The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew for the first time in 1908.

Cruiser,

Only John T. Daniels (in 1933 and 1935), A. D. Etheridge (in 1935) and A. I. Root (in 1905) really declared they had seen the Wright brothers flying in a powered plane in 1903-1904. The rest of people mentioned by you were just claimed as witnesses by the Wright brothers or by others but they never came forward with a declaration.
 
simplex1 said:
Cruiser,

Only John T. Daniels (in 1933 and 1935), A. D. Etheridge (in 1935) and A. I. Root (in 1905) really declared they had seen the Wright brothers flying in a powered plane in 1903-1904. The rest of people mentioned by you were just claimed as witnesses by the Wright brothers or by others but they never came forward with a declaration.
Click to expand...

Now it's becoming clear. Because they didn't come forward with declarations that satisfy you some 100 years later, the other nineteen or so persons that the Wright's publicly announced as witnesses to their otherwise private flights purposely kept silent about the Wright's fraud due to their participation in a vast conspiracy.
 
MAKG1 said:
Simplex1, it is VERY bad form to make a second login just to make it look like someone agrees with you.
Click to expand...
It is not me and I have serious doubts Gustav Whitehead flew in 1901-1902.

I have read the articles from Aug. 18, 1901 and April. 1, 1902 (what a coincidence) about the flights of Whitehead and the stories there resemble what Joules Verne wrote in his novels.

However, Whitehead definitely had a plane with propellers in 1902. We know for sure how his machine looked like which is not the case of the Wright brothers. They showed no picture or drawing before 1908.

You can read the two articles about the German inventor here:
http://www.wright-brothers.org/Hist...tav_Whitehead/Whitehead_Articles.htm#inventor

One big problem with the experiments of Whitehead is his extremely long flights (miles) realized using mysterious light engines (one working with acetylene, the other a diesel motor).

A 2 miles flight at the first trial, 7 miles at the second. This is Gustav Whitehead!
see: http://www.wright-brothers.org/Hist...02-Whitehead-Letter-to-Editor-re-No-22-p2.jpg
 
Last edited:
register@teamandras.com said:
Now it's becoming clear. Because they didn't come forward with declarations that satisfy you some 100 years later, the other nineteen or so persons that the Wright's publicly announced as witnesses to their otherwise private flights purposely kept silent about the Wright's fraud due to their participation in a vast conspiracy.
Click to expand...
I want to see the declarations of those people. Make an effort and search for them.
 
simplex1 said:
I want to see the declarations of those people. Make an effort and search for them.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you stamp your foot and put your hands on your hips while you type that...
 
simplex1 said:
I want to see the declarations of those people. Make an effort and search for them.
Click to expand...

I though you said they don't exist.

I read my prior reply again and it's pretty snarky. My apologies, but I firmly believe that history should be written "on the fly" (pun intended) when actual stakeholders with current memories are around to participate and support or contradict the claims of one another, not reshaped like soft clay by some presumably biased third party after everybody's dead and nobody's around to defend themselves.

That said, who are you (generally speaking) and why are you so vested in refuting the Wright's claims at this late date?
 
This is just an example that illustrates the low credibility of the Wright brothers

In May 1904, the Wright brothers just glided in front of journalists according to their own September 1908 account.

The brothers also said the newspapers in May 1904 "in kindness, had concealed" the reality, they had lied!

This is what the Wright brothers themselves declared in 1908 about their witnessed flight attempts in 1904:

"In the spring of 1904 … the new machine was heavier and stronger … When it was ready for its first trial, every newspaper in Dayton was notified, and about a dozen representatives of the press were present. … When preparations had been completed … The machine, after running the length of the track, slid off the end without rising into the air at all. Several of the newspaper men returned the next day, but they were again disappointed. The engine performed badly, and after a glide of only sixty feet, the machine came to the ground. The reporters had now, no doubt, lost confidence in the machine, though their reports, in kindness, concealed it. Later, when they heard that we were making flights of several minutes' duration, knowing that longer flights had been made with air-ships, … they were but little interested."
Source: The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane, The Century Magazine, Sep. 1908, pag 649, columns 3 and 4, The Wright Brothers' Aeroplane [Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Century Magazine, September 1908] | Library of Congress

And here you find what the newspapers wrote in May 1904:

"Flying Machine. Given a Successful Test by Messrs. Wright This Afternoon. Rose Twelve Feet in the Air and Sped Along a Distance of Twenty-Five Feet..Propellers Broke.", Dayton Press, May 26, 1904 (see: Scrapbooks: January 1902-December 1908 | Library of Congress )

Did the brothers glide 60 feet in May 1904 or fly 25 feet?

Also in the Sep. 1908 article, the Wright brothers claimed that "when they (the journalists) heard that we were making flights of several minutes' duration, knowing that longer flights had been made with air-ships, … they were but little interested." which is a big lie. They pretended the journalists had not been interested and this was the reason there was no serious witness to their flights in 1904 - 1905 when it was known the two inventors had refused systematically to show their planes or made public demonstrations before Aug 8. 1908.
 
Yeah cause the first airplanes were so reliable you could conjure up flight just by thinking about it.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Now it's becoming clear. Because they didn't come forward with declarations that satisfy you some 100 years later, the other nineteen or so persons that the Wright's publicly announced as witnesses to their otherwise private flights purposely kept silent about the Wright's fraud due to their participation in a vast conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Actually there were over 60 individuals that witnessed the Wright Bros. flying near Dayton, Ohio.
The Scientific American contacted many of them and posted responses from eleven in one of their issues. The Scientific American were convinced that the Wright Bros. were doing something extraordinary and wrote them for confirmation.
The Wright Bros. response in their fundamental and somewhat naive manner questioned why the editor would want them to confirm their own actions when he already had independent confirming statements from the observers.
 
Cruiser said:
Actually there were over 60 individuals that witnessed the Wright Bros. flying near Dayton, Ohio.
The Scientific American contacted many of them and posted responses from eleven in one of their issues. The Scientific American were convinced that the Wright Bros. were doing something extraordinary and wrote them for confirmation.
The Wright Bros. response in their fundamental and somewhat naive manner questioned why the editor would want them to confirm their own actions when he already had independent confirming statements from the observers.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I would love to learn more about this, including competing claims, but the OP's style is very annoying. His posts come across as crazed excerpts from some sort of manifesto.
 
Early aviation history is indeed fascinating. I find it hard to imagine the effort and courage in these early aviators.
Picture Orville and Wilbur carrying their glider up a 100 foot high hill covered with sandspurs, (a grass of the eastern United States and tropical America having spikelets enclosed in prickly burs. They are painful and a real chore to remove from your clothing.)
Walking uphill in sand is hard enough. Doing it over and over each day carrying 100 pounds of glider for the chance to fly down the hill in a 15 second ride and then start all over again.
Doesn't really sound fun to me.
Of course the sand flies and mosquitoes had a way of diverting their attention from the sandspurs.

It erks me that someone can sit behind the comfort of a keyboard and computer 110 years later and criticize their effort.
 
Cruiser said:
Actually there were over 60 individuals that witnessed the Wright Bros. flying near Dayton, Ohio.
The Scientific American contacted many of them and posted responses from eleven in one of their issues. The Scientific American were convinced that the Wright Bros. were doing something extraordinary and wrote them for confirmation.
The Wright Bros. response in their fundamental and somewhat naive manner questioned why the editor would want them to confirm their own actions when he already had independent confirming statements from the observers.
Click to expand...

The book "The Wright Brothers: A Biography" by Fred C. Kelly says that:

"The Wrights had a list of about sixty persons who had witnessed flights.
Those witnesses named in the published list got requests for confirmatory letters from the Scientific American ... Then, in the issue of April 7, 1906, the magazine reported the long flights of the previous autumn and quoted in full a letter from one of the witnesses."
( see: http://books.google.ro/books?id=ZST...g=RA1-PA146#v=onepage&q=April 7, 1906&f=false )

This is the article: "The Wright Aeroplane and Its Performances", Scientific American, April 7, 1906 (see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-wright-aeroplane-and-its-perfor/). Unfortunately you have to pay to see it.

Same article is available, but not in full, at this link:
http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm2.html

"When the list of their flights given above was first announced last December in France, it was incredible to many people both there and here that so novel a device as a flying machine could be operated frequently for nearly six months in the vicinity of a large city without the fact becoming generally known. the Wrights refused to make a statement, and they gave the names of but a few persons who had seen them fly. With the communication recently sent by them to the Aero Club, however, they sent a list of names of seventeen men who were eye-witnesses of their experiments. In order to dispel any lingering doubt regarding the flights, the reported accounts of which the leading German aeronautical journal, Illustrirte Aeronautische Mitteilungen, characterized as "ein amerikanischer 'bluff.' " a list of questions was sent to the seventeen witnesses. In all we received eleven replies." (Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-wright-aeroplane-and-its-perfor/ )

Unfortunately, the declaration of that witness Kelly talked about is not available. The answers the Scientific American declared it had received from 11 witnesses out of 17 (not 60!) provided by the Wright brothers in a list, are also not present.

I have to see the article "The Wright Aeroplane and Its Performances" in full to have a clear picture about its credibility. The images the article contains show just the gliders the brothers built before Dec. 17, 1903. The text is illegible in the free version.
(see: http://www.maginethis.com/mm5/merch...oduct_Code=1906-04-07&Category_Code=sciam1906 ).
 
Last edited:
simplex1 said:
Cruiser,

Only John T. Daniels (in 1933 and 1935), A. D. Etheridge (in 1935) and A. I. Root (in 1905) really declared they had seen the Wright brothers flying in a powered plane in 1903-1904. The rest of people mentioned by you were just claimed as witnesses by the Wright brothers or by others but they never came forward with a declaration.
Click to expand...

There are no affidavits or formal declarations from anyone for the Wrights. I have checked this out with the LOC and Wright State University. None exist.
 
The case of Gustav Whitehead as the first man to fly a powered plane is hopeless. His propellers had an efficiency of 237%! Impossible!

By applying the well known relation:

Efficiency_propellers = Thrust_propellers * Speed_plane / Power_engine

to the particular parameters of Gustav Whitehead's alleged No. 22 airplane:

- max_Thrust_propellers = 508 pounds
- Speed_plane = 70 miles/hour
- Power_engine = 40 HP

(read the article "The Whitehead Flying Machine" (attached) )

the efficiency of the propellers results as being 237%. Impossible! Case closed!

Demonstration:
508pounds * 70miles/hour / 40HP = 237%
(All quantities were transformed into international units before obtaining the efficiency.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 "American Inventor Magazine, 1 April 1902

The Whitehead Flying Machine

Has the End been Finally Attained, and is the Dirigible Balloon to Go?

Editor, American Inventor

Dear Sir: Replying to your recent letter, I take pleasure in sending you the following description of my flying machine No. 22, the latest that I have constructed:

This machine was built in four months with the aid of 14 skilled mechanics and cost about $1,700 to build. It is run by a 40 horse-power kerosene motor of my own design, especially constructed for strength, power and lightness, weighing but 120 pounds complete. It will run for a week at a time if required, without running hot, stopping, or in any possible manner troubling the operator. No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. It requires a space 10 inches wide, 4 feet long and 10 inches high.

 The flying machine proper is built like my machine No. 21. of which I send you photographs, only instead of using acetylene gas for driving purposes I use the kerosene motor described above. Machine No. 22 is made mostly of steel and aluminum. There is a body 10 feet long, 3-1/2 feet wide and 3-1/2 feet deep, shaped like a fish, and resting on four automobile wheels, 13 inches in diameter. While standing on the ground the two front wheels are connected to the kerosene motor and the rear wheels are used for steering. They can be easily moved by the aeronaut. The body is well stayed with steel tubing and braced with steel piano wire. It is covered with aluminum sheeting and made so it will float like a boat in the water. On either side are large wings or aeroplanes shaped like the wings of a flying fish or bat. The ribs are of steel tubing in No. 22 instead of bamboo as in No. 21 machine, and are covered with 450 square feet of the best silk obtainable. In front of the wings and across the body is a steel framework to which is connected the propellers for driving the machine through the air. The propellers are 6 feet in diameter and have a projecting blade-surface of 4 square feet each. They are made of wood and are covered with very thin aluminum sheeting. The propellers run about 600 revolutions per minute under full power and turn in opposite directions. When running at full speed they will exert a thrust of 508 pounds. I measured this thrust by attaching the machine to a post by means of a dynamometer and running the engines at full speed. There is a mast and a bowsprit braced something like a ship's rigging to hold all parts in their proper relations to each other. In the stern of the machine there is a 12-foot tail, something similar to a bird's tail, which, like the wings, can be folded up in half a minute and laid against the sides of the body. An automatic apparatus serves to keep the equilibrium in the air.

This is illustrated in the diagrams, in which similar letters refer to similar parts in both the top and side views. H is the body of the machine containing the motor (not shown), and the wheels, II, on which it rests on the ground and supporting the tail, K. F is the bowsprit on which is mounted the lever C, supporting the small aeroplane E. The lever C is connected by the rod G to the pendulum B, which has at its lower end the weight A. It is obvious that the weight A will tilt the aeroplane E if the machine drops her bow. The leverage gained from the end of the bowsprit to the center of the machine is so great that the least change in the position of the aeroplane is instantly effective. By means of the handle D, such changes are under the immediate control of the aeronaut. I have not shown the wings in these diagrams.

In order to start flying, the motor is set in motion, and then connected to the front wheels which drive the machine forward at fearful speed. When ready to go up, a spring is released which stretches the wings and the propellers are started by means of a lever which stops the ground wheels and turns the power into the propellers. It takes about 20 yards run with the extra weight of a man (about 180 pounds) before the machine leaves the ground.

This new machine has been tried twice, on January 17, 1902. It was intended to fly only short distances, but the machine behaved so well that at the first trial it covered nearly two miles over the water of Long Island Sound, and settled in the water without mishap to either machine or operator. It was then towed back to the starting place. On the second trial it started from the same place and sailed with myself on board across Long Island Sound. The machine kept on steadily in crossing the wind at a height of about 200 feet, when it came into my mind to try steering around in a circle. As soon as I turned the rudder and drove one propeller faster than the other the machine turned a bend and flew north with the wind at a frightful speed, but turned steadily around until I saw the starting place in the distance. I continued to turn but when near the land again, I slowed up the propellers and sank gently down on an even keel into the water, she readily floating like a boat. My men then pulled her out of the water, and as the day was at a close and the weather changing for the worse. I decided to take her home until Spring.

The length of flight on the first trial was about two miles, and on the second about seven miles. The last trial was a circling flight, and as I successfully returned to my starting place with a machine hitherto untried and heavier than the air, I consider the trip quite a success. To my knowledge it is the first of its kind. This matter has so far never been published.

I have no photographs taken yet of No. 22, but send you some of No. 21, as these machines are exactly alike, except the details mentioned. No. 21 has made four trips, the longest one and a half miles, on August 14. 1901. The wings of both machines measure 30 feet from tip to tip, and the length of the entire machine is 32 feet. It will run on the ground 50 miles an hour, and in air travel at about 70 miles. I believe that if wanted it would fly 100 miles an hour. The power carried is considerably more than necessary.

Believing with Maxim that the future of the air machine lies in an apparatus made without the gas bag, I have taken up the aeroplane, and will stick to it until I have succeeded completely or expire in the attempt of so doing.
As soon as I get my machine out this Spring I will let you know. To describe the feeling of flying is almost impossible, for. in fact, a man is more frightened than anything else.
Trusting this will interest your readers, I remain, Very truly yours,
Gustave Whitehead

Bridgeport, Conn.
The Editor, hardly able to credit the account above given that a man has actually succeeded in flying: in a machine heavier than air, wrote again to Mr. Whitehead for confirmation. Mr. Whitehead's reply follows.

Editor, American Inventor
Dear Sir: Yours of the 20th received. Yes, it was a full-sized flying machine, and I, myself, flew seven miles and returned to my starting point.
In both the flights described in my previous letter, I flew in the machine myself. This, of course, is new to the world at large, but I do not care much in being advertised except by a good paper like yours. Such accounts may help others along who are working in the same line. As soon as I can I shall try again. This coming spring I will have photographs made of machine No. 22 in the air and let you have pictures taken during its flight. If you can come up and get them yourself, so much the better. I attempted this before, but in the first trial the weather was bad, some little rain and a very cloudy sky, and the snapshots that were taken did not come out right. I cannot take any time exposures of the machine when in flight on account of its high speed.
I enclose a small sketch showing the course the machine made in her longest flight. January 17. 1902.
Trusting this will be satisfactory, I remain, yours truly.
GUSTAVE WHITEHEAD

Bridgeport, Conn.
Newspaper readers will remember several accounts of Mr. Whitehead's performances last summer. Probably most people put them down as fakes, but it seems as though the long-sought answer to the most difficult problem Nature ever put to man is gradually coming in sight. The Editor and the readers of these columns await with interest the promised photographs of the machine in the air. The similarity of this machine to Langley's experimental flying machine is well shown in the accompanying illustration, reprinted from a previous issue. Mr. Langley, it will be remembered, was the first to demonstrate the possibility of mechanical flight. Ed."
Source: Whitehead News Articles

Original article:

"The Whitehead Flying Machine", American Inventor Magazine, 1 April 1902

First page) http://www.wright-brothers.org/Hist...02-Whitehead-Letter-to-Editor-re-No-22-p1.jpg

Second page) http://www.wright-brothers.org/Hist...02-Whitehead-Letter-to-Editor-re-No-22-p2.jpg
 
Last edited:
simplex1 said:
The 1903 flyer has an intrinsic stability problem noticed by Fred Culick. The plane simply can not be governed by a human pilot no matter how experienced he is or how powerful the engine is. Stable flight is impossible with this airplane.
Click to expand...

That was **NOT** the conclusion reached by Culick. His conclusion (quoted verbatim):

It is concluded that, although the Wrights were very knowledgeable and ingenious with respect to aircraft controls and their interactions (e.g., the good effects of their wing-warp-to-rudder linkage are validated), they were largely ignorant of dynamic stability considerations. This paper shows that the 1903 flyer was readily controllable about all axes but was intrinsically unstable in pitch and role, and it could barely be stabilized by a skilled pilot.​

While the 1903 plane was a ***** to fly apparently, it could be done at least over the short flights conducted. Obviously, the Wrights did improve on this over time as the Huffman Prairie developments showed.

Culick's papers are pretty glowing praise of the Wright Brothers not only for their design methodolgy, technology developed, but also their flying skills as test pilots.
 
What prof. Fred Culick have said or written about the Wright brothers (see ex.: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11239/1/CULaiaaj03.pdf ) is highly unfavorable to them and his main idea is that "Flyer No. 1 1903 could not be governed by a human pilot". The good things this professor says about the two inventors are immediately compensated by negative remarks. His article has an ironic tone and if you read it carefully you will realize that the only reason for which Culick added some words of admiration about the Wright brothers was to have his article published.

(1)“the Wrights never completely understood quantitatively the problem of stability of rotational motions.”
(2)“the first powered flights were really powered and sustained level gliding flights following takeoffs.”
(3)“Combination of the lateral instability with the pitch instability makes flying the 1903 Flyer an order of difficulty greater than riding a bicycle.”
(4)“it seems that they were always very close to the stalled condition. Although they knew they had to maintain some minimum speed, in the vicinity of 27–28 mph, the fact that they really did not understand the phenomenon of stalling and why it occurred probably hindered their progress. They seem not to have been aware that the canard could stall as well, with consequent loss of control power in pitch.”
(5)“They were severely handicapped in understanding the problems they discovered because they were not aware of methods based on analyzing the moments acting on the aircraft in flight.”
(6) “The basis for their patent, granted in 1906 and never broken, was their two-axis control of lateral motion, in general, not for their particular aircraft design, and not including pitch control.”
(7) “It is certainly true that if not the Wrights, somebody else would have invented the airplane in the early years of the 20th century. Bleriot was closest to having all of the practical pieces in place by 1908—except for three-axis control, which he learned from the Wrights.”
(8) “The aircraft is seriously underpowered, and to take off in winds roughly 75% of cruise speed is rarely attempted with any airplane.”
Source: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11239/1/CULaiaaj03.pdf

Also, if you read with care the 1984 article written by Culick, you will see that he says the 1903 Flyer was controllable in the sense the brothers had mechanical devices to move the front elevator, rudder and Wing Warping ailerons but this was not enough because of the inherent instability, the plane had, which required a super pilot to push an pull the control sticks with a rapidity above what a human being is able to do.

"It is concluded that, although the Wrights were very knowledgeable and ingenious with respect to aircraft controls and their interactions (e.g., the good effects of their wing-warp-to-rudder linkage are validated), they were largely ignorant of dynamic stability considerations. This paper shows that the 1903 flyer was readily controllable about all axes but was intrinsically unstable in pitch and role, and it could barely be stabilized by a skilled pilot."
Source: Fred Culick, Henry Jex, "Aerodynamics, stability and control of the 1903 Wright Flyer", AIAA Wright Flyer Project - Report WF 84/09-1, Sep. 20, 1984 (see http://authors.library.caltech.edu/21217/1/CULaiaawfp84.pdf )
 
Last edited:
You and I seem to have differing opinions about the same words (we both posted it).

"Barely controllable" does NOT equate to "impossible to control" in my understanding of the English language. While the 1903 flyer wasn't the greatest ship, it was controllable (with difficulty) and demonstrated the essentials needed for both the patent and the subsequent research and development that followed.
 
flyingron said:
While the 1903 flyer wasn't the greatest ship, it was controllable (with difficulty) and demonstrated the essentials needed for both the patent and the subsequent research and development that followed.
Click to expand...

The Wright brothers do not have a patent for a plane but for a glider, a flying machine with a dynamic different from that of a powered airplane.
The glider brevet published on May 22, 1906 is about controlling an unpowered biplane which worked in practice and could be flown without difficulty.

However, just because one has a patent for governing a glider it does not automatically mean his glider will be stable and controllable if equipped with an engine and propellers, even if they are of negligible mass.

For a glider you have: G (does not produce rotations) and Aerodynamic Forces (produce rotations).

For a plane: G (does not produce rotations), Aerodynamic Forces (produce rotations) and Thrust (produces rotations).

In the case of the plane the pilot has to struggle to control the unwanted rotations induced by the aerodynamic forces and also those generated by thrust (propellers). The patent the Wright brothers have does not show how the thrust induced unwanted rotations could be effectively controlled.

The misconception about the equivalence between the stability of a glider and that of a plane was noticed by people involved in the project "Wright Experience":

"Once they had mastered aircraft control, the Wright brothers believed that propelling one would be a minor challenge, a mere matter of attaching an engine and screws to a winged machine. By December 1902, their main concern in progressing to powered flight was the weight penalty of the propulsion system. They believed that they could purchase a light gasoline engine and then apply the principles of ship propeller design to the design of airplane propellers."

Source: (How two brothers from Dayton added a new twist to airplane propulsion, The Wright Experience; By Robert L. Ash, Colin P. Britcher, and Kenneth W. Hyde, Mechanical Engineering "100 Years of Flight" supplement, Dec. 2003 -- "Prop-Wrights," Feature Article )
 
simplex1 said:
The Wright brothers do not have a patent for a plane but for a glider, a flying machine with a dynamic different from that of a powered airplane.
The glider brevet published on May 22, 1906 is about controlling an unpowered biplane which worked in practice and could be flown without difficulty.

However, just because one has a patent for governing a glider it does not automatically mean his glider will be stable and controllable if equipped with an engine and propellers, even if they are of negligible mass.

For a glider you have: G (does not produce rotations) and Aerodynamic Forces (produce rotations).

For a plane: G (does not produce rotations), Aerodynamic Forces (produce rotations) and Thrust (produces rotations).

In the case of the plane the pilot has to struggle to control the unwanted rotations induced by the aerodynamic forces and also those generated by thrust (propellers). The patent the Wright brothers have does not show how the thrust induced unwanted rotations could be effectively controlled.

The misconception about the equivalence between the stability of a glider and that of a plane was noticed by people involved in the project "Wright Experience":

"Once they had mastered aircraft control, the Wright brothers believed that propelling one would be a minor challenge, a mere matter of attaching an engine and screws to a winged machine. By December 1902, their main concern in progressing to powered flight was the weight penalty of the propulsion system. They believed that they could purchase a light gasoline engine and then apply the principles of ship propeller design to the design of airplane propellers."

Source: (How two brothers from Dayton added a new twist to airplane propulsion, The Wright Experience; By Robert L. Ash, Colin P. Britcher, and Kenneth W. Hyde, Mechanical Engineering "100 Years of Flight" supplement, Dec. 2003 -- "Prop-Wrights," Feature Article )
Click to expand...

This is a nonsensical response to FlyinRon's simple assertion that:

"Barely controllable" does NOT equate to "impossible to control"...
 
Last edited:
Again about Gustav Whitehead and his miraculous engines

Presenting his 1901, No. 21 plane in an October 1901 German article, Whitehead wrote the 30 HP acetylene engine, that equipped the plane, weighed 2 pounds per horsepower. In comparison the 1903, 52 HP Manly–Balzer engine, that powered Langley's airplane, weighed 2.61 pounds/HP.
see: http://www.flyingmachines.org/Whiteh...O183CFGray.pdf and Manly?Balzer engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The motor for No. 21 was considerably lighter per HP than the Manly–Balzer engine which hold the record in weight per horsepower for many years.

There are also other more flagrant contradictions in the German article. Whitehead talks about three engines: 10, 20 and 30 HP. At one moment he claimed his 30 HP engine needed 60 pounds of fuel to run for 6 hours. In the end of the text he states that, during a test, his engine had run at full power with 10 pounds of fuel for the entire day. 10 pounds would have been enough just for 1 hour! and maxim 3 hours if he referred to the 10 HP engine.
 
Coming back to the Wright brothers

I have read some opinions that a small slope would not have helped too much the 1903 Flyer and even if it had existed its effect would have been negligible. This belief is wrong.

Even a 10 degree slope would have added an enormous 130 pounds of thrust (the tangential weight of the plane (605 pounds) plus pilot (145 pounds)).

The total thrust generated by the two propellers of the 1903 plane was just 134 pounds (estimated by the Wright Experience project).

see also: 1903 Wright Flyer I

An apparently insignificant 10 degree slope would have nearly doubled the available thrust from 134 to 264 pounds.

The slope in the picture is clearly above 10 degrees.
Dec-17-1903-Flyer1TakingOffFirstFlight120Feet.jpg

The 1903 Flyer taking off for his first flight on Dec. 17, 1903.
 
Last edited:
Our sun will burn out in 10 billion years.
 
Coppertone better start working on a new business plan then.
 
The sun is expected to expand to engulf the earth before that happens.
 
The witnesses saw the 1905 Flyer being pushed by hand before it took off!

Regarding the claimed flights of 1905, there are serious doubts they really took place. In April 1906 the journal Scientific American said it had received letters from 11 witnesses and from their declarations "it would seem that the aeroplane (Flyer III) was pushed for a short distance by hand and left the rail after having traveled 25 or 30 feet".
There is no word about any catapult!! The force, necessary to accelerate the 710 pounds of Flyer III from zero to the flight speed in only 30 feet, is enormous, many times greater than the thrust generated by the propellers, and could not have been delivered by hand.

"In order to ascertain if possible the manner in which the machine was launched, the witnesses were asked in the sixth question whether or not the machine arose from the ground by its own power. From the replies received, it would seem that the aeroplane rested on a single rail 40 feet long, was pushed for a short distance by hand, and left the rail after having traveled 25 or 30 feet. The rail was level and raised about 6 inches from the ground."
Source: Scientific American, Volume 94, Number 14, April 1906, http://archive.org/stream/scientifi...-american-v94-n14-1906-04-07#page/n9/mode/2up
 
Cruiser said:
Early aviation history is indeed fascinating. I find it hard to imagine the effort and courage in these early aviators.
Picture Orville and Wilbur carrying their glider up a 100 foot high hill covered with sandspurs, (a grass of the eastern United States and tropical America having spikelets enclosed in prickly burs. They are painful and a real chore to remove from your clothing.)
Walking uphill in sand is hard enough. Doing it over and over each day carrying 100 pounds of glider for the chance to fly down the hill in a 15 second ride and then start all over again.
Doesn't really sound fun to me.
Of course the sand flies and mosquitoes had a way of diverting their attention from the sandspurs.

It erks me that someone can sit behind the comfort of a keyboard and computer 110 years later and criticize their effort.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Then a few years later the man (Wilbur) takes off from Governors Island, flies over to the Statue of Liberty and whips it around her at 200 AGL then takes it up to Grant's tomb and back!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers_flights_of_1909

Truly amazing and inspirational to me. I couldn't help but think of them and feel honored to circle the lady myself.

"As Wilbur flew toward the Statue of Liberty, many onlookers feared he would crash into it, but he skillfully circled the statue as planned. This flight caused a sensation in the press and became an iconic event, despite lasting less than five minutes."
 
Last edited:
May 30, 1908, two pictures, showing the Wrights' plane in the air, are published. The flying machine has a large, tall sand dune behind it.

Nearly four years and half after the alleged Dec. 17, 1903 powered flights there was still no solid evidence a plane built by the Wrights was able to rise under its own power. How can I believe the two inventors were able to fly more than 30 minutes in Oct. 1905 over a flat pasture near Dayton if they still needed a hill and strong winds to stay in the air as late as May 1908.
The two pictures (see the image) could prove an ordinary glide or a power assisted descent. There is no solid evidence the photos really show a true powered flight.

May-1908-Kill-Devil-Hill-Wright-Brothers-Plane.jpg

See: "The Wright Aeroplane Tests in North Carolina", Scientific American, pag. 393, May 30, 1908,
https://archive.org/stream/scientif...-american-v98-n22-1908-05-30#page/n7/mode/2up

As a remark:
The same May 30, 1908 Scientific American, at page 392, displays a few pictures presenting one of the Aerial Experimental Association's planes, one photo showing the airplane in flight. They are quite credible images. There is little doubt the AEA's plane really flew under its own power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top