Centennial of Flight...a curious turn of events...

Here's something interesting, from the first 28 years of flight. Steve

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105513,00.html

Maybe some of that explains why Whitehead had such a hard time. Has anyone got a copy of Bill Winter's American Modeler article which documents Whiteheads flights in 1896 - subsequently suppressed?

There is also an informative and I believe valid letter in the current EAA "Sport Aviation", chronicalling this nastiness on the part of Zahm, Curtiss, and the Smithsonian. I have run across several articles, pamphlets, etc. by A.F. Zahm over the years of researching tailless aircraft (some at Notre Dame, where he apparently was ensconced for some years), and could only conclude that this man never gave up trying to discredit the Wrights, despite the incredible amount of photographic, correspondence, and notebook evidence of their work. See, for instance this site:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/wrighthtml/

Since this will probably be another controversial thread I'll (FWIW) put in a couple cents worth of opinion. Having read extensively on the subject, I believe the following about powered flight:

1) Stringfellow MIGHT have been able to fly uncontrolled, but did not.

2) Whitehead may have done so, but documentation is inadequate, and claims are only boarderline reasonable.

3) Ader did get off the ground 10/9/1890 completely uncontrolled - ALTHOUGH his bat-like wing articulation might have been useable for control.

4) Maxim's plane left the ground (1894) uncontrolled.

5) Pearse did leave the ground for some distance - un- or minimally controlled - probably early 1903.

6) The Wrights were the first to fly in control of all three axes and in a machine that, while deliberately made unstable ('control oriented'), was at that time capable of higher, more manuevered, and longer sustained flight than it demonstrated on 12/17/03.

7) The Smithsonian was criminal in its deliberate misrepresentation on the Wright's vs. Langley's accomplishments and abilities. They lied in alleging Langley's contributions to the Wrights' success (there were none) and deliberately enlisted men with vested interests to discredit the Wrights. They gave false information in a patent litigation. They lied about Langley's aircraft's abilities.

8) The Wright's carried out one of the most systemmatic, independent, and disciplined scientific explorations ever. Their self reliance and self effacing discipline were beyond reproach, and those who have accused them of greed in their patent defenses are unaware of the value they placed on their work and the austerity of the times. While they relied on previous discoveries to get started, they pretty much had to redo the pertinent research to acquire valid aerodynamic data, creating airfoils that had not been considered before, literally inventing the modern propeller, and being the first to determine and have built an engine tailored to the thrust/power requirements of the job. Three--axis control was not by far their only accomplishment. No one ever worked more independently and self reliantly.

Then they had to learn to fly. The current stuff on Discovery Wings channel shows how hard that was. Their research methods and ingenuity were remarkable, to the point of apparently (I got this from Al Bowers, head of NASA Dryden Research) even creating an iterative approach to one problem that otherwise would have involved some kind of discrete integral analysis. For guys who "lacked" formal education, they were mathematically literate and applied this knowledge well (they apparently also knew much of history and culture). I think that theirs is a good an example of scientific method as I've ever seen. Although their accomplishements were surpassed by competitors, they were ahead for a longer time than anyone before or since, and this in spite of spending the time marketing and defending their patent, at the expense of their research. So whether, and to whatever extent, others had "flown" or developed roll controls before, the Wrights were, with little reasonable doubt, the first to put it all together, and in a form vastly superior to anyone else at that time. The Smithsonian knew this early on and chose not only to disregard it, but to lie about it, even in litigation.

Wow, that was long winded...but "I feel MUCH better now."

SK

Down here in Bazil the "gospel truth" is that Santos Dumont was the first guy to fly.

http://www.rudnei.cunha.nom.br/FAB/eng/santos-dumont.html

Ion;

The comment in the article you linked to that the Wrights used a catapult on 12/17/1903 IS NOT CORRECT! The catapult was designed in September 1904 after they had made numerous flights in the Dayton area. The longest flight on 12/17 was 852 ft or almost 260m. On September 20 1904 the Wrights made a controlled circular flight over 3/4 mile (1.2km) in length and on October 05 1905 they flew over 24 miles and longer than 38 minutes. More than a year before Dumont flew 13 meters at 41km/h the wrights had flown over 38.5 kilometers at a speed of around 60km/h.

While Brazil has a right to be proud of Dumonts accomplishments while in France, none his flights listed equaled what the wrights had done 3 years earlier. Calling him the Father of Aviation is completely baseless, the father of aviation in France yes, the father of aviation in Brazil yes, if he ever flew in Brazil.

The Wrights were scrupulously careful to fully satisfy all the strictest requirements for fully controlled, unaided flight (this seems to have been character trait). This included rising on its own power from level ground and flying fully controlled in the gusty winter winds of the area of the East Coast called the "graveyard of the Atlantic". That they flew relatively straight and level under these conditions is the greatest testimony to the controlability of the "Flyer". Their short flights are misleading because of the winds and their systemmatic discipline that called for a straight flight close to the ground. With respect to the moving air, their flights were much longer. Their plane was fully capable of flying at higher altitudes and probably turning 360 degrees, even in 1903. Because they were just learning to pilot a control-configured plane, something no one had ever done before, they wisely believed slow, low-level flight to be safest. They characteristically worked in such well defined steps.

As stated above, the Wrights never used a catapult until a year later during their experiments back at Huffman's Prairie (now Wright Patterson AFB) near Dayton, and then only for convenience. Their altitudes and flight times should convince anyone that they didn't need aid to get their plane airborne. I am amazed at what some "authorities will print or publish on a website, when the original evidence is there for everyone to see. It makes me suspect their motives, and I'd feel the same if the Wrights had been any other nationality.

I like and admire Santos Dumont. His pedal-propelled airships were just wonderful, and his little "Demoiselle" was a wonderful achievement toward personal aircraft. However, the Wrights were far, far ahead in 1903. Look at their notes and correspondence; I gave you the URL. They sequentially solved the problems of lift, control, and propulsion that lead to the modern aircraft. And did I mention,...they didn't use a catapult in 1903.

SK