ALERT!: new book, "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight"

[GWFirstinFlight]

Still believe the Wrights flew first? Want to know what the evidence is for Gustave Whitehead's 1901 powered flights? The most comprehensive book ever written on this topic has just been published. "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight" can be seen on www.gustavewhiteheadbook.com and Amazon http://amzn.com/0692439307.

 

[Hank S]

Woo-hooo. Just bought McCullough's "Wright Brothers."

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Still believe the Wrights flew first?

That will be a good read.
Then, one might read about the very first to fly, decades before them.
Jacob Brodbeck, in Texas 1865.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Icarus was first

 

[JOhnH]

Icarus was first

Wouldn't a successful landing be a requirement to attain that title?
If I recall, Icarus's flight didn't end too well.

 

[JOhnH]

Still believe the Wrights flew first? Want to know what the evidence is for Gustave Whitehead's 1901 powered flights? The most comprehensive book ever written on this topic has just been published. "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight" can be seen on www.gustavewhiteheadbook.com and Amazon http://amzn.com/0692439307.

This account was created over a year ago, yet only has 6 posts? And all of them attempting to degrade the Wright brothers?

Does anyone want to hazard a guess of other identities this poster may have used?

 

[JOhnH]

The author of the book's first name is "Susan".
I wonder if Susan is the same guy that has been trashing the Wright brothers on this site under various use IDs.

 

[GWFirstinFlight]

The question is, if someone else was making powered flights before the Wrights, is that degrading them or reporting history? If we are getting the wrong info on the Wrights from current historians, shouldn't we learn what was really happening? For a great, technical read about the Wrights and their Flyers, see "The WRight Story" by Joe Bullmer, the author, an aeronautical engineer who worked at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, for 30 years, and researched what they did. An intelligence analyst who wrote reports about the aerodynamics of foreign aircraft, etc., he analyzed the early Flyers, and also used primary sources to dig into their history - their own words and those of others who lived then. We can't possibly know the real history of early aviation without examining those types of sources. Getting it just from the Wrights themselves isn't sufficient, nor from modern "historians" eager to jump on the lucrative hero bandwagon. If you want the real history, read "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight" and Bullmer's book. If you want historical fiction, or doctored up history, read McCullough or books produced by Smithsonian.

 

[roncachamp]

Still believe the Wrights flew first? Want to know what the evidence is for Gustave Whitehead's 1901 powered flights? The most comprehensive book ever written on this topic has just been published. "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight" can be seen on www.gustavewhiteheadbook.com and Amazon http://amzn.com/0692439307.

Yes, I still believe the Wrights were the first to achieve sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air-flight. I believe that because there is solid evidence that they achieved it on 17 December 1903 and there is no evidence that anyone achieved it earlier. It is known that Gustave Whitehead did not achieve it because he did not equip his craft with a control system.

 

[Scrabo]

Yes, I still believe the Wrights were the first to achieve sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air-flight.

That's a lot to get onto a license plate - while probably a more accurate statement.

 

[GWFirstinFlight]

So do you think Whitehead, making powered flights with a flying machine between 1901-1903 should receive some sort of credit? Or that it should still be said he never left the ground (even with 18 witnesses who say different and multiple local newspapers confirming this, even eyewitnessing it)? Before talking about control, please see "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight", a section is devoted to "The Issue of Control". Secondly, please see Joe Bullmer's book, The WRight Story, which covers exactly how much control the Wright Flyer #1 had (and subsequent Wright Flyers). Not as much as you think. Both the Wright aircraft and Whitehead's were designed for straight-line flights, in those early years. The wing warping controls were designed to help an unstable flying machine fly straight. Whitehead's plane was inherently stable. His planes did not make crash landings, but the Wrights' did, even on Dec. 17, 1903.

 

[roncachamp]

So do you think Whitehead, making powered flights with a flying machine between 1901-1903 should receive some sort of credit? Or that it should still be said he never left the ground (even with 18 witnesses who say different and multiple local newspapers confirming this, even eyewitnessing it)?

The best that can be said about Whitehead is that he may have duplicated what Clément Ader achieved with the Éole on 9 October 1890.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

So do you think Whitehead, making powered flights with a flying machine between 1901-1903 should receive some sort of credit? Or that it should still be said he never left the ground (even with 18 witnesses who say different and multiple local newspapers confirming this, even eyewitnessing it)?

"Some sort of credit" and "Never left the ground"?
I don't recall anyone claiming he never left the ground.

Additionally you don't want to give him "some sort of credit"
you want to give him all of it.

Structuring your question this way whilst wanting him to get all the credit is mischievous and pins the exam taker into choosing something that wont satisfy the proctor (aka makes you kind of pricky)

 

[GWFirstinFlight]

The Smithsonian's current exhibit on Whitehead and its public statements say that GW never left the ground. But then again, they are under contract to say Orville was first. The evidence for Whitehead is mountainous, and has been condensed into a 432 page book. See what you think!

 

[JOhnH]

The Smithsonian's current exhibit on Whitehead and its public statements say that GW never left the ground. But then again, they are under contract to say Orville was first. The evidence for Whitehead is mountainous, and has been condensed into a 432 page book. See what you think!

What would be your royalty from the book's sale?

 

[roncachamp]

The Smithsonian's current exhibit on Whitehead and its public statements say that GW never left the ground. But then again, they are under contract to say Orville was first. The evidence for Whitehead is mountainous, and has been condensed into a 432 page book. See what you think!

There exists no evidence for Whitehead.

 

[GWFirstinFlight]

I am interested on whose authority you are saying this? How do you know there is no evidence? I hope it is not the ineptocracy ... (which I happen to agree with the existence of, BTW)

 

[roncachamp]

I am interested on whose authority you are saying this? How do you know there is no evidence?

On my own authority. I know there is no evidence because I've researched the subject completely.

 

[ClimbnSink]

No Steven there is a 432 page book of evidence. And we are all getting free signed copies, right, right. So we can properly discuss the evidence. Well you guys can. I'm just going to look at the pictures, hope it has photos of ladies in those funny old hats they used to wear to public hangings and such spectacle.

 

[roncachamp]

No Steven there is a 432 page book of evidence. And we are all getting free signed copies, right, right. So we can properly discuss the evidence. Well you guys can. I'm just going to look at the pictures, hope it has photos of ladies in those funny old hats they used to wear to public hangings and such spectacle.

Free is a good price only if shipping is included. The book can then be used as charcoal starter.

 

[Wheels]

So do you think Whitehead, making powered flights with a flying machine between 1901-1903 should receive some sort of credit? Or that it should still be said he never left the ground (even with 18 witnesses who say different and multiple local newspapers confirming this, even eyewitnessing it)?

There was one local paper that printed a story about it that was then widely copied by other papers. That paper did not list the reporter's name but it did name two ( not 18) witnesses. One of those witnesses could never be found and the other (an employee of Whitehead) signed an affidavit stating that he did not witness any flight, that he did not know the other witness, and that he thought the newspaper article was imaginary based on statements that Whitehead made about what he hoped to do.

In the 60's, your father Maj. O'Dwyer declared the witness a liar because the witness refused to discuss the matter with him. It appears that you will go to almost any lengths to try to prove that your father is not the liar that he declared James Dickie to be.

http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/odwyerdickie.html

 

[flyingron]

At least there aren't the documented accounts of Whitehead conducting spectacular failures like Langley. The Aerodrome A didn't so much fly as plummet.

 

[roncachamp]

At least there aren't the documented accounts of Whitehead conducting spectacular failures like Langley. The Aerodrome A didn't so much fly as plummet.

The Wright brothers achieved sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air flight on December 17, 1903. To this day there is no credible evidence that anyone achieved the same feat on an earlier date.

Control is the key; the Wrights worked out the physics needed to create a system to control their craft in all three axes. They were not the first to build a powered heavier-than-air machine able to make brief hops aloft, Clément Ader did that in 1890. He is not credited with controlled flight because he had no means of control. His craft, the Éole, was not equipped with flight controls. Nor was Whitehead's:

The Bridgeport Herald (August 18, 1901) reported that Whitehead and another man drove to the testing area in the machine, which worked like a car when the wings were folded along its sides. Two other people, including the newspaper reporter, followed on bicycles. For short distances the Number 21's speed was close to thirty miles an hour on the uneven road, and the article said, "there seems no doubt that the machine can reel off forty miles an hour and not exert the engine to its fullest capacity."

The newspaper reported that before attempting to pilot the aircraft, Whitehead successfully test flew it unmanned in the pre-dawn hours, using tether ropes and sandbag ballast. When Whitehead was ready to make a manned flight, the article said: "By this time the light was good. Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east."

The newspaper reported that trees blocked the way after the flight was in progress, and quoted Whitehead as saying, "I knew that I could not clear them by rising higher, and also that I had no means of steering around them by using the machinery." The article said Whitehead quickly thought of a solution to steer around the trees:

"He simply shifted his weight more to one side than the other. This careened the ship to one side. She turned her nose away from the clump of sprouts when within fifty yards of them and took her course around them as prettily as a yacht on the sea avoids a bar. The ability to control the air ship in this manner appeared to give Whitehead confidence, for he was seen to take time to look at the landscape about him. He looked back and waved his hand exclaiming, 'I've got it at last.'"

No control system means no controlled flight.

Whitehead's craft had two engines; one drove the two propellers, the other drove the wheels. Why power the wheels? The craft could have been towed to the test site. Once the machine is airborne the second engine is just dead weight, why include anything unneeded to fly? Were the propellers so inefficient as to require driven wheels in order to reach flying speed? If so, how was sustained flight to be achieved?

 

[kyleb]

Still believe the Wrights flew first? Want to know what the evidence is for Gustave Whitehead's 1901 powered flights? The most comprehensive book ever written on this topic has just been published. "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight" can be seen on www.gustavewhiteheadbook.com and Amazon http://amzn.com/0692439307.

Aah, found it. It is on the shelf right by Charles Berlitz' books on the Bermuda Triangle and Erich Von Daniken's book "Chariots of the Gods".

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

 

[GWFirstinFlight]

There are no authoritative sources cited yet. What is related is the misinformation being spread by Smithsonian and its cadre of supporters. I think you might be interested in the issue of control concerning the Wrights' plane; take a look at Bullmer's book, The WRight Story.

 

[Wheels]

There are no authoritative sources cited yet. What is related is the misinformation being spread by Smithsonian and its cadre of supporters. I think you might be interested in the issue of control concerning the Wrights' plane; take a look at Bullmer's book, The WRight Story.

What makes Bullmer any more of an authoritative source than Larry Elman? He is also an aeronautical engineer and former member Board of Directors of the Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association (“CAHA”). In the late sixties your father presented his "evidence" to that board and was rejected by every member.

 

[roncachamp]

There are no authoritative sources cited yet. What is related is the misinformation being spread by Smithsonian and its cadre of supporters. I think you might be interested in the issue of control concerning the Wrights' plane; take a look at Bullmer's book, The WRight Story.

I've cited Gustave Whitehead's statement that his machine had no means of control. What source could be more authoritative than the builder?

There is no evidence that the Smithsonian is spreading misinformation.

 

[poadeleted21]

The Wright brothers achieved sustained, controlled, heavier-than-air flight on December 17, 1903. To this day there is no credible evidence that anyone achieved the same feat on an earlier date.

Control is the key; the Wrights worked out the physics needed to create a system to control their craft in all three axes. They were not the first to build a powered heavier-than-air machine able to make brief hops aloft, Clément Ader did that in 1890. He is not credited with controlled flight because he had no means of control. His craft, the Éole, was not equipped with flight controls. Nor was Whitehead's:

No control system means no controlled flight.

Whitehead's craft had two engines; one drove the two propellers, the other drove the wheels. Why power the wheels? The craft could have been towed to the test site. Once the machine is airborne the second engine is just dead weight, why include anything unneeded to fly? Were the propellers so inefficient as to require driven wheels in order to reach flying speed? If so, how was sustained flight to be achieved?

He must have been taking off on a treadmill.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

If we all agree that there never was a right brothers will you just stop with this nonsense?

 

[Lindberg]

There are no authoritative sources cited yet. What is related is the misinformation being spread by Smithsonian and its cadre of supporters. I think you might be interested in the issue of control concerning the Wrights' plane; take a look at Bullmer's book, The WRight Story.

It is clear that you are the only authoritative source. Send me your book, and I shall read it and report back. Maybe an unbiased report would sell more copies than your badgering, insulting and trolling.