(At Least) 100 Years Of Powered Human Flight 515
Rogue-Lion.com writes "Take a time out to remember the accomplishments of two bicycle shop owners who changed the world immeasurably, 100 years ago today. The Telegraph is running a story about a recreation of the Wright's (and world's) first heavier-than-air powered flight. President Bush will be in attendance at the event." Setting aside even more exotic theories, rod writes with an alternative point of view: namely, that man's first flight took place in New Zealand, on March 31, 1902. "I admire the U.S.A and the Wright brothers,but there are facts to consider today, 17/12/03, on the centenary of Kitty Hawk." Update: 12/17 13:44 GMT by T : Or was it a Brazillian invention? (Thanks,
Anderson Silva.)
Another one (Score:4, Interesting)
No launch mechanism (Score:2)
Re:No launch mechanism (Score:5, Informative)
NPR [npr.org] did a nice piece [npr.org] during the morning drive time.
but there's no question that the Wright brothers built the first airplane that a pilot could control and fly. The basic principles that were built into the Wright Flyer remain a part of every aircraft flying today.
Competing claims aside, I think we can all agree this was a great moment in American history at least.
Re:Another one (Score:5, Informative)
The main accomplishments of the wright brothers however are not so much coming up with powered flight - people had been flying gliders, balloons and such for a little bit and the concept was not truly shocking - but that the came up with a primative (but workable) control system (involving warping the wings to control the flyer) and techniques to be used in piloting the craft. Before the flyer, most flights were basically straight line "hope you don't end up hitting a tree" type things.
Re:Another one (Score:2)
While I agree with you that the Wright's had invented the first workable system to control an aircraft in flight (they understood how airplanes turn), others before attained some controlled gliding flight. For example Otto Lilienthal was able to steer his gliders by shifting his body position - in ways similar to hang-gliders of today.
Re:Another one (Score:2)
Which in the end killed him, as it didn't give enough control. The Wrights had this accident very much in mind when designing their machine.
Re:Another one (Score:5, Insightful)
ABSO-FRIGIN-LUTELY!!! The thing that set the Writes apart from all the other would-be aviators of the day was there understanding of aerodynamics, and how crucial that was to powered flight.
They invented the technique of using a wind tunnel to measure lift and drag.
They improved propeller efficiency from the standard at the time of 40% to 80%! Modern propellers have an efficiency of about 85%. Holy crap.
Their wing-warping (which many people criticize, even though it is on the come back... Heck, people criticized the flying wing until the B2) mechanism was critical. They learned from their extensive and analytical study that the only way to control a plane in flight was to vary the aerodynamics by varying the wing geometry. Granted, most methods for vairable wing geometry used since then have involved hinged, surfaces, but the critical idea was there.
While many people look at Otto Lilienthal's work as being the foundation of the Write brothers, this is really not true. The Writes tried to follow Lilienthal's work, but were not able to scale it up to a large enough plane to carry a motor. It was only once they reallized that Lilienthal's assumptions about wings were flawed, that they came up with truly modern and workable wings.
Re:Another one (Score:2)
That the engine wasn't powerful enough to sustain a real flight, that it was a ground-effect fluke, that's just as maybe, but it hardly seems a
Documentation (Score:5, Insightful)
As for kitty hawk, the significant take offs were on level ground, and the final flight of the day was certainly sustained for almost a minute. Like any geek machine, it was hard to control at first.
So while other attempts may have been successful they were not as well documented., or even that reproducable.
Re:Another one (Score:5, Interesting)
In today's fixed-pitch props, the prop is a compromise between takeoff and cruise. The brothers didn't have enough engine power for compromises to be made in prop pitch.
This does not mean that the plane was simply thrown into the air and never really flew. Are you saying that F-18's don't fly because they are propelled off of aircraft carriers?
IMAX (Score:5, Informative)
The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:4, Insightful)
Some others may have flown a few feet before, but the Wrights were the first to make *controlled, long endurance* flights.
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, "heavier-than-air powered flight, taking off the ground" is what makes an airplane for me. And by this criteria, the Wright brothers were 3 years before Santos Dumont. They did not use a catapult on their earlier models.
If you want to claim Pearse was first, we could argue about whether level of control matters, or whether poorly documented hearsay should be beleived. If you want to argue Santos Dumont was first, you're just wrong.
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:2, Interesting)
If this is not the inventor of the plane, I do not know what this is.
Da Vinci, etc (Score:2)
whether it would work using the materials of his day, such as wood, etc, is another issue.
Re:Da Vinci, etc (Score:2)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20031201/leon ardo.html [discovery.com]
Re:Da Vinci, etc (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:2, Informative)
There's somethng about people that put "Period." after their opinions that just begs a refutation... and though you have tried to contrive a definition of "flight" to keep the trophy with the US; from the FA at least four flights made before the Wright Bros:
Man's First Powered Flight
Richard Pearse, Waitohi, New Zealand, March 31, 1902
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:4, Interesting)
By Geoffrey Rodliffe
http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/NewZ/res
Wild and inaccurate statements have been publicised from time to time concerning Richard Pearse's achievements in the field of aviation. However. no responsible researcher has ever claimed that he achieved fully controlled flight before the Wright brothers, or indeed at any time. To attain fully controlled flight a pilot would have to be able to get his plane into the air, fly it on a chosen course and land it at a predetermined destination.
Obviously Pearse's short "hops" or "flights", whilst they established the fact that he could readily become airborne, did not come within this category, but neither, for that matter, did the first powered flights of the Wright brothers in December 1903. The Wiight brothers, however, had the resources necessary to continue their experimentation until they achieved fully controlled flight.
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:2)
Re:The real inventors of the airplane. (Score:2)
This is np;t the forst time I've heard of Pearse. And otherwise I can only say, RTFA. It's not just one person's word. There are scans of documents, plans of the engine, and links to books about it. Just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean it's a hoax.
Re:The real inventors of the airplane. (Score:2)
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:4, Informative)
You've associated the opinion incorrectly. The actual flights of Richard Pierce are not Bill Sherwood's opinions, they are documented. The "opinion" part is which one of Pierce's flights he considered to be a true "first flight". The point is, Pierce accomplished as much as, if not more than, the Wright Brothers did at Kitty Hawk and did it before them. So either they did not have the "first powered flight", or we have to re-define "first powered flight" to be something beyond what happened at Kitty Hawk.
For instance, some have suggested that the definition should be a controlled take-off, flight path, and landing completely under the airplane's power (including no catapult assisted take-off). That definition would probably put the Wright Brothers back as "first", but it certainly wasn't the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight, it would be sometime later.
Re:The real inventors of the airplane. (Score:5, Informative)
What the Wright Brothers did do is build the first successful, controllable airplane. The controllability is the key because they were the first folks to really work out how to make an airplane go where you want it to go. They also figured out that it was going to take some practice for the pilot to become proficient in flying it. They also built propellors whose efficiency wasn't bettered for decades and along the way they laid the foundation of the whole theory of propellors.
In fact, like the telephone, the airplane is a perfect example of one of those things whose creation is inevitable once the supporting technology is available. There were many, many folks working on the solution to powered flight once small and lightweight engines were available to power the craft. The groundwork had been laid more than a century before with Cayley's conceptual leaps all it took was somebody to work out the details perhaps with a leap or two of their own.
As a practical matter, history records that the aileron was invented by Glenn Curtiss in an attempt to get around the Wright patent on the airplane. History also records that it's not that difficult to get a newspaper reporter to write a story even if it's only printed in one paper. When people put forth the claim that the Wrights built a successful flying machine and the date on which it was done, they produce a photograph of their machine flying and a dated telegram with the details of the flights.
On the Website talking Mr. Pearse's claim, there is nothing of the sort. The lack of evidence that the machine flew is explained with "he didn't realize the historic importance of the flights". What crap! Flight had been a human dream for thousands of years. Wouldn't fulfilling that dream seem to you to be of some historic importance? Shouldn't it have occured to one of the numerous witnesses to mention something to somebody or to write it in a diary or something? Everyone else working on heavier than air flight seemed to realize they were solving a momentous problem, why didn't anyone in Waitohi, New Zealand?
Madman Henson (Score:3, Interesting)
Image [flyingmachines.org]
Eventually he gave up because steam engines just didn't have the power-to-weight ratio and moved on to other
Re: The real inventors of the airplane. (Score:3, Insightful)
> In fact, like the telephone, the airplane is a perfect example of one of those things whose creation is inevitable once the supporting technology is available.
That's the main reason I'm cynical about patents. Technology seems to advance in a wavefront, and and there is an endless list of people who invented the same thing, independently, at the same time. And they always stand on the shoulders of giants.
Re: The real inventors of the airplane. (Score:4, Interesting)
Totally destroyed any respect I might have had for the Wright brothers. They might have been very clever engineers, but they were also ruthless, greedy, selfish bastards. And don't you DARE tell me that's what America's all about.
: )
Re:Ahem (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ahem (Score:5, Informative)
OK. Tell me who flew the first circle in a powered and heavier than air aircraft?
The Wrights figured out how to steer and airplane in flight, they could turn. Nobody until them understood the mechanics of the turn (the rudder does not turn the airplane).
And I'm not even an American..
Re:Ahem (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ahem (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe. But could it turn?
The Wrights discovered what is now called "adverse aileron yaw" and build their controls to compensate. The wing warping was actually control would also move the rudder to compensate for the adverse yaw. The F-16 uses a similar mechanism. :)
Just the film that was faked (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The real invventors of the airplane. (Score:3, Informative)
They *did* invent the propeller, in that they were the first to realize it should be an airfoil. Their design is around 90% as efficient as modern designs.
Kind of like colossus (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that colossus was because the project was a national secrect until reciently, but this doesn't seem to be the case for the first flight, can anyone shed any light on why nobody has made a fuss over this before? And are we going to see the history book re-written? Or will people just not accept that it and keep believeing the widely known truth? (most likely imo)
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:5, Insightful)
Further claims of '1. powered flight' include for example Gustave Whitehead [flyingmachines.org] (or Weisskopf [weisskopf.de]) and Karl Jatho [flyingmachines.org].
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:2)
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:2)
In reality, the WB's demonstration of flight provided the foundation for the aviation principals.
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:3, Informative)
He is widely considered to be the inventor of the aeroplane (uk spelling
He was the first person to understand and write down the mathematical model describing the relationship between thrust, lift, drag and weight, for instance.
He also wrote about the ratio of lift to wing area,
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:5, Insightful)
The widely believed truth happens to be true.
For instance, the Wright brothers' flight was not the first heavier than air craft to fly. That record belongs to a small experimental glider near the beginning of the 19th -- not 20th -- century. The first manned heavier than air vehicle? What today we would call a hang glider was flown in 1870.
The Wright brothers' claim to fame is as the first repeatable, controlled, powered heavier than air flight. All that is important. Earlier efforts contributed to their accomplishment, but were essentially only experiments in learning the basics of flying.
The Wright brothers also eventually publicized their work. Pearse seems, according to the reports, a bit of an eccentric who didn't call much attention to his work. That's important too. A discovery you don't tell the world about is only half done. Others must know about your work and be able to replicate it.
We now know that Viking journeys to North America preceded Columbus' voyage by some centuries. But, again, they didn't follow up their voyages or make them known to the world at large. We also suspect some fishermen made it to North America years before Columbus. But, again, they didn't tell the world.
Repeatability and disclosure are vitally important parts of discovery. One wonders what poeple 5000 years from now will say about our time. They might remember the Chinese (or New Zealanders perhaps) as the real fathers of space travel -- and make a brief footnote for the academics about a certain event in 1969.
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:2)
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they do. How else would they go up?
Stoned Hippies, Drunken Playboys (Score:2)
Yeah, but if stoned hippies and drunken playboys had built a space shuttle
-kgj
Brother Elmer (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:2)
Because the Wright Bros spent a lot of effort to publicise their flights, the kiwi just did it for its own sake in a hobbyist fashion.
Re:Kind of like colossus (Score:2)
That was my get out clause.. Asking if anyone knew why this has not been widely publised - eg. because it isn't true.
I don't believe everything I read blindly, but its amazing that some people will never believe "facts" if it contradicts their current belief, I still see arguments that colosuss wasn't the first computer even now
A quote on Richard Pearse (Score:5, Informative)
Seems like a glowing endorsement of the Wright brothers over Richard Pearse. Who wrote it? Richard Pearse, in a 1915 newspaper.
From the rather interesting BBC Magazine article [bbc.co.uk] on the history of flight:
"Aeronautical historian Philip Jarrett calls the claims 'grossly misleading'. 'This is local hero stuff. They choose to ignore their hero's own simple factual statements,' says Mr Jarrett."
Re:A quote on Richard Pearse (Score:5, Interesting)
Mch 31, 1902 - First powered flight. Estimated distance around 350 yards. Similar to the first Wright Brothers flight, ie, in a straight line, and barely controlled.
Mch ? 1903 - After spending a year working on the engine, and tending to his farm, Pearce made another flight, this time with a distance of only about 150 yards.
May 2, 1903 - Distance unknown, but as usual the aircraft ended up stuck in a gorse hedge 15' off the ground!
May 11, 1903 - This, my opinion, [ie. the opinion of Bill Sherwood] was man's first real flight. Pearse took off along the side of the Opihi River, turned left to fly over the 30' tall river bank, then turned right to fly parallel to the middle of the river. After flying nearly 1,000 yards, his engine began to overheat and lost power, thus forcing a landing way down the dry-ish riverbed. One of the locals, Arthur Tozer, was crossing the river at the time and was rather surprised to have Pearse fly right over his head!
Could it be simply that Pearse didn't feel his achievment counted as real flight at the time despite, from the article anyway, it seems that his orginial flight was similar to the Wright brothers flight, and made earlier.
Re:A quote on Richard Pearse (Score:2, Interesting)
I imagine this might be because from the descriptions on the web site referenced, not a single flight ended in the craft being flight worthy. "Stuck in a gorse hedge" and "engine overheated and lost power" don't sound as if the plane could be taken back up into the air.
Now I might be incorrect (and this being Slashdot, I'm sure someone will correct me if am), but I don't believe the Wright Flier ended the "Histor
Re:A quote on Richard Pearse (Score:2)
Only because you don't want to. If the man himself says his invention isn't important, who are you to argue?
Re:A quote on Richard Pearse (Score:2, Insightful)
Accomplishments (Score:5, Funny)
That's right, where would we be today without rubber tyres and saddles
Seriously, cycling was relevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, it was their experience with the bicycle that gave the Wright brothers insight into some of the i
NZ flight (Score:5, Interesting)
Wright Brothers == True Engineers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wright Brothers == True Engineers (Score:5, Funny)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights made an airplane.
Fortean Times (Score:5, Informative)
Fortean Times is here [forteantimes.com] if you've never heard of it before...
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really about more than getting off the ground (Score:5, Insightful)
The Wrights were engineers. Many people have the mistaken impression that they were just bumbling bicycle repairmen that got lucky or that they stumbled upon the right combination to be able to fly. This was simply not the case. The Wrights built the first wind tunnel that they used to test miniature airfoils (and consequently propellers).
The accomplishments of the Wrights cannot be dismissed as they flew an only slightly modifed flyer nonstop over 20 miles in 1906, the time that the Brazillians claim Alberto Santos Dumont achieved the 'real' first flight.
fist flight? (Score:2)
So this thread is provided for your' all convinience
Re:fist flight? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:fist flight? (Score:2)
Yet another local hero (Score:2)
If you ask a Brazilian, they'll probably tell you that Alberto Santos-Dumont [cunha.nom.br] was the first to fly.
I think I'll stick with the Wright brothers for now though.
War (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a very interesting article [guardian.co.uk] in The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] yesterday, looking at the darker side of the history of the airplane. A particularly striking quote:
When Wilbur Wright was asked, in 1905, what the purpose of his machine might be, he answered simply: "War." As soon as they were confident that the technology worked, the brothers approached the war offices of several nations, hoping to sell their patent to the highest bidder.
Re:War (Score:2, Interesting)
Although patent litigations seem kind of hard to do in a war
Re:War (Score:2)
> worked, the brothers approached the war offices of
> several nations, hoping to sell their patent to
> the highest bidder.
Any follow ups available? Did any country actually express an interest? Given the Boer War was current news, I imagine a whole new type of war machine might have been considered rather interesting...
God forbid SCO is involved. "Hello, Mr Boeing? My name's Darl McBride and I've got some bad news for you"
Re:War (Score:5, Informative)
Re:War (Score:3, Informative)
Re:War (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Diction
Google logo (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, the irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Presidential TFR [aopa.org]
The event coordinators have obtained special clearance for the Wright flyer to fly, along with the other planes for the airshows, etc.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:2, Funny)
Thanks again W. Not that the WX would permit it today but lots of folks who were thinking of flying in to celebrate now face a 70-80 mile drive.
Santos-Dumont (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the other side of the coin.
I'm very surprised by the posters that say the Wright's flight was better publicized, because in fact the Wrights played their cards so close to the chest that, at the time, relatively few people heard of their flight.
Santos-Dumont's flight in October 23rd, 1906 in the "14-bis" took place very much in public, with the press and representatives of the French Aero Club in attendance, and was very widely attended. It was far more publicized than the Wright's flight and most people at the time thought it was the first heavier-than-air flight. To this day, there are still those (particularly, for some reason, French and Brazilians) who believe his flight is the one that should "count."
Really, what the Wright Brothers truly deserve credit for was the brilliant engineering, their aerodynamic studies, their wind tunnel work, their conceptualization of the problem as one of controllability rather than stability, and their conscious understanding of the importance of what would now be called a good "user interface." Their flight wasn't a stunt. Most important, unlike Santos-Dumont's flight, it did not depend on having a pilot of extraordinary skill.
Now, about Friese-Greene's invention of motion pictures...
Re:Santos-Dumont (Score:2)
In support of the parent poster, I might point out that the first published account of the flight appeared in that bastion of mass media, Gleanings in Bee Culture in their January 1905 issue.
Clement Ader, 1890. (Score:5, Interesting)
Which, of course, doesn't diminish in any way the extraordinary feat that the Wright brothers pulled, please don't take me wrong: no matter whose shoulders they were or weren't standing on, they're the ones who saw farther, and there is no questioning it their place in history for it. They didn't give up where others did.
It's just that Santos-Dumont was never a contender for the title of first man to fly, and not even the French claim so (although I can see people pretending that they do, for the sole sake of pointing out that the Wright brothers came before Santos-Dumont, and thus "Go us we invented the plane!", I suppose... but thankfully the average enlightened geek here on
If you're ever in Paris you may want to go see this thing in the CNAM museum. It's hanging from the ceiling over a large stairway. Extremely impressive sight.
Re:Clement Ader, 1890. (Score:3, Interesting)
No.
Santos-Dumont created a perfectly good (considering the state of the non-existant art) airplane, and flew it successfully. He wasn't basing his design on anyone elses. So Santos-Dumont certainly deserves credit for having "invented the airplane" (as do at least 3 other people).
The problem is that some people, mostly Brazillian, in addition to saying that he "invented the airplane", like to add the word "first". Which is just not true.
Progress? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Progress? (Score:2)
Jet fighters are becoming limited by the ability of the pilot to cope; it's quite possible to build a plane that would pull 20G in a turn and cause the pilot to lose consciousness. Pilots are also expensive to train and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the fol
Re:Progress? (Score:5, Interesting)
Building something larger than before is not a very big challenge, so the 747 is not very interesting from a 'progress' point of view. More interesting is a more modern craft, like the 777, which is fly-by-wire, two-engined, and yet reliable enough to make long overwater flights.
Passenger craft in general are less interesting, because there are certain economic and political realities that are hard to get around. No matter how fast a given airplane can take you from airport A to airport B, your total travel time will still be at least three or four hours due to checkin time, security, seating, baggage, etc. The same thing goes for size; once you hit a certain size, it's better to just run planes more often than to get bigger ones, both because of cost and because of better scheduling flexibility.
The more interesting stuff is happening in the general-aviation sector and the military sector. Take military first: yes, they're still using F-14s and F-15s, as well as really old stuff like B-52s. But those (well, not B-52s...) are getting near their end of life. Thirty years is perfectly reasonable. At the same time, new models like the F-22 and the JSF are coming on line, both of which have very interesting features.
As far as general aviation goes, just look at yesterday's slashdot headlines: the X-Prize. There are a dozen groups in the world which are actually somewhat serious about putting people into space within the next year. I don't know how many of them are realistic, but the groups themselves are serious about it, which means that they must have at least some ability. That is really amazing! And sure, in a technical sense, it's nothing new; we've had the ability to put people in space for forty years. But the ability to do it without the amount of support and infrastructure that a national space program provides is incredible.
I don't dispute that things have slowed down a bit. Things moved really, really fast from about 1940 to 1960. But I do believe that our perceptions greatly exaggerate the slowdown. There are plenty of interesting things going on today.
Re:Progress? (Score:3, Informative)
in the 80's we added VTOL or Vertical Takeoff and LAnding... does the Harrier Jet ring a bell?
How about the F-111 stealth Fighter that rewrote flight dynamics how about the YF-22 fighter Designed in the 90's, the Mig-19 being designed in the 80's?
How about the design of the replacement space shuttle that WAS FLYING during tests but not chosen because of corruption at NASA. (Lifting body with VTOL capabilities.)
Hell a simple search on google can produce hundreds of webpag
Re:Progress? (Score:5, Informative)
The real advances have been things you don't see. Better control surfaces, more efficient, faster engines.
Fly by wire, computer controlled landings, far better navigation systems.
In the military world, we have aircraft that can accept a reprogramming of the target while in flight. There are weapons that can, even after being dropped, target a different area all the way to the impact point.
And then there are the things you really don't see. Small, unmanned aircraft (UCAV's), all but invisible to radar aircraft (B-2, F-117, F-22), realtime data links.
The B-2 is almost identical in size to the Northrup Flying Wing of 1949. But a significant improvement in function.
In short, there ave been amssive improvements, you just can't readily see them, because the basic airplane shape is non-mutable.
The Wrights (Score:4, Interesting)
1. It does not matter if someone else drew an airplane (Leonardo) or allegedly flew a few feet (Whitehead, et al). You have invented something WHEN THE THING ACTUALLY WORKS, not when you file a patent.
2. Every country seems to have its own local flying machine inventor. Good for you,
3. Taking off under its own power is not part of the definition of an airplane, so the fact the later Flyers used a catapult is not germane. F-14s don't take off with ony their own power from a carrier deck, do they?
4. The Wrights were reliably making long distance, cross country flights LONG before anyone else.
5. The Wrights invented the science of aerodynamics. That is, they did replicable experiments before anyone else figured out how.
Compared to all this, that Brazilian guy with his motorized balloon who buzzed around Paris is merely an endearing eccentric.
First flight? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who invented powered flight? Well, the Wright brothers were probably the first to achieve sucess in this area, but they didn't invent it. There were people all over the world attemting to master powered flight. Ideas circulated, individuals pulled these ideas together in an effort to get their machines to fly. People failed. People died trying. Perhaps people even suceeded. But 100 years ago the Wright brothers did suceed and told the world.
The way I see it, inventions are of their time. No one person can claim all the glory for anything. Sure, let's celebrate the Wright Brothers, but let's also celebrate the human spirit which drives such people whether they suceed or not. If we do that then it really does not matter one bit if the Wright Brothers really were first, or merely one of the first.
Patent and Wright (Score:5, Informative)
In the end, the advance they made in flight technology was quickly squandered. European aviators lost little time in following the Wrights into the air. The brothers did receive a patent on their stabilization system in 1906, and they spent years trying to enforce it on both sides of the Atlantic. They were particularly zealous in going after American infringers - and the divisive, protracted court battles may have slowed down the commercialization of the plane on this side of the Atlantic. As one government official in 1917 put it, the brothers' lawsuits caused the country to fall "from first place to last of all the great nations in the air" - not exactly the stuff of legends.
Wright Brothers conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)
Bicycle Guys... (Score:2)
I wonder what's wrong with these bicycle guys [xprize.com] (Scroll to the Armadillo Team description, last paragraph of it).
wing warping inferior? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, one slashdot comment was that the Wright's had controled flight, but if this fellow had working ailerons,
This is Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
This [aopa.org] article gives details and links to the actual NOTAM text published by the FAA. The practical upshot of all this is that we private aviators of this country are not welcome to the event.
I wonder what Orville and Wilbur Wright would have thought of this.
Sad but predictable (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks, yet again, Slashdot and its wonderful readers.
Inspiration for SCO.... (Score:2)
Wrights Skilled Engineers Who Launched an Industry (Score:3, Informative)
That's wrong. They were educated and skilled engineers living in a city that was a focal point of technology in 1903. They attacked their problem logically nd methodically, and were well-versed in the technical literature of the day.
The Wrights did not tinker their way to flight. The insights that allowed them to design and build an aircraft that could be controlled in all 3 axis wasn't an accident or a stroke of luck. Nor was their design and construction of a propellor appropriate for flight. (This was, in fact, revolutionary, and is usually overlooked. Efforts prior to the Wrights' had assumed that an aircraft propellor would be a copy of the kind of propellor used to propel a ship. That's incorrect -- it doesn't work -- and the Wrights were the first to understand that and to design, test, and use a true aeronautical propellor.)
After Kitty Hawk, and until Wilbur's premature death at the age of 45 in 1915, the Wrights continued their research, their flying, and their engineering efforts. Not only can we trace the airplane's lineage to the brothers, we can also credit them for founding the aeronuatical industry.
Let;'s live in the world of proof, not speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
It all comes down to proof. The proof is there. The Wrights had machines that they made themselves that created tables to show wing lift and speed. They attempted it with German tables, but they were wholly inaccurate. So as good little scientists, they did it themselves. The propellar design (another wing, designed with heavy math) was created by the Wrights, as well as the control scheme. All of these tools they used still work today. They still exsist today. These guys took notes, the rest of the world didn't think that was as necessary as making something that looked like a bird.
A lot of people talk about proof. Well, let me say this. The Wrights were some of the best amateur scientists ever. Period. They took a little bicycle shop and some tools and then THEY DID THE MATH while the rest of the world was still thinking, "how should this thing be shaped?"
The proof is still there people. Where are all of these other crackpot fliers? Are they around? Do they work? Did anyone ever do anything but print about them.
My grandfather told me about his father who went to see the Wrights as a boy when they toured (yes, toured) the country. They offered anyone $100 to fly with them. No one came forward. They thought they were nuts. What they saw defied reason at the time.
Someone said this:
One wonders what poeple 5000 years from now will say about our time. They might remember the Chinese (or New Zealanders perhaps) as the real fathers of space travel -- and make a brief footnote for the academics about a certain event in 1969.
Well, there is always going to be a flag up there, and the bottom half of a lunar lander. The last time I checked, that is all the proof you need. I bet it has US Gov't stamped all over it. Probably a couple of dates written on it too.
Guys, this is all about proof and speculation.
We live in a world of FACTS. Slashdotters should be the more understanding bunch about this subject. The facts, and diligence towards those facts, is what seperates your civilization from space travel and worshipping 'dark wolf the moon God' every time there is an eclipse.
The Original NY Times article from 1903 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This day should be a day of international mourn (Score:2)
1. Iraq != Persia...Persia is actually present day Iran...unless you know something about GWB's plans the rest of us don't.
2. The airplane is a tool. It is morally neutral and under the control of human decision. Use it to bomb people from the air, and it is evil. Use it to drop food and medical supplies and it is good.
From that day 100 years ago (and ok maybe sooner but the proof is sketchy at best) we have gone from using twisting wings and the
Re:Smithsonian Contract with Wright brothers (Score:2)
Interesting, but you neglect to mention that the itgo.com article states that prior to the Wrights, the Smithsonian referred to Samuel Langley as the "father of flight".
I'm no aviation historian, but I seem to recall that Langley (a) was sponsored heavily by the War Department, and (b) didn't manage much more than to crash his "aerodromes" into the Potomac several times.
While the point may hold for Alberto Santos-Dumont, or Whitehead, or Pearce, using Langley as a measuring stick is sort of a weird idea.