Disgraceful: WrightBrothers vs Army & Langely

[Dinosaur]

Every month, SciAm has a page with a summary of articles from 50, 100, & 150 years ago. The February 2014 issue has an article relating to a Wright Brothers patent granted in 1914.

There had been many previous developments using gliders & catapult launched aircraft, but until the Wright Brothers no heavier than air device had successfully demonstrated powered flight.

It reminds me of asking my father circa 1940 why the Wright Brothers plane was in a British museum rather than an American one. It has since been returned for display in the USA (I think at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia). He said that it was donated to the British museum due to erroneous claims by either the US army, Langley, or both.

My father was born circa 1880 & was a successful nationally known engineer by 1910. He did not remember whether Langley backed the army claims. His account of the controversy was as follows.

Samuel Pierpont Langley was a competent & successful astronomer, physicist, & inventor. He tried to develop a powered aircraft. His wing design was upside down compared to the Wright Brothers wing, which was the correct design. Langley envisioned the wing as skipping like a flat stone thrown across a still pond.

The US Army backed Langley who was trying to develop the first powered flying device other than balloons & blimps (which relied on being less dense than air). He also told me that there were many erroneous accounts published relating to the Wright/Langley controversy.

After the successful Wright Brothers flight either the army, Langley, or both claimed that the Langley plane had been successful prior to the Wright Brothers flight, but for some reason (security?) no story of the flight had been published.

The Wright Brothers challenged that claim, contending that a plane using the Langley airfoil could not fly. The army (perhaps with approval from Langley) demonstrated a successful aircraft.

The wright brothers pointed out that the airfoil used in the successful demonstration was based on the Wright brothers design, not the Langley design. They further cited an article published after the date claimed for the alleged flight, which described the army aircraft as using the erroneous Langley airfoil & intended for use in test flights.​

The 1914 patent vindicated the Wright brothers, who had previously donated their airplane to a British museum.

 

[rpenner]

Langley was dead. The erroneous claims came from the 1906 Director of the Smithsonian -- a friend of Langley's.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi32.htm

 

[Billy T]

...Samuel Pierpont Langley was a competent & successful astronomer, physicist, & inventor. He tried to develop a powered aircraft. His wing design was upside down compared to the Wright Brothers wing, which was the correct design. Langley envisioned the wing as skipping like a flat stone thrown across a still pond.

The US Army backed Langley who was trying to develop the first powered flying device ...After the successful Wright Brothers flight either the army, Langley, or both claimed that the Langley plane had been successful prior to the Wright Brothers flight, but for some reason (security?) no story of the flight had been published.

The Wright Brothers challenged that claim, contending that a plane using the Langley airfoil could not fly. The army (perhaps with approval from Langley) demonstrated a successful aircraft. ...

That is all correct, but one should give little more detail: Although there was never any publication of the claimed prior Langley flight, there was a photo the plane, which was the main reason the Wright Brothers won the patent struggle despite the full support of the Army against their meager financial resources. The photo showed the wings "up side down" - I.e. if towed or pulled thru the air on top of a truck, etc. the wings would give negative lift. (Army recognized the importance of the airplane - but did not want to pay patent use fees to the inventors.)

The Wright Brothers deserve great credit, but not for being the first to fly. They could not do that even though once a gust of wind did lift their plane briefly off the down hill rails, well before it came to the end even. I define "fly" as:
(1) take off without external help (no men running along side pushing or cable pulling, etc.) from level ground in nearly windless air.
(2) climb with aerodynamic control to an altitude where "ground effect" is not required to maintain level flight (Typically that means to an altitude at least equal to half the wing span.)
(3) Land the craft with well enough controll for the pilot to exit and walk away without help.

The first person to do all three was Santos Dumont in a flat field near Paris withnesed by more than 100 spectators. A New Zeelander (or Australian?) was the first to do two out of three. He needed ground effect to stay airborn - flew into a least a dozen hedges, but then took his plane off at edge of a river and flew over it for more than a mile - flight ended I think when he ran out of fuel - I give him credit for #3 even though he swam away.

What the Wright Brothers deserve great credit for is being one of the first, if not the first, to make application of the of the scientific method to the solution of a problem of great practical interest. Few know they tested their wing air foils and the propeller designs in a wind tunnel, carefully measuring lift, etc. and understood aerodynamic so well that they noticed some errors in the published data on dynamic compressibility (as I recall - I was at the tiny museum more than 50 years ago - the only visitor and asked some technical questions to the custodian. After the 2nd or 3d, none of which he could answer, he asked if I would like to read their lab notebooks. I of course said yes and spent the next hour or so doing that - that is how I know they made a testing wind tunnel, made serious aerodynamic calculation, knew how to scale measured test model results to full scale, etc.) Yes the were the first in a very important way, but not to fly, mainly because they had not yet teamed up with Curtiss, who was a "motorcycle nut" and knew how to improve their already quite good HP to weight ratio motor. (Mainly better fuel, I think.) Soon, back in Ohio, they were flying the world's best planes, and making tight turns that no one else could even approximate. (With their knowledge of aerodynamic, they knew banking the plane made fast turns possible.)

Dumont's plane was inherently very unstable with a big canard out front - I doubt anyone else could fly it - had his skills as pilot - in fact three copies of the plane were made here in Brazil for the 100 year anniversary and crack Brazilian Air Force pilots received the honor of flying them - after the first brief flights went unstable and crashed, the remaining third copy was modified to make it more stable aerodynamically and it did fly. BTW the US made a copy of the Wright Brothers' plane and gassed it up with modern aviation gas, but it still could not get air born without strong head wind or down hill runway. Even with better fuel, 100 years later, it still could not fly.

Reason Dumount had the skill required to fly his plane (called 14-Bis as it as the 14th version*) was he had been flying powered cigar shaped balloon for at least a decade - circumnavigated the Eiffel Tower several times - flew across the Med and landed in Africa etc. and he was very rich - had a higher HP to weight motor than the Wright Brothers did. (His father owned such a large coffee plantation in Brazil, that he built his own railroad to the port for export of his coffee!)

* He was something of an experimental scientist too, but did not know how to scale test model measurement to full scale. So he took the motor out of his plane(s) and hung it with various wing designs from a long cable between two high points and pulled it thru the air with a horse to evaluate lift, etc.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

On September 20, 1904, Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history by a manned heavier-than-air powered machine, covering 4,080 feet (1,244 m) in about a minute and a half.[69] Their two best flights were November 9 by Wilbur and December 1 by Orville, each exceeding five minutes and covering nearly three miles in almost four circles.[70] By the end of the year the brothers had accumulated about 50 minutes in the air in 105 flights overthe rather soggy 85 acres (34 ha) pasture, which, remarkably, is virtually unchanged today from its original condition and is now part of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, adjacent to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

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

 

[Billy T]

On September 20, 1904, Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history by a manned heavier-than-air powered machine, covering 4,080 feet (1,244 m) in about a minute and a half.[69] ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

Yes, I noted they and only they, could do a quick turn via banking (lateral roll) in the last sentence of my largest paragraph of post 3, but not in the plane usd at Kitty Hawk.

The patent's importance lies in its claim of a new and useful method of controlling a flying machine, powered or not. The technique of wing-warping is described, but the patent explicitly states that other methods instead of wing-warping could be used for adjusting the outer portions of a machine's wings to different angles on the right and left sides to achieve lateral roll control. The concept of lateral control was basic to all aircraft designs; without it they could not be easily or safely controlled in flight.[7]

The broad protection intended by this patent succeeded when the Wrights won patent infringement lawsuits against Glenn Curtiss and other early aviators who devised ailerons to emulate lateral control described in the patent and demonstrated by the Wrights in their 1908 public flights. U.S. courts decided that ailerons were also covered by the patent.

"Wing warping" was a dead end approach - not used at all soon, but ailerons are used by every plane that flies today. They were the main contribution made by the Write brothers to aviation, but it is true that Curtiss was the first to actually use ailerons and never recognized their patent claims or pay royalty to them. I don't know who flew the shortest* full 360 or when, but bet today it is done with the aid of canards, mounted on sides near the front, not way out front like Santos DuMount used. I recall some Russian jet, with stubby little canards and tail ailerons, could do a very fast vertical 360 loop and switch from being shot at by a trailing jet to quickly be behind that jet and shooting at it.- This combat maneuver has a name, but I forget it.

* Note "shortest" and "quickest" are two different "historical prizes" to claim. That Russian jet maneuver may hold the title for the quickest. I think the pilot is "pulling" more than 4Gs for a few seconds and in danger of blacking out without a pressure suit on.

Wilbur, Orville Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss

Santos Dumont, 1st to fly.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Yes, I noted they and only they, could do a quick turn via banking (lateral roll) in the last sentence of my largest paragraph of post 3, but not in the plane usd at Kitty Hawk. "Wing warping" was a dead end approach - not used at all soon, but ailerons are used by every plane that flies today. They were the main contribution made by the Write brothers to aviation, but it is true that Curtiss was the first to actually use ailerons and never recognized their patent claims or pay royalty to them. I don't know who flew the shortest* full 360 or when, but bet today it is done with the aid of canards, mounted on sides near the front, not way out front like Santos DuMount used. I recall some Russian jet, with stubby little canards and tail ailerons, could do a very fast vertical 360 loop and switch from being shot at by a trailing jet to quickly be behind that jet and shooting at it.- This combat maneuver has a name, but I forget it.

* Note "shortest" and "quickest" are two different "historical prizes" to claim. That Russian jet maneuver may hold the title for the quickest. I think the pilot is "pulling" more than 4Gs for a few seconds and in danger of blacking out without a pressure suit on.

Wilbur, Orville Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss

Santos Dumont, 1st to fly.

Wilbur flying almost four circles of Huffman Prairie, about 2 3⁄4 miles in 5 minutes 4 seconds; flight #82, November 9, 1904. ... Thus, doubted or scorned, the Wright brothers continued their work in semi-obscurity, while other aviation pioneers like Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Leon Delagrange and American Glenn Curtiss entered the limelight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

Santos-Dumont finally achieved his dream of flying an aircraft on 23 October 1906 by piloting the 14-bis before a large crowd of witnesses for a distance of 60 metres (197 ft) at a height of about five meters or less (15 ft).[5] This well-documented event was the first flight verified by the Aéro-Club de France of a powered heavier-than-air machine in Europe and won the Deutsch-Archdeacon Price for the first officially observed flight further than 25 meters. On 12 November 1906, Santos-Dumont set the first world record recognized by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale by flying 220 metres in 21.5 seconds.[6][7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos-Dumont

Over 1908 - 1910, the AEA produced four aircraft, each one an improvement over the last. Curtiss primarily designed the AEA's third aircraft, Aerodrome #3, the famous June Bug, and became its test pilot, undertaking most of the proving flights. On July 4, 1908, he flew 5,080 feet, to win the Scientific American Trophy and its $2,500 purse.[12] This was considered to be the first pre-announced public flight of a heavier-than-air flying machine in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Curtiss

Wright Brothers - First true flight, 1904
Santos-Dumont - First flight verified by the Aero-Club de France, 1906
Glenn Curtiss - First pre-announced public flight in America, 1908


First to fly - Wright Brothers

 

[billvon]

The photo showed the wings "up side down" - I.e. if towed or pulled thru the air on top of a truck, etc. the wings would give negative lift.

That's pretty silly. Any wing, including an "upside down" wing, will give positive lift depending on its AOA. (Many aerobatic aircraft, for example, have symmetric airfoil sections.)

 

[Billy T]

... Any wing, including an "upside down" wing, will give positive lift depending on its AOA. (Many aerobatic aircraft, for example, have symmetric airfoil sections.)

You are correct. I was assuming a reasonable drag. I.e. one at least less than the motor's effective thrust.

I don't know, but considering the motors available back then, think all most all had essentially zero angle of attack to keep drag as low as they could.

 

[Billy T]

... First to fly - Wright Brothers

I don't consider a powered glider fight that never gets above its take-off altitude to be "flying" but if "flying" means leaving the earth in a powered heavier than air craft and gliding down hill, that was done earlier (1849) and by 1899 to have soon after take-off from level ground, reached altitudes greater that the take-off altitude:

Gustave Weißkopf was a German who emigrated to the U.S., where he soon changed his name to Whitehead. From 1897 to 1915 he designed and built early flying machines and engines. On August 14, 1901, two and a half years before the Wright Brothers' flight, he claimed to have carried out a controlled, powered flight in his Number 21 monoplane at Fairfield, Connecticut. The flight was reported in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald local newspaper; about 30 years later, several people questioned by a researcher claimed to have seen that or other Whitehead flights.
In March 2013 the authoritative Jane's All the World's Aircraft published an editorial which accepted Whitehead's flight as the first manned, powered, controlled flight of a heavier-than-air craft.

Front view

The No. 21 monoplane seen from the rear. Whitehead sits beside it with daughter Rose in his lap; Others are unknown. Note he clearly had discovered the value of dihedral for roll stability and a relatively large tail for pitch stability / attitude control, but used a pole & airfoil-like, light-weight, curved wings plus slightly higher angle of attack than the wrights did. Not visible in this overly white photo is the vertical tail rudder, but visible in others and drawing of the twin cables up to the pilot used for steering.

Research by the Library of Congress's Chief Aviation Historian, Prof. A. Zahm, Harvard University's Prof. J. Crane and, lately, many others has independently concluded that Gustave Whitehead flew before the Wright brothers. So far, using only non-pay research resources one-hundred-and-thirty-six newspaper reports of Whitehead’s 1901/1902 flights have been found, many of them front-page news. The reports came from as far away as Australia and Austria.

Visit this long, very informative link, even the "pro-Wrghts" Smithsonian is joining in now. At the link you learn Whitehead was a M.A.M. trained engine designer making high HP to weight engines for many early planes and the wrights recognized his were the best. He flew a steam powered monoplane in the spring of 1899, ending in a firey crash near Pittsburg -well documented: See http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/hi...-richey-martin-devine-john-a-johns-witnessed/. - Now more than 250 newpaper articles have surfaced as this link is supporting historic research with some German funding.
Only Americans recognize Wrights as the first to fly. No one else does. Not even Jane's - THE US aviation authority.

During some point prior to 1849 Cayley designed and built a biplane in which an unknown ten-year-old boy flew. Later, with the continued assistance of his grandson George John Cayley and his resident engineer Thomas Vick, he developed a larger scale glider (also probably fitted with "flappers")* which flew across Brompton Dale in front of Wydale Hall in 1853. The first adult aviator has been claimed to be either Cayley's coachman, footman or butler: one source (Gibbs-Smith) has suggested that it was John Appleby, a Cayley employee—however there is no definitive evidence to fully identify the pilot. An obscure entry in volume IX of the 8th Encyclopædia Britannica of 1855 is the most contemporaneous account with any authority regarding the event.

* The "motor" of the flppers was "fueled" with gun powder (gasoline engine either not yet invented or much too heavy). It seems in two different versions: one just small explosion in free air over the most lateral parts of the glider wings (See fig 1 below from September 1852) and a second version within some chamber and piston and cable pulling that outer part down. Details are lost to history, but see the bold text in next quote from Wiki and note the date of the Mechanics' Magazine below is 25 Sept 1852 !

Santos-Dumont is rounding Eiffel & winning the Deutsch de la Meurthe Prize, October 1901.
This was powered, well-controlled, flight of a craft that probably was lighter than air, but when manned with part of the motor thrust pointed down, perhaps if Santo had a big coat and breakfast, etc. was "heavier than air" wing-less flight sometimes when he flew it. No one knows for sure. The hanging steel structure below it was for stiffness and even its weight is unknown. AFAIK, there is no record of what the net un-manned lift was or even that it was measured. If net lift was positive, it was not much as that gas bag has large surface to volume ratio.

Sir George Cayley started the first rigorous study of the physics of flight. In 1799 he exhibited a plan for a glider, which except for planform was completely modern in having a separate tail for control and having the pilot suspended below the center of gravity to provide stability, and flew it as a model in 1804. Over the next five decades Cayley worked on and off on the problem, during which he formulated the basics of aerodynamic theory, introducing such ideas as lift and drag. He used both internal and external combustion engines, fueled by gunpowder, in his models. Later Cayley turned his research to building a full-scale version of his design, first flying it unmanned in 1849, and in 1853 his coachman made a short unpowered gliding flight at Brompton, near Scarborough in Yorkshire.

Sir George Cayley, 6th Baronet of Brompton (27 December 1773 – 15 December 1857) was a prolific English engineer and one of the most important people in the history of aeronautics. Many consider him the first true scientific aerial investigator and the first person to understand the underlying principles and forces of flight.[1][2][3]

In 1799 he set forth the concept of the modern aeroplane as a fixed-wing flying machine with separate systems for lift, propulsion, and control.[4][5] He was a pioneer of aeronautical engineering and is sometimes referred to as "the father of aerodynamics." Designer of the first successful glider to carry a human being aloft, he discovered and identified the four aerodynamic forces of flight: weight, lift, drag, and thrust, which act on any flying vehicle. Modern aeroplane design is based on those discoveries including cambered wings.

He is credited with the first major breakthrough in heavier-than-air flight and he worked over half a century before the development of powered flight, being acknowledged by the Wright brothers.... During some point prior to 1849 he designed and built a biplane in which an unknown ten-year-old boy flew. Later, with the continued assistance of his grandson George John Cayley and his resident engineer Thomas Vick, he developed a larger scale glider (also probably fitted with "flappers")* which flew across Brompton Dale in front of Wydale Hall in 1853. The first adult aviator has been claimed to be either Cayley's coachman, footman or butler: one source (Gibbs-Smith) has suggested that it was John Appleby, a Cayley employee—however there is no definitive evidence to fully identify the pilot. An obscure entry in volume IX of the 8th Encyclopædia Britannica of 1855 is the most contemporaneous account with any authority regarding the event.

* As human can not provide the power level needed for flight, presumable these "flappers" were also powered by gun powder, but like the Write Borthers at Kitty Hawk, probably the landing site was lower than the take-off site as imitating birds does not work well.

Only four people, including the Wrights, claimed to have seen the "historic" Kitty Hawk flight, but there is a photograph of that craft airborne about half its wing span above the ground, with no way to date when it was taken. It is obviously being aided by ground effect. The Wrights went to Kitty Hawk, from Ohio to take advantage of the strong onto shore wind and the high sand dunes. One of the "flight witnesses" reported that a gust of wind lifted the plane off the rails about half way down and some days later another crashed the plane, and they went back to Ohio only to return next summer. These facts are essentially an admission that the plane could not fly in Ohio. The fact that the 100 year anniversary replica, even with modern gasoline fuel, could never get off the ground also weakens any claim put forth that the Wrights were the first to fly.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

I don't consider a powered glider fight that never gets above its take-off altitude to be "flying" but if "flying" means leaving the earth in a powered heavier than air craft and gliding down hill, that was done earlier (1849) and by 1899 to have soon after take-off from level ground, reached altitudes greater that the take-off altitude:Visit this long, very informative link, even the "pro-Wrghts" Smithsonian is joining in now. At the link you learn Whitehead was a M.A.M. trained engine designer making high HP to weight engines for many early planes and the wrights recognized his were the best. He flew a steam powered monoplane in the spring of 1899, ending in a firey crash near Pittsburg -well documented: See http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/hi...-richey-martin-devine-john-a-johns-witnessed/. - Now more than 250 newpaper articles have surfaced as this link is supporting historic research with some German funding.
Only Americans recognize Wrights as the first to fly. No one else does. Not even Jane's - THE US aviation authority.
* The "motor" of the flppers was "fueled" with gun powder (gasoline engine either not yet invented or much too heavy). It seems in two different versions: one just small explosion in free air over the most lateral parts of the glider wings (See fig 1 below from September 1852) and a second version within some chamber and piston and cable pulling that outer part down. Details are lost to history, but see the bold text in next quote from Wiki and note the date of the Mechanics' Magazine below is 25 Sept 1852 !

Santos-Dumont is rounding Eiffel & winning the Deutsch de la Meurthe Prize, October 1901.
This was powered, well-controlled, flight of a craft that probably was lighter than air, but when manned with part of the motor thrust pointed down, perhaps if Santo had a big coat and breakfast, etc. was "heavier than air" wing-less flight sometimes when he flew it. No one knows for sure. The hanging steel structure below it was for stiffness and even its weight is unknown. AFAIK, there is no record of what the net un-manned lift was or even that it was measured. If net lift was positive, it was not much as that gas bag has large surface to volume ratio.


* As human can not provide the power level needed for flight, presumable these "flappers" were also powered by gun powder, but like the Write Borthers at Kitty Hawk, probably the landing site was lower than the take-off site as imitating birds does not work well.

Only four people, including the Wrights, claimed to have seen the "historic" Kitty Hawk flight, but there is a photograph of that craft airborne about half its wing span above the ground, with no way to date when it was taken. It is obviously being aided by ground effect. The Wrights went to Kitty Hawk, from Ohio to take advantage of the strong onto shore wind and the high sand dunes. One of the "flight witnesses" reported that a gust of wind lifted the plane off the rails about half way down and some days later another crashed the plane, and they went back to Ohio only to return next summer. These facts are essentially an admission that the plane could not fly in Ohio. The fact that the 100 year anniversary replica, even with modern gasoline fuel, could never get off the ground also weakens any claim put forth that the Wrights were the first to fly.

Perhaps you overlooked the fact that I did not reference the 1903 KittyHawk work by the Wright Brothers as the First Flight. I did not do so, because as you indicated, it was not really flight. You are correct, that kind of 'flight' had been done previously, and the Wright Brothers repeated it in late 1903. It was for short distance, against the wind, downhill, etc. (they weren't dumb, after all!)

But using your definition of flight, and one most use, of having a controlled flight with turns, over distance (such as pulling several circles and landing), the Wright Brothers are the first, not with their 1903 work which was motorized, but rather their 1904 work in which they did numerous controlled circles, and aloft for long periods of time (and flying 25 miles!).

What you write about Whitehead (copied from Wikipedia) is contested as follows: "The Smithsonian Institution, custodians of the original Wright Flyer, disagree that Whitehead flew as reported and maintain that the Wrights deserve the honour.[36]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation

If you have evidence that Whitehead flew in circles, or even long distances, demonstrating controlled flight, prior to the Wright's 1904 flights, as claimed by some (but without supporting documentation, it appears), I would be happy to confer that honor to him instead of the Wrights.

Ball is back in your court.

Update a few hours later:

Here's an excerpt from the Whitehead article on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead )

"In the late 1950s Gibbs-Smith researched the field of early aviation pioneers and their various claims, and he concluded that reports of Whitehead making a successful flight in advance of the Wright brothers were fabrications,[50] "flights of fancy".[73] Gibbs-Smith wrote in 1960: "Unfortunately, some of those who advanced [Whitehead's] claims were more intent on discrediting the Wright brothers than on establishing facts."[50] He wrote that no "reputable" aviation historian believes Whitehead ever flew.[50] He described the arc of Whitehead's career as a retrogression, that it moved from supposed early successes to less ambitious experiments, and then descended further to unlikely designs and public failure. Gibbs-Smith was convinced that any true success along the way would have brought Whitehead's achievements wide recognition, but this never happened."

The best I can gather from the article is that Whitehead might have made a few straight-line hops similar to the straight-line hops of the Wrights in late 1903. No photographs exist of any purported flights, and he never advanced forward, as did the Wrights. You got anything better?

 

[Billy T]

... But using your definition of flight, and one most use, of having a controlled flight with turns, over distance ... Ball is back in your court.

No! You did NOT use my definition of Flight. You added a new requirement. Mine quoted from post 3 are repeated just After my SUMMARY in bold below.

My three requirements definition of "flight" does not require ability to make 360 degree turns, only "control" which does include some ability to steer. Yes the Wrights were the first to with the ability to fly in small radius circles. Neither Whitehead nor Santos Dumont could could that, but could fly (by my three requirements) and steer some - Say by turning at, at least, one degree per second rate.

Also my three requirement's only "distance requirement" is related to height achieved. - Plane had to get high enough that the compression of air between wings and ground was negligible, not essential for them to remain air born. I gave achieve: "Altitude greater than half the wing span: as a pratical test for that.

BTW the Wrights did that once at Kitty Hawk just before going back to Ohio at end of 2003. A wind gust aidding of course as that plane could not fly - The gust lifted one wing and flipped the plane 180 degrees to land up side down. So when wings were vertical and not touching the ground the plane on average was slightly more than half its wing span in altitude.

I have never seen any definition that requires turning a full circle. I think you made up that requirement to preserve the Wright's claim to be first. I'll grant they did do a 360 turn in less than two minutes. I.e. could turn faster than 3 degree / second. Most of the 11 different definitions my Webster's unabrigid dictionarygives are not concerned with literal flying but number 10 is. I quote it: "the act of moving thru the air on wings."

As Santo Dumont's plane is very unstable against yaw (turning) he had to have great skill as a pilot to keep it from turning 90 or more degrees is less than 5 seconds! Whitehead's long, narrow, vertical flat-walled, tub-like fuselage plane, (design #20) was very hard to turn rapidly. It was powered by very light weight steam engine (hot charcoal was the fuel and a "fireman" sat behind him to feed the fuel in under the boiler) literally crashed and burned as he flew it into a new brick building. Copy of the firmman's Notarized Affidavid close this post.

I could make up definition of flying to. Such as: "Must have a piloted air craft that can carry at least one adult passenger." That is of much greater economic importance than: "Must turn faster than 2 degrees/ second and fly a full 360 degree circle." With that, modern commercial airplanes rarely, if ever, "fly."

SUMMARY: It seems world recognizing Wright as first to fly depends on world accepting your extra requirement about rapidly turning 360 circle.

For reader's convenience here is my post 3 definition of flying:
I define "fly" as:
(1) take off without external help (no men running along side pushing or cable pulling, etc.) from level ground in nearly windless air.
(2) climb with aerodynamic control to an altitude where "ground effect" is not required to maintain level flight (Typically that means to an altitude at least equal to half the wing span.)
(3) Land the craft with well enough controlled for the pilot to exit and walk away without help.

At link given earlier are several more legal affidavits about the "half-mile flight with crash and burn endng" in summer of 1899 too.* Now that there is very extensive irrefutable evidence that Whitehead did all three of my definitions requirement in Connect in 1902, the legislature has declared Whitehead was first to fly. Perhaps soon, "First in Flight" will be on their licensing car tags as it is now on North Carolina's - New war between the states?

* my requirement (3) does not require the plane to survive the "landing" - just that the after it the pilot can get out and walk away unaided. The fire that consumed the plane probably was not even noticeable by any spectator for several minutes as was started by hot charcoal resting on wood floor.

 

[Billy T]

... No photographs exist of any purported flights, and he never advanced forward, as did the Wrights. You got anything better?

True today. All have been lost, but one photo of the photos on wall at an exhibit, has been digitally recovered to confirm (or at least strongly support) earlier descriptions of the lost Whitehead airborn photo shown at the exhibit. (He had the original in his house, that burned to the ground. Several newspapers did make lithograph's from it and they still exist in the file. Technology had not advanced to point newspapers could print photos so lithographs were used and often "enhanced" to leave out distractions, etc.)

Luckily, this site's author found the lost photo. In its January 27, 1906 edition, p.94, "Scientific American" published an eyewitness report of the first exhibition of the recently-founded Aero Club of America, held January 13-20, 1906 at the 69th Regiment Armory in New York. The article states:

”…the walls of the room were covered with a large collection of photographs showing the machines of other inventors, such as Whitehead… in flight…. A single blurred photograph of a large birdlike machine propelled by compressed air… constructed by Whitehead in 1901 was the only photograph … of a motor driven aeroplane in successful flight."

"Scientific American" is a very credible source. Tom Crouch Ph.D., Chief Historian at the Smithsonian Institute, once wrote in a September 28, 1982, letter to publisher, Leo Opdyke: “The editors of "Scientific American" were honest men. They would not lie to their readers. In short, these were trained, professional, technical journalists who were in the best possible position to judge Whitehead’s work. They were far better able to evaluate the validity of Whitehead’s case than anyone alive today.”

Further down in the link is discussion of the digital processing used on the still existing photo of the January 1906 wall of photos. - Whitehead airborn photo being by far the most important But not most prominently displayed and his "German accomplishment" were somewhat suppressed by the prevailing attitudes (WWI and even later by WWII) Now an "explosion" of interest and research into them is in progress.

This and post 11 with affidavit copy puts "ball back in your court," However, all this recent investigation into Whitehead's accomplishments, does make Santo Dumont the 2nd to fly, unless we require that the flight be witnessed by several hundred spectators. All photos of planes in flight around 1900 were blurry as film was slow. That makes me wonder why the famous one of Kitty Hawk is so sharp and clear and no proof of year (not even one affidavit) exists. Supported by thin wires or taken some years later when faster film existed, are two possible explanations.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

True today. All have been lost, but one photo of the photos on wall at an exhibit, has been digitally recovered to confirm (or at least strongly support) earlier descriptions of the lost Whitehead airborn photo shown at the exhibit. (He had the original in his house, that burned to the ground. Several newspapers did make lithograph's from it and they still exist in the file. Technology had not advanced to point newspapers could print photos so lithographs were used and often "enhanced" to leave out distractions, etc.)

Further down in the link is discussion of the digital processing used on the still existing photo of the January 1906 wall of photos. - Whitehead airborn photo being by far the most important But not most prominently displayed and his "German accomplishment" were somewhat suppressed by the prevailing attitudes (WWI and even later by WWII) Now an "explosion" of interest and research into them is in progress.

This and post 11 with affidavit copy puts "ball back in your court," However, all this recent investigation into Whitehead's accomplishments, does make Santo Dumont the 2nd to fly, unless we require that the flight be witnessed by several hundred spectators. All photos of planes in flight around 1900 were blurry as film was slow. That makes me wonder why the famous one of Kitty Hawk is so sharp and clear and no proof of year (not even one affidavit) exists. Supported by thin wires or taken some years later when faster film existed, are two possible explanations.

well, yeah, you gotta throw in 3-axis control, or it is 'out-of-control' "flight". That is what the Wright's mastered, and obtained their patent on (controlling the wing lift so you can bank; whether via 'wing-warp' as their actual model, or via aileron as per their broad patent).

the affidavit you copied shows one flight crashing (doesn't count) and the second one at 5 feet above the ground (ground-effect, doesn't count), and no evidence of control.
so yeah, that's what I believed to be true, but it is not flight. others did that before him. and by the way, the photograph of the far-distant photograph of a 'plane' on the other side of the room was analyzed and it could not be determined if it even had a motor. so all in all, possibly compelling of a straight-line hop like others had done, but not controlled flight, which was first done by the Wright Brothers in 1904, with photographs and witnesses to substantiate it. Plus, they got a patent. Whitehead's 1905 patent was for a glider! implies he knew he didn't have anything patentable yet.

 

[Billy T]

... implies he knew he didn't have anything patentable yet.

No, more that he (whitehead) was not as commercially minded as the Wrights were. He could have patented dihedral and many of his different types of motors, which were best of the era.

Do you now agree that ability to do a 360 turn with turn rate greater than 3 degrees / second is not any part of the definition of flight? I do agree that having 3 axis control is implicit in my saying "well enough control" etc. and certainly demonstrated by Whitehead's half mile long flight in late spring of 1899 and also by Santo Dumont. - One fool rushed up to his plane as it was descending to land Santos had to swerve to avoid hitting him.

You also seem to be implicitly extending my requirement (3) to include that the plane must be in condition after the landing to fly again. Not true of modern landings when the nose wheel collapses or plane runs out of runway and is damaged by fence, etc. so I'll stick with (3) as: Land the craft with well enough controll for the pilot to exit and walk away without help.

It is common claim of pilots that: "Any landing you can walk away from is good landing." - Surely you have heard that before. But it does remind me of a joke:
After a very rough land, several bounces up off the run way an old lady was shaken up, needed few minutes to recover, and became the last passenger to leave. As is normal the Captain was at the cockpit door saying "Good-By" to the passengers. She paused and said to him:
Tell me did we land or were we shot down?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

After a very rough land, several bounces up off the run way an old lady was shaken up, needed few minutes to recover, and became the last passenger to leave. As is normal the Captain was at the cockpit door saying "Good-By" to the passengers. She paused and said to him:
Tell me did we land or were we shot down?

Yes, I've heard that saying about any landing you can walk away from is a good landing - but none of the pilots I know likes it or thinks it's funny.

I don't doubt that there was some 'control' on the earlier attempts at flight. Up/Down; Left/Right. You could actually move the craft a little with just that, making a very very slow turn, but that is not actually control. Easily leads to crashes, etc.

But the Wright Brothers systematically analyzed the needs for flight (via their wind-tunnels, etc.) and realized the need for the third axis, i.e. roll-left/roll-right, in order to effect any degree of turn within a reasonable distance. So they came up with wing-warp (mechanically simpler than ailerons, but doing the same thing - spoiling the airflow to decrease the lift, allowing the craft to roll)

So far as I know, they were the first to fly with all three components. Though the Wright Flyer - I had that ability, it wasn't demonstrated so I did not include that as their 'first flight' (as those early ones were just straight-line as they learned their flying skill for take-off/landing); but rather their flights one year later in 1904 in Wright Flyer - II (their improved version), in which they amply demonstrated the ability to roll and turn the craft, flying tight circles. No one else had done that before then, and that is the hallmark of flying. That is what sets them apart as the first aviators in the true sense. Everything else before that was just a cannonball shot compared to that. Everything before the Wright Brothers was just short straight-line hops, because those inventors had no ability to control the craft for making turns.

But please, correct me if you can find evidence of aileron-control/roll before the Wright Brothers - - I've not seen any.

 

[Billy T]

... I don't doubt that there was some 'control' on the earlier attempts at flight. Up/Down; Left/Right. You could actually move the craft a little with just that, making a very very slow turn, but that is not actually control. ... But please, correct me if you can find evidence of aileron-control/roll before the Wright Brothers - - I've not seen any.

With "aileron-control" is not part not the definition of flying. A rudder works well for steering; but yes, if you can bank wings so part of their lift is pulling you towards the center of a turn you can turn more rapidly than with rudder alone.

Santos Dumont severed quite sharply while landing not to hit an idiot who ran out in front of his plane. This was done by throwing the rudder hard to one side, not by "wing warping" which the Wrights did first, but that was a dead end approach, only they did and soon switched to ailerons, that Curtiss had already shown were better. Whitehead also steered via rudder. Probably only reason Wrights did 360 circles is they had to land in the same field they took off from.

Yes the Wrights were the first to do "tight circles" but "flying" does not have that as part of the definition. Why keep bring it up? - Wrights doing that first does not make them the first to fly, even though you seem to think it does. There are lots of firsts in aviation: Carrying a passenger - Whitehead; Up side down barrel roll, - forget who did that, but a few died trying; Breaking the sound barrier - Chuck Yeager. etc. Flying, as reasonably defined, dose not require doing any of these, nor turning tight circles - just adequate 3D control to get to your landing site. Whitehead, in version 20, at end of half mile flight in 1899, thought he could climb over a three story brick building - but learned he could not, the hard way. Unlike Santos Dumont, he often flew in cities, taking off from a street, lined with houses.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

... not by "wing warping" which the Wrights did first, but that was a dead end approach, only they did and soon switched to ailerons, that Curtiss had already shown were better. Whitehead also steered via rudder. Probably only reason Wrights did 360 circles is they had to land in the same field they took off from.

Obviously you're not a pilot. the "wing warping", i.e. exhibiting control in the 3rd axis (roll), is not a dead-end approach. It is the only method of control in the 3rd axis. Taking advantage of other similar methods, such as ailerons, is an improvement in that approach. Lots of other improvements.

The Wrights flew 4 circles, not 1, to demonstrate they had mastered flight. No one had done that before. Whitehead ran into that building because he couldn't turn to get it out from in front of him - no flight control! Swerving sharply, once the wheels are back on the ground, is not flight control, but ground control.

So yeah, if your definition of flight is simply sending a human body forward in the air, then the human cannonball likely was the first flight.

 

[Billy T]

... "wing warping", i.e. exhibiting control in the 3rd axis (roll), is not a dead-end approach. ... Whitehead ran into that building because he couldn't turn to get it out from in front of him - no flight control! Swerving sharply, once the wheels are back on the ground, is not flight control, but ground control. ...

Both false.

Read the fireman's affidavit in posts 11 - it states Whitehead had been steering, but tried to climb over the building - he probably could have gone around, as had been flying for half a mile in an urban environment, avoiding trees, etc. but decided to climb over it - probably he was already at 25 foot altitude. Possibly he misjudged / over estimated/ the possible climb rate as when lower with, ground effect, he could climb more rapidly.

Santos was not on the ground when he swerved, that would have been impossible as the wheels had no steering - only rolled forward - the tail rudder was only able to make "swerving turns" when flying, not when rolling more slowing on the ground.

By "dead end approach" I meant no one - not even the Wrights used it decade later. Certainly modern metal wings don't use that abandoned form of control. I will note, however, that Whitehead's invention and use of dihedral, never patented, is still used by almost all modern air planes as it gives automatic passive resistance to roll.

I don't want readers to falsely think I'm "anti-Wrights." I greatly admire them and said so in the part post 3, quoted below.
What they did was much more important than being the first to fly - in some ways our entire modern civilization we owe to them:

... What the Wright Brothers deserve great credit for is being one of the first, if not the first, to make application of the of the scientific method to the solution of a problem of great practical interest.* Few know they tested their wing air foils and the propeller designs in a wind tunnel, carefully measuring lift, etc. and understood aerodynamic so well that they noticed some errors in the published data on dynamic compressibility (as I recall - I was at the tiny museum more than 50 years ago - the only visitor and asked some technical questions to the custodian. After the 2nd or 3d, none of which he could answer, he asked if I would like to read their lab notebooks. I of course said yes and spent the next hour or so doing that - that is how I know they made a testing wind tunnel, made serious aerodynamic calculation, knew how to scale measured test model results to full scale, etc.) Yes the were the first in a very important way, but not to fly, mainly because they had not yet teamed up with Curtiss, who was a "motorcycle nut" and knew how to improve their already quite good HP to weight ratio motor. (Mainly better fuel, I think.) Soon, back in Ohio, they were flying the world's best planes, and making tight turns that no one else could even approximate. (With their knowledge of aerodynamic, they knew banking the plane made fast turns possible.)...

*Even Edison was too dumb to do this.** He was, as most "scientists" were, of the "cut and try" school. Had little deep understanding - only knew the filament had to be very hot. Never understood how an AC motor worked. etc. The modern world was made the way the wright's made their airplane - deeply study the field, work hard using what you have learned for years if need be, calculate then design, measure and test you computed predictions, refine your analysis and keep at it until you have a workable plan of action. If they had had rich Santo Dumont' motor or were trained to be a motor designer by German Diesel M.M.M motors, as Whitehead was, they would have flown in Ohio - not even needed to slide down hill on rails into a gusty on shore breeze in NC. Whitehead was without doubt the best motor maker in the USA in 1900 - with his motors having more than twice the HP to weight ratio of any others.

** Edison even admitted this in a now famous quote: "Inventions is 5% inspiration an 95% perspiration." - not one word about learning, study and knowledge.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Both false.

Read the fireman's affidavit in posts 11 - it states Whitehead had been steering, but tried to climb over the building - he probably could have gone around, as had been flying for half a mile in an urban environment, avoiding trees, etc. but decided to climb over it - probably he was already at 25 foot altitude. Possibly he misjudged / over estimated/ the possible climb rate as when lower with, ground effect, he could climb more rapidly.

Santos was not on the ground when he swerved, that would have been impossible as the wheels had no steering - only rolled forward - the tail rudder was only able to make "swerving turns" when flying, not when rolling more slowing on the ground.

Yes, I am aware that Whitehead made good motors. But he did not master flight. He 'flew' only 1/2 mile before hitting a building. I imagine he tried to climb above it, because he could not easily go around. He's lucky he didn't kill himself and his boiler-stoker. Thereafter, nothing came of his efforts. I imagine his wife probably told him to give it up before he killed himself.

Likewise, 'swerving' with the tail rudder can indeed change the direction of the plane slightly. But nothing like the control of banking at the same time. Only the Wrights did that - banking - establishing themselves as the first to master flight control.

There had been efforts even in the 1800s that got people off the ground in a straight-line hop with heavier-than-air craft, before Whitehead and Dumont, but no one considers it 'flight'.

The distinguishing characteristic of the Wrights is their insight into the need for that 3rd axis of control, namely rolling (banking), so as to be able to effect change in the direction of forward motion.

The fact that they came up with a simple way - wing-warping - to effect that 3rd axis control in no way takes from their innovation as the first to exhibit full flight control. They quickly adapated ailerons in subsequent models, as they recognized it was a better way to effect that roll. But it was that roll that enabled them, in 1904, to fly circles around the competition; and they also had confidence in flight to go great distances, and flew some 25 miles as well that year in a single flight.

 

[Billy T]

The intense interest in Whitehead now (funded in part by Germany & Connect) is producing many long lost facts, posted and documented at this site.

... July 1, 1901 letter from Octave Chanute {to the wrights} recommending a 10 hp, 30 lb. Whitehead motor (which Whitehead was building for M.C.Arnot*and for*Prof. C.E.Meyers), Wilbur replied on July 4, 1901 as follows: “The 10-horsepower motor you refer to is certainly a wonder if it weighs only thirty lbs. with supplies for two hours, as the gasoline alone for such an engine would weigh some ten or twelve lbs. thus leaving only 18 or 20 lbs. for the motor or about two lbs. per horsepower. Even if the inventor miscalculates by five hundred percent it still would be an extremely fine motor for aerial purposes”. At the time, the Wrights were actively looking for a motor.

Just four days after the July 1901, Chanute-Wright correspondence, a New York newspaper reported that the 30 lb./10 hp motor the Wrights were interested in was to be installed in the Sky Cycle {a balloon with human peddle-power motor before 1900} so it could compete in St. Louis. At the contest, the local press reported on the motor’s use. The Sky Cycle went on to become one of the first commercially successful aircraft ever. For many years, Meyers sold it via classified ads appearing in technical magazines across the USA, offering single, twin, three and four cylinder, powered versions.
-----------
… In Dec. 1902, Whitehead published a precise description of the wing-warping mechanism on his aircraft in "Aeronautical World". That was almost 4 months before the Wright brothers applied for their patent (on March 23, 1903). The significance of this is that the Wrights' whole claim to preeminence rests on their claim to have both discovered and practically applied a wing-warping system first. {Billy T insert: Wrights could not very well claim that only publication was not "invention" as they only vaguely claimed Aileron could be used, but Curtiss was using them.}
--------
... It wasn’t until May 20, 1908 that the Wright Brothers first released a photo of their claimed 1903 powered flight in the New York Times (just days after they went back to Kitty Hawk on May 6, 1908 - returning for the first time since 1903). Up until then, they only showed photos of their kites and gliders

This last section tends to support my speculation at end of post 12, that the famous clear / sharp photo of the Kitty Hawk plane in flight was not blurry as all others of moving objects were in 2003 or earlier photos when only much slower speed film was available. By 1908 you did not need to sit perfectly still for nearly a minute to have your picture taken.