpretive signs.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

I didn't mention this but an old friend of mine was awarded his Class C pilot's liscense by.. Wilbur Wright. My friend (long dead now) was 15 at the time when he earned it. Wilbur just told him "be careful son". He carried the liscense in his wallet for years and years. I asked "Bert what if you lose your wallet, you lose the signed Wilbur Wright liscense too"! He thought about it and said "right"! He had it framed and hung it on his wall.

I'd love to know what happened to the liscense, I'd love to have it!

bhorton

My Feedback: (26)

For lots of info on Gustave Whitehead and his flying look for the book "History By Contract" by William J. O'Dwyer & Stella Randolph. ISBN 3-922 1758-00-7. It was published in West Germany in 1978 because no american publisher would publish it. The book was sold by the AMA back then. Whitehead is said to have achieved powered, sustained, and controlled flight in 1901 beating the Wright brothers by 2 years. The book says the Smithsonian has suppressed evidence of Whitehead's flights due to it's contract with the Wright brothers which states the Wrights were the first to fly. The Smithsonian had to agree to the contract to get the Wright brothers airplane.

By the way the Wright's airplane that is in the Smithsonian is not the airplane they made the first flights with. That airplane was modified as they tried new ideas and developed the plane.

Beavis

My Feedback: (19)

On another note, the first to accomplish all three phases of flight (takeoff, sustained flight, and landing) on the aircraft's own power - i.e. independently of external aids such as launching devices, etc., was actually none of those mentioned here, but rather Alberto Santos-Dumont...

MTK

Talking about whom, The Greek Daedallos was truly the first man to fly in the air in a controlled manner. His son Icaros was the first to die in the very first air accident. Daedallos and his son Icaros were fleeing the Minotauro. According to Greek Mythology this happened 2500 years ago. You can say the Greeks were waaaaayyyy ahead of the times....LOL

What?? You illiterate Americans don't think so? Pick up any Greek Mythology book and take a gander....(tongue firmy planted in cheekLOL)

GerKonig

Yes, a lot of newspapers of the time reported the accident (I was told). Apparently their GPS altimeter did not work well, they flew a bit too close to the sun, the heat from the sun melted wax they had used to build the wings (wax and feathers), and they fell to their death (parachutes were still not invented).

Gerry

buzzard bait

I assume you think the Wrights didn't take off, right? They did. In 1903 the aircraft rolled along a horizontal rail under its own power against a 20 mph wind, rose into the air, and flew a substantial distance and landed.

In 1904 the Wrights had many difficulties and until they started using their catapult, most of their flights were of short duration. But half a dozen flights before the catapult extended to half a minute or more; five flights were greater in distance than the last 1903 flight. Their best for August lasted 50 seconds and covered 2310 ft, more than three times as far as Santos-Dumont’s best flight. Any inventor of the time would have been proud to claim any of these as first flights. These flights were made in little to no wind. It was AFTER these flights that they built their catapult.

Actually I think both the wind and the catapult are irrelevant, but some people disagree. But even if you think the catapult or the headwind should disqualify their flights as first flights, they made many substantial flights without the catapult, and several of them without wind.

Jim

DeferredDefect

In case anyone is interesested, Model Aviation published an excellent article on Whitehead in the March 1983 issue. Took me a bit to find it, but it's a great read. It too makes note of the Smithsonian's agreement with the Wrights, which was apparently denied existed by the institution before being released via pressure from historian William O'Dwyer and then-Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker in the mid 1970's. 

ARUP

There was early experimentation of powered flight by Matthew Sellers in Eastern Kentucky that pre-dates that of the Wright brothers! Photos exist. A replica of one of the aircraft was built by technical students in Kentucky. A buddy of mine's great grandfather assisted from time to time. Pics on internet. FWIW- the Wright brothers were the first to fly. 'Fly' is the 'action' word here. More like repeatedly controlled flight.

buzzard bait

The deal between Orville and the Smithsonian that ultimately brought the Wright Flyer back to the U.S. was well-known at the time and quite a public matter. In 1914, the Smithsonian, under Charles Walcott, had collaborated with Curtiss and others to “restore� the Langley machine and attempt to fly it. After numerous aerodynamic and structural modifications it did fly. Walcott then had the machine returned to its original condition before the modifications that had allowed it to fly and labeled it as the first machine “capable of flight�. Then Walcott, Curtiss, and others engaged in a propaganda campaign that resulted in articles in prominent aviation publications crediting the Langley machine as the first capable of flight.

Orville was justly outraged. He spent years trying to get the Smithsonian to correct the situation. Walcott’s successor, Abbot, negotiated with Orville but for several years would not yield the essential point about the Aerodrome. So Orville finally had the aircraft shipped to England where it was displayed properly labeled. Eventually Abbot relented and signed an agreement with Orville. All of this was highly public and a major embarrassment to the Smithsonian.

The question of Whitehead’s supposed primacy was well-researched and there were plenty of good reasons to reject his claims, or the claims of his later advocates. These have been well-known for decades. From time to time someone publishes an article making the claims for Whitehead while ignoring or downplaying the counter arguments. Aviation History did this once, and apparently Model Aviation did too. Others also have done the same thing.

I checked out Sellers briefly and read an article stating that he had done gliding and kite experiments in the 19th century and made his first powered flight in December 1908, "just five years after the Wright Brothers".

I knew what would happen when I saw abufletcher's post. Whew! Time to get back to the shop!

Jim

MTK

Papyrus news? Newspapyrus?
Exactly how I remember the story being retold some 25 centuries later, when I was in 3rd grade or so. I was, what, 8 or 9 at the time? I still remember the teacher, Kyrios Korkothelos teaching it.....Even as a 9 year old I was dumbfounded at the stupidity of Daedallos the Architect. Why they didn't fly at nightthe world willnever know.

Their "altimeter" fell to thesea of course near Antikythera. It was found some 25 centuries later....you guessed it, the "Antikytheran clock", and it still doesn't work. Except now it has a reason

abufletcher

There's nothing an academic likes better than a nice can of worms.

buzzard bait

Yum.

I've run into so many claims against the Wrights including attacks on their primacy, importance to aviation, character, you name it, that about a year ago I started researching them. I was open to the idea that they might have been overrated in some way. I like iconoclastic arguments as much as the next guy. And some of the Wrights' ardent supporters have created their own misconceptions about the Wrights. But the more I learned the more it reaffirmed my respect for what the Wrights had done. Also, there has been good scholarship about them; it's not just puff pieces, and certainly not conspiracies by the Smithsonian to suppress the truth about possible rivals. So I have collected notes on all these controversies. Most of my long missives in this thread have just been cut and paste jobs from my notes. There are still more out there; we're not done yet.

I really could write an entire book just on the disputes, phoney claims and misconceptions. But I doubt there's a market for yet another book on the invention of the airplane. Besides, the answers to the myriad charges are all out there in various books and publications.

I will say that the good thing about all these claims against the Wrights is that it spurred me to learn much more than I otherwise would have. For example, the Wrights were so discouraged by their attempts in 1904 that they really write very dismissively about them and don't discuss their accomplishments until they get to the flights after they started using the catapult. That has created a false impression that their aircraft couldn't fly without the catapult or a strong head wind. But the records of distances and flight times kept by Charlie Taylor show that they made flights in very light winds without a catapult in 1904 that were much more successful than any of the French attempts in 1906 and 1907, and better than most of the French flights of 1908. It's a picture you don't get until you dig into the veracity of the claims against the Wrights.

Jim

GerKonig

This is America, there is nothing Americans like more than a conspiracy, or a plot. And this is not just a 9/11 era thing, it goes back in history to Kennedy, and beyond... Periodically people try to re-write history. to the point that some autobiographies of famous (or infamous) characters deserve to be filed under "Fiction" in the libraries:-)

When you work with things that involve patents, rights, and a ton of money down the road, even in the Wright brothers times (and before), lawyers always came in and did their deed to try to keep the idea safe from those that would steal it. The industrial revolution was a fertile ground for ideas, and people stealing ideas, and people getting patents, and so on. so, in brief, no I am not surprised at all at the agreement of the time. It does not take a brain surgery degree, or rocket science background to realize that if they would not have tried to protect their inventions (more than one) history would be different today.

Basically you got your Wright brothers, and a myriad of Wright Wannabees.

But, as I always say: never allow reality to get in the way of a good argument...:-)

Gerry

abufletcher

Or said another way: Everyone is entitled to their own opinions...but not to their own facts.

buzzard bait

So true!

When I read about 1905 I can't help wishing I could grab them and say, "Guys, Wilbur, Orville, fuel up the plane! Fly to Dayton, fly a circle around the city and then fly home. You will create a sensation that will be remembered till the end of the earth!"

But I am not them. I don't live at the turn of the last century. I am not trying to live on the remains of a bicycle business while I develop the most extraordinary invention of all time, one that fulfills dreams of ages. No one else was even close, yet everything essential about the invention could be seen and possibly replicated by others with more resources and business acumen. They were sitting on a powder keg and didn't know what to do.

Jim

ARUP

I checked out Sellers briefly and read an article stating that he had done gliding and kite experiments in the 19th century and made his first powered flight in December 1908, "just five years after the Wright Brothers".

I knew what would happen when I saw abufletcher's post. Whew! Time to get back to the shop!

Jim

Just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read... on the internet. The Sellers maintained a diary/ log with flights, tests and etc. They are all occurring at the same time as the Wright brothers. Pretty interesting stuff. FWIW, I believe the Wright brothers were the first to fly. There was detailed research published in one of the 'WWI Aero' or 'SKYWAYS' journals. It made for an interesting read validating the Wright brothers claim. I have the journal but not the inclination to dig it up. Sue mee... I'm lazy!

buzzard bait

I'm not saying I believe what I see on the internet, which in this case was a newspaper story. But at this point it's all I've seen. If there is a good source on Sellers I'd love to see it. All the early attempts make good reading. So what exactly does he say he did? Witnesses? Photos? Give us a reference if you've got something good.

If you ever feel inclined to look up a date for the Skyways or WWI Aero issue I'd be much obliged. I've written for them, but I don't know that piece.

Jim

abufletcher

Or in books. Or magazines. Maybe especially magazines. Journals I trust a little more. But not much more. Historians talk about and study "historiography" which involves looking at how the processes of "history creation" happen (or happened at a certain point in time because history creation itself changes over time). So you can't really analyze the history of any particular topic or claim without also examining the historiography that surrounds it.

I found the original report of new research on Weisskopf (see my first post) worth looking at because to me it had the look and feel of serious work by a professional historian. This doesn't mean he's right. Professional historians disagree with each other all the time. But it's interesting to look at how he makes he arguments.

buzzard bait

There aren't peer reviewed journals for aviation history, so you're on your own. Editors at publishing houses don't know this stuff, so there are really no controls on what gets put out there. One reason I like Tobin's book on the Wrights is that he tells you his sources, provides references, and explains what he thinks of different sources and why. I also like reading McFarland's edition of the Wrights papers. He was the head of the Aeronautics Division of the Library of Congress. He's not somebody with an ax to grind making selective quotations to shape a point.

Jim

CashD

I have heard that Gustav Weisskopf was also actually the first man on the moon...