barney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 749 posts, RR: 14 Posted (2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10957 times:
In a startling announcement a few days ago, Jane's All the World's Aircraft has named an August, 1901, flight by Connecticut aviation pioneer Gustave Whitehead as the first successful powered flight in history, beating the Wright Brothers by more than two years. Jane's, which calls itself the world's foremost authority on aviation history, with great authority, has traditionally backed the Wrights as first in flight. Now they say the evidence for Whitehead's flight is strong enough for the publication to reverse course and recognize it as the first successful powered flight.
Jane's Editor Paul Jackson describes what happened in Bridgeport, Connecticut, on August 14, 1901.
"It was in the summer of 1901 that Whitehead flew his airplane, which he called the Condor. In the early hours of 14 August 1901, the Condor propelled itself along the darkened streets of Bridgeport, Connecticut, with Whitehead, his staff and an invited guest in attendance. In the still air of dawn, the Condor's wings were unfolded and it took off from open land at Fairfield, 15 miles from the city, and performed two demonstration sorties. The second was estimated as having covered 1½ miles at a height of 50 feet, during which slight turns in both directions were demonstrated." The length of flight and altitude reached make the Wright's first powered foray pale in comparison.
The evidence that Jane's presents is compelling. There are multiple photographs, overwhelming evidence of Whitehead's preparation for the first flight — Condor was the 21st airplane he built — eyewitnesses, dozens of newspaper accounts of the story and ample evidence not only of an engine sufficient for the flight but one whose basic design was used on many subsequent successful airplanes by other designers, including Glenn Curtiss. Moreover, Whitehead made another successful powered flight in an airplane with three-axis controls in 1902, more than a year before the Wright's first flight.
The decision by Jane's is sure to fuel the most controversial discussion in aviation, perhaps ever, as aviation enthusiasts take sides, either with the Wright Brothers, who made history on the North Carolina dunes in December 1903, or Whitehead, who, the evidence now seems to indicate, did the same two-and-a-half years earlier on the quiet streets of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Look for more on this story, unfolding 112 years after the fact, in the coming days and weeks in Flying and on flyingmag.com.
Its been a contentious topic since day one - the Smithsonian had to sign an agreement to the effect of "we will only acknowledge the Wright Brothers as the inventors of powered flight" when they took the Wright Flyer into their collection in 1948.
The clause reads:
"Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, nor any museum or other agency, bureau or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight."
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1669 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10635 times:
While is far too soon yet for taking one side or the other ( I'm sure the time will make the truth prevail, like always happens sooner or later in everything ), I have a couple of thoughts....
1.- If there is so much evidence ( there are more than 80 links to Reports in the newspapers in the site provided ), from so many different sources, how is possible that no one noted this in 112 years ?
2.- Some of the reports in the newspapers ( i.e. New York Herald ) talks about the flying machine was powered by " a New Acetylene Chemical Pressure".... Can someone elaborate on this ?? Is that a "real" engine ? Or is "just a pressurized bottle of gas" that generates impulse through valves or something ?
3.-. Looking at the pictures of that flying machine ( that looks more like a giant moth that an actual aircraft ), the wings and tail seems to be a little inadequate to provide enough control to fly 1 and a half mile and make turns.... it looks more like all the other machines ( of the last years of 19th century ) you see crashing from bridges and hills ( usually falling like a rock !! )....and I have to say that, no matter who was the first, the Wright Flyier was much more elegant than this giant moth ( in my personal view of course ).
In any case this will be an interesting discussion !!
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10523 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 3): how is possible that no one noted this in 112 years
The point is, it has been noted during that time, many many times - it is, however, difficult to divert historical momentum (who invented the TV, lightbulb, telephone, gas turbine etc etc etc, the original inventors are heavily disputed in most cases and yet we still have named inventors during history lessons as children).
EagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1612 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10420 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 2): Its been a contentious topic since day one - the Smithsonian had to sign an agreement to the effect of "we will only acknowledge the Wright Brothers as the inventors of powered flight" when they took the Wright Flyer into their collection in 1948.
The clause reads:
"Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, nor any museum or other agency, bureau or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight."
While it is only my opinion........I feel that anyone who would make the Smithsonian sign such a clause is not fully confident in their own claim to the title of "First Powered Flight."
Certainly the circumstantial evidence looks to be in favour of the Wright NOT being the first. 2-3 newpaper reports can be faked but dozens? with witness's. Seems a pretty strong case. However as with so many things in life, the Wright Bros will remain in the public pysche.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10297 times:
The Wrights weren't first anyway even without this new claim, Richard Pearse achieved powered flight on 31 March 1903 almost a year before the Wright Brothers and invented the use of ailerons which of course are still used today unlike their warping wings.
CaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10271 times:
I love hearing stories like this in that they help add to the rich tapestry of aviation history that I was completely ignorant of to begin with.
I fell in love with aviation through direct experience, by flying on commercial aircraft back in the 70's. As I grew older I became interested in how aircraft came to be in the first place. I was familiar with the Wright Brothers significant contribution from an early age, so I started buying books related to them. I ended up visiting Dayton Ohio, on a pilgrimige of sorts. Then I started hearing other names such as Californian John J Montgomery and New Zealander Richard Pearse, amongst many, many others who all in their own way made a contribution and now Gustav Whitehead a person I had not heard of until today.
Napoleon once said that History is the fable agreed upon, one thing is certain, it is always in a state of flux!
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10166 times:
I wonder why Jane's had thrown it's weight behind Whitehead, rather than Pearce?
I have to say, Brown's website reads like a well researched conspiracy theory. Jane's appears to accept it, but I wouldn't mind seeing some cross referenced debate, among other historians.
That said, this would not be the first time the Smithsonian has subscribed to dogma.
RDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1059 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10038 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 7): The Wrights weren't first anyway even without this new claim, Richard Pearse achieved powered flight on 31 March 1903 almost a year before the Wright Brothers and invented the use of ailerons which of course are still used today unlike their warping wings.
You state that as fact, when your own link says:
"Pearse's work remained poorly documented at the time. No contemporary newspaper record exists. Some photographic records survived, but undated, with some images difficult to interpret. Pearse himself made contradictory statements which for many years led the few who knew of his feats to accept 1904 as the date of flying."
Which I would interpret as: "there is literally no proof that he flew his aircraft when this says he did".
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1669 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9850 times:
This is just an opinion, but in my view, THE THING that makes the case for Wilbur and Orville a winner is, after their flights in Kitty Hawk, they took a series of steps ( Public demonstrations, patent application, and the most important, created a company to build airplanes ( 1909 ), looking for contracts with the U.S. Army and some European countries.
In other words, they created the aviation industry, something that no other of this "first man to fly a machine under its own power" did. To be honest, that makes a big difference to me, although I obviously have the greatest respect for the braves that risked their lives, fortunes and families trying to do something that, in those days, was extremely dangerous and expensive. From Leonardo da Vinci to the Wright Bros, passing through a long list of aviation pioneers, I respect them all.
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9692 times:
It's going to take a lot to change history and it's not going to happen because of a couple of blurry photos and newspaper articles. The controversy surrounding Whitehead's claim (and others around the same time) ensure that Kitty Hawk, NC, will always remain the site of the first flight. Much like Columbus was not the first European to "discover" North America, sometimes it doesn't really matter...the Wright Brothers were the first the stake their claim and they were the first to reap the rewards of being aviation pioneers.
Quoting barney captain (Thread starter): Whitehead, who, the evidence now seems to indicate, did the same two-and-a-half years earlier on the quiet streets of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Quiet streets of Bridgeport, CT? Wow, times sure have changed!
There is a display dedicated to Gustave Whitehead and his claims and achievements at the Bridgeport Discovery Museum.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9616 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 7): The Wrights weren't first anyway even without this new claim, Richard Pearse achieved powered flight on 31 March 1903 almost a year before the Wright Brothers and invented the use of ailerons which of course are still used today unlike their warping wings.
Too bloody right, it always boils my blood when uninformed idiots state the Wrights flew first.
Quoting RDH3E (Reply 10): Which I would interpret as: "there is literally no proof that he flew his aircraft when this says he did".
He was a kiwi from the ass end of the world, who would have believed him, plus it's typically kiwi to hide your genius and not promote your accomplishments.
What Pease built is considerably more like a modern aeroplane than the box kite with an engine the Wrights apparently flew.
Quote: Whether or not Pearse flew in any acceptable sense, and regardless of the exact date, his first aircraft was a remarkable invention embodying several far-sighted concepts: a monoplane configuration, wing flaps and rear elevator, tricycle undercarriage with steerable nosewheel, and a propeller with variable-pitch blades driven by a unique double-acting horizontally opposed petrol engine.
EASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 376 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8425 times:
Ok....so some other folks possibly flew before the WB. So what! The french guy maybe flew in 1890. But what did he do from there? Nothing! The fact is the WB went on to promote their plane, and make improvements. Don't forget, that the British were working on this too.
turn720 From United States of America, joined May 2012, 16 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7888 times:
I don't know who it was that first flew on a powered aircraft. There are a lot of claims to that fact. The French, Germans, Brazilians, Kiwis, pick a nationality and they will be more than happy to tell you. But there is one undisputed thing that the Wright brothers did that the others did not or could not do. They repeated the act over and over again. In front of anyone who cared to watch. They left not a single doubt of what they had just done.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1831 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7069 times:
Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 6): While it is only my opinion........I feel that anyone who would make the Smithsonian sign such a clause is not fully confident in their own claim to the title of "First Powered Flight."
The clause acknowledging the Wright Flyer was to end the bitter feud between the Wrights and Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Langley. Langley claimed he had conducted the first heavier than air flight and displayed his aircraft at the Smithsonian labeled as such. The dispute lasted for decades but there was little evidence for Langley's claims. After Orville's death and long after Langley's, the Wright estate donated the Wright Flyer with the condition that the Smithsonian accept that the Wrights had the first flight and not display the Langley Aerodrome with the "First Powered Flight" label as it once had. The Whitehead flight received little attention during the dispute.
HBGDS From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5874 times:
The evidence is sweet, but it goes nowhere. By these standards, Clement Ader flew in 1890 (as some of my compatriots claim), and Hiram Maxim also had a go at it, albeit accidentally. The point is that you can split the "first" claim in many way, but as far as documenting it, and most importantly repeating the experiment and improving it, the Wrights are there. Even the French accepted that once they saw their machines.
FlyingSicilian From Croatia, joined Mar 2009, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5388 times:
We all know it was Jacob Brodbeck in Texas in 1865 but as others have noted, the Wrights did it over and over again, all around the country, and the rest, as they say, is history....
mrcomet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3702 times:
Honestly, have you read it? I am not sure why Jane's is buying this. I have no dog in the fight but many of the press clips are from after the Wright's flew. The evidence is all secondary sources and journalism was not so good back then. You have potential business partners promoting the Whitehead case so there is a commercial interest. All of this is interesting but far from conclusive. They don't even have the blurry photo showing flight...just a second had reporting on it. Furthermore, the authors appear to want to prove it to be true which is not good history. There are too many other explanations and even if they had the photo, it doesn't prove WHEN the photo was taken which is not addressed - it just says it was displayed in 1906 but there is not proof if was from 1901 - nothing definitively. The Wrights documented their science. This is a "fish that got away was bigger" story.
ContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1436 posts, RR: 50 Reply 23, posted (2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3567 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 13): He was a kiwi from the ass end of the world, who would have believed him, plus it's typically kiwi to hide your genius and not promote your accomplishments.
What Pease built is considerably more like a modern aeroplane than the box kite with an engine the Wrights apparently flew.
You offered these sentences in response to an assertion that there is sketchy proof of what Pease did. Are these offered as reasons to believe that sketchy evidence is not sketchy, or that such sketchy evidence is "proof"?
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10649 posts, RR: 100 Reply 25, posted (2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3636 times:
Here is the issue, the Wrights flew and offered their aircraft for sale. They were filmed early flying. I'm not claiming they were really first, but if someone beat them by two years in a goal the world over was pursuing (the moon race of the day, just in garage shops), I would be suspicious. Now, Pearse I see some merit, but two years without a word?
Whitehead had good engines and propeller integration. That I'll give him. The problem is a lack of a surviving photo of his first flight as the wright brothers. I read through the link on the proof his concept would fly. But did it fly or only glide with a motor on in 1901?
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 21): the Wrights did it over and over again, all around the country, and the rest, as they say, is history....
And that substantiates their claim. They were able to do it again and again and took up passengers for barnstorming flights that were filmed. How does one overturn the Wright claim when they have the first permanent evidence (film) of a flight? I'm not saying others didn't beat them, but did they really fly a distance or only glide? I'm well aware the Wright's first flight wasn't impressive. But they quickly showed the world more capable aircraft which implies they were the first onto something. The photos perprted to be Whitehead could have been other early gliders. Gliders were proven back then. It was powered controlled flight that the Wrights were the first. A distinction? Yes. But one that matters.
Quoting mrcomet (Reply 22): I have no dog in the fight but many of the press clips are from after the Wright's flew. The evidence is all secondary sources and journalism was not so good back then.
Agreed. Its going to take quite a bit of research to over-turn a long held claim. And that takes photo evidence. If Whitehead could have followed up his claim, the nation wouldn't have been so excited by the Wright brothers. I've looked through the evidence and I'm not convinced.
But, I was taught Fulton invented the steamboat when there is great evidence he was 30 years late to be first. Such as records of for hire steamboats in Britain decades before his 'folly.' So I can believe history books can be wrong. That took a long time to prove steamboats were earlier in Britain and France. So let's see...
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 13): He was a kiwi from the ass end of the world, who would have believed him, plus it's typically kiwi to hide your genius and not promote your accomplishments.
If no one knows about it, how can it be certain it was accomplished? Many before the Wrights claimed powered flight but were determined to be frauds. Too many to list.
The wrights have the claim to the world's first powered *and* controlled flight.
Whitehead lacks a photo of his early flights. He built good engines, that I'll give him. But the Wrights not only flew, but they flew again and again in front of many audiences.
Someone uninformed is not an idiot. Also, your Wiki link says only that 'it is claimed'...
''It is claimed Pearse flew and landed a powered heavier-than-air machine on 31 March 1903, some nine months before the Wright brothers flew their aircraft. The documentary evidence to support such a claim remains open to interpretation, and Pearse did not develop his aircraft to the same degree as the Wright brothers, who achieved sustained controlled flight. Pearse himself never made such claims, and in an interview he gave to the Timaru Post in 1909 only claimed he did not "attempt anything practical...until 1904".
New Zealand should be content with being the most beautiful place on the planet.
Who cares if Pearse was the first or not?
The early bird gets the worm, BUT...the second mouse gets the cheese!
Antoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1503 posts, RR: 4 Reply 29, posted (2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3010 times:
Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 28): Doesn't matter who cares, they were!
more likely they weren't... but they WERE the first to be properly and well documented, as well as able to repeat the effort for the masses. And that, for the purposes of textbooks and simplistic history, makes a better story than "Well, this guy, this guy, and this guy all claimed to be first, but there's little surviving evidence which one was."
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5088 posts, RR: 28 Reply 32, posted (2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2812 times:
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 21):
We all know it was Jacob Brodbeck in Texas in 1865 but as others have noted, the Wrights did it over and over again, all around the country, and the rest, as they say, is history....
Ex-ACT-ly!
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
atpcliff From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 166 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2067 times:
There was a guy in PHX that did a lot of flights prior to the Wright Brothers. No newspapers or photos are available, I believe. There was only interviews with the neighbors that saw him routinely flying. He built the plane in his garage and didn't think it was a big deal. But, believe it was after 1901, so after this Whitehead guy in Connecticut.
TRY. It's all you have control over, and it's what God wants.
justloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 871 posts, RR: 1 Reply 35, posted (2 months 21 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 3): 2.- Some of the reports in the newspapers ( i.e. New York Herald ) talks about the flying machine was powered by " a New Acetylene Chemical Pressure".... Can someone elaborate on this ?? Is that a "real" engine ? Or is "just a pressurized bottle of gas" that generates impulse through valves or something ?
It's a mechanical engine with fuel. Rocket engine more or less. Whether it was combustible on not I don't know, but it is powered flight.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3249 posts, RR: 14 Reply 36, posted (1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1667 times:
Says the surviving evidence, as has been pointed out many times in this thread already.
It's really pretty simple. This comes down to a he said/he said situation, and in that case, you take whoever has the most compelling evidence. That's the way any court would work and it's the way this kind of thing works too. A verified photo and repeated flights around the world in front of large audiences and the press automatically trumps poorly-sourced newspaper reports from months or years later, with no supporting visual documentation that can be dated to any particular year.
Did someone else beat the Wrights? Maybe - so prove it. You can't.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 37, posted (1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1420 times:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 36): Did someone else beat the Wrights? Maybe - so prove it. You can't.
Well, the point of the whole thread, a major authority in aviation, Jane's, thinks they have just that. Proof that it was someone other than the Wrights. That's a major limb to go out on. Accept it or not, there are differing expert, and I mean expert, opinions.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1669 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1322 times:
Quoting rampart (Reply 37): Well, the point of the whole thread, a major authority in aviation, Jane's, thinks they have just that. Proof that it was someone other than the Wrights. That's a major limb to go out on. Accept it or not, there are differing expert, and I mean expert, opinions.
Yes, OK, but even the experts you mention are giving too much attention to the less important thing, this is, who was the first in the controlled and powered flight. Maybe was the Texan guy in 18XX, maybe was some unknown German or Italian in Jan or May of 1902. Doesn't matter too much.
The most important thing is Orville and Wilbur Wright were the first in much more significant aspects :
* They repeated the flights several times, even carrying one passenger in some flights, and made efforts to have public and press to get well documented register of the flights.
* They started a company to build and SELL planes.
* They made all the efforts to win contracts with the military, thinking in the aviation as an industry.
This three big differences combined, against all the others "wannabe the first", are IMHO, more than enough to give them the credit for being the fathers of modern aviation. All the other stuff is just anecdotal. Interesting, but anecdotal.
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 39, posted (1 month 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1206 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 38): * They started a company to build and SELL planes.
* They made all the efforts to win contracts with the military, thinking in the aviation as an industry.
I agree with you on your first point but, respectfully, not these two. Being the first company to build planes and to envision the potential military importance of aircraft are certainly significant items but these have nothing to do with being the first to fly. Whitehead could conceivably have been the first to fly but then the Wright Brothers were better marketers of the new product.
My personal opinion - not fact - is that it the Wright Brothers were likely not the first with powered flight. There were many gliders around the world at that time and strapping on a motor, even as primitive as they were at the turn of the century, would not have been a big stretch. As noted in another post, there were probably some early pilots who didn't think their achievement was a big deal, or at least big enough to have documented by the newspapers. It's not like people walked around with cameras in their pocket at that time. However, the Wright Brothers were the first to formally document their flyer and until very compelling evidence comes to light to prove the opposite, the WB will always be the first.
A now obvious item that the writer, Peter Garrison, points out is that even though the "conventional" tractor configuration of aircraft was known as far back as 1800, and was well know by the Wrights, they nonetheless came up with their own unconventional design that was rendered obsolete within a decade.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
a3xx900 From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 669 times:
Wow this became highly philosophical. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
The WB actually were the first trees that were heard falling, or rather, promoted their falling trees better so everyone believed they were the first.
I am sure that there were humans capable of flying "heavier than air" aircraft hunderets, maybe thousands of years ago, we just have no knowledge of it. Heck, even Da Vinci invented an aeroplane.
The point is, as many have said before, that the WB did it again and again and actually started the aviation industry. Hence they will always be considered the first in flight...
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 35 Reply 42, posted (1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 650 times:
Quoting a3xx900 (Reply 41): The point is, as many have said before, that the WB did it again and again and actually started the aviation industry. Hence they will always be considered the first in flight...
In the article, Peter Garrison makes the point that Orville's "first flight" (hop) probably shouldn't even be considered the "first flight" and that it was actually the last flight of the day flown by brother Wilbur that went 850 ft and was under full control for over a minute that should be called the first flight.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10649 posts, RR: 100 Reply 43, posted (1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 527 times:
Photos people, photos. The Wrights had five witnesses. While there was controversy, it brought us here.
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 38): * They repeated the flights several times, even carrying one passenger in some flights, and made efforts to have public and press to get well documented register of the flights.
And... photos. Its hard to argue with photos.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 42): In the article, Peter Garrison makes the point that Orville's "first flight" (hop) probably shouldn't even be considered the "first flight" and that it was actually the last flight of the day flown by brother Wilbur that went 850 ft and was under full control for over a minute that should be called the first flight.
That I 100% agree with. But not only did the WB fly, they were soon selling their planes!
The Wright brothers also had an usually efficient propeller which led credence to their claims.
Quoting a3xx900 (Reply 41): The point is, as many have said before, that the WB did it again and again and actually started the aviation industry. Hence they will always be considered the first in flight...
And that note ends the thread for me. The others might or might not have had *powered controlled flight.* Gliders were not that unheard of by then. But the WB not only flew, but they started an industry after several false attempts.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5929 posts, RR: 4 Reply 44, posted (1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 503 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 30): Otto Lilienthal was truly the first to fly in 1893, albeit in a glider. It was, however, fully controlled flight.
Wright brothers were first to fly in self-propelled aircraft, however, they were not first to "fly" in direct meaning of this word.
But:
A) it wasn't a powered flight.
B) The Wright Brothers regularly corresponded with Otto Lilienthal, and used some of his ideas and research.
C) The Wright Brothers built the first wind tunnel when they realized that Otto Lilienthal's formulas for airfoil lift were utter rubbish, so they started over from scratch on that research
D) Lilienthal died in a gliding accident when he broke his own neck
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 749 posts, 
From France, joined Jan 2005, 3493 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1669 posts, 
), the wings and tail seems to be a little inadequate to provide enough control to fly 1 and a half mile and make turns.... it looks more like all the other machines ( of the last years of 19th century ) you see crashing from bridges and hills ( usually falling like a rock !! )....and I have to say that, no matter who was the first, the Wright Flyier was much more elegant than this giant moth ( in my personal view of course ).
From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1612 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 156 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2007, 205 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1697 posts, 
From Croatia, joined Mar 2009, 823 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, 
The Wrights were simply more famous. But they were not the first.
From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 344 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1702 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
