Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle...

greenmartian2017

The Shadow knows what lurks in the hearts of men
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
160
Reaction score
122
Thought I would post this here...as I was wondering about this recently...

Who flew first?


Was it Gustav Whitehead?

Or was it the Wright Brothers?

Or was it someone else?

Your comments welcomed...URL links too.

I am leaning towards Gustav Whitehead myself.
 
Clement Ader "Eole"
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I006/10216230.aspx

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/to%20reality/Clement%20Ader.htm
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

The plane built by Clement Ader was able to take off, but obviously lacked a
sufficient flight control. During the last years, several articles about Gustav
Weißkopf ("Whitehead") were published and I, too, think, that his aircraft
at least was as capable of controlled flight, as the one of the Wright brothers.
But the strongest argument for Weißkopfs case may be the contract, which
was signed between the heirs of the Wrights and the Smithsonian institute,
which is said to be still hindering research today.
Why such efforts, when there are no doubts ?
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

Jemiba said:
Why such efforts, when there are no doubts ?

Theory: in an era when proving your case was largely a matter of just getting enough people together to say "I saw it," the contract may have been just a means of shutting down the 1900-era version of the "911 Truthers." Whenever someone has a spectacular historical claim, such as the Wrights had, you're forever going to have nutjobs and conmen trying to undercut them. The contract may have simply been a way to keep the Smithsonian from giving the charlatans a platform.
 
In his book "Macchine bizzarre nella storia dell'aviazione, vol I" Giorgio Evangelisti spends 13 pages on the subject. By the way, Evangelisti is a top-notch writer, and I am pretty sure what he writes is the fruit of accurate research.

There are reports of Weisskopf/whitehead flying for the first time on August 14 1901 in Bridgeport, Conn. in front of a reporter, for approx. 900 meters at an altitude of 15 meters. In the book there is a picture of the front page of the New York Herald, aug. 19th 1901. it says:
"Inventors in partnership to solve problem of aerial navigation" and below " Gustave Whitehead travels half a mile in flying machine operated by a new acetylene chemical pressure, lessening motor power weight seventy-five percent".
There is mention of this flight on American inventor, Aeronautical world, and Scientific american.

I have a picture of Whitehead holding under one arm his engine. It put out 10 HP for a weight of 20.43 kg. There is also a picture of a Weisskopf model 21, which looks fairly competent. the wing planform and structure is bird-like, with ribs emanating from a single fuselage attachment point, but other details are totally functional. For example, there is a separate horizontal tail that would give reasonable stability/control, and there is a kingpost in the fuselage that is used with bracing wires to strengthen the wing structure, a la Bleriot or Fokker Eindecker.

A subsequent model 22 had a 40 hp engine weighing 54kg, and jan.15th, 1902, he supposedly made a flight of 3.5km and was flying fast and high enough that an amateur photographer did not manage to get a good picture. He ended up landing in water. Without pictorial proof of flight whitehead went bankrupt because his investors pulled out, so nothing else came of his machines.

hmmm.. there is a lot of text and I'll have to spend some time translating most of the story which is pretty lengthy.
For now suffice to say that in the thirties, an american writer, Stella Randolph, found out about Whitehead and talked to witnesses (Gustave had died in 1927)
got sworn testimonies of witnesses and wrote a book "Lost flights of gustave whitehead" which came out in 1937.
Because of WWII, anything that could be perceived as philo-german, was shunned.
In 1966, Capt. O'Dwyer of the USAF got wind of the whitehead story and did his own research, and pressed Smithsonian people to go talk to the last survivors. They finally talked to Whitehead's assistant two weeks before he died, who described the flight experiments.
In 1966, Stella Randolph published a second book "Before the Wrights flew" .
Apparently there is also a book by O'Dwyer called "History by contract" where he talks about why Whitehead's achievements were not recognized.

My two cents? I think it's possible. It's not sure, but possible. This is not one of those cooks who designed steam-powered boat-shaped contraptions with flapping wings. He had a state-of-the-art engine and seemed to have a good understanding of stability, as demonstrated by the architecture of his planes. BTW, if this were true, that would take nothing away from the achievements of the Wrights.
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

It appears if true, Clement Ader was the first, and 50 meters is farther than the Wright Brothers flew (and it wasn't exactly stable either by modern standards, though I don't know how it compares to Ader...) even beating Samuel Langley by a couple of years.

Gustave Weisskopf's design (compared to Ader's, and the Wright Brothers) seems to be the best as it flew the farthest, and it was probably the most stable and controllable (it was even re-flown years later)


KJ Lesnick
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

Orionblamblam said:
Theory: in an era when proving your case was largely a matter of just getting enough people together to say "I saw it," the contract may have been just a means of shutting down the 1900-era version of the "911 Truthers." Whenever someone has a spectacular historical claim, such as the Wrights had, you're forever going to have nutjobs and conmen trying to undercut them. The contract may have simply been a way to keep the Smithsonian from giving the charlatans a platform.

Talking about the Smithsonian - I once did a guided tour of the Aviation gallery of the Science Museum in London (an excellent museum). On getting to the replica of the Wright Flyer I was surprised to learn that the Science Museum held the original for about 30 or 40 years - because the Smithsonian didn't want it, as they were adamant that Langley made the first powered flight! :D
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

Well I give you the point of view of le Fana de l'aviation.
5 years ago they published a critical article on the subject.
Things are clear (at least for them)

Four guys managed to TAKE-OFF before the Wrights

- Ader
- A guy from Chanute's team around 1896 (can't remember its name)
- Weisskpof
- And Karl Jato in August 1903

BUT

None of them CONTROLLED its flight, I mean "I decide the moment when I take off, the moment when I land".
PLUS
None of them ever managed to TURN, simply because they didn't (or couldn't) insisted enough over the years.

All these flights are linear, even Weisskopf. Flying 1 km was outstanding in 1901, but perfectly unesful if you don't turn? :)

The Wright brothers great contribution were

- controlled flight, including turns, from 1904.

- A lasting contribution (from 1901 to 1911), not one-shot flights.

Tophe are you here ? can you browse "Les secrets des freres Wrights" (from 2003) in your database ? ;)
 
Some more detail from Giorgio Evangelisti's section on Whitehead:

-in 1899 he managed to get a steam-engined airplane 10m up in the air, flying straight for 800m, but hit a three story building due to lack of controllability

-The Weisskopf model 21 of 1901 had a wingspan of 10,05m, and a wing area of 20m2. Two engines, a 4 cylinder one conected to two large diameter two bladed props in the wings, and an auxiliary one driving the landing gear wheels (!).
Structure was bamboo, wood, and silk.

-in 1968, Wind tunnel tests in the Goettingen university showed good flying qualities

-The model 22 was so stable that Weisskopf felt like staying airborne for 3,5km on a flight jan 15th 1902

-Two days later, in front of 25 witnesses, he climbed to 100m and flew as much as 11km along the coast. Weisskopf made a turn and returned to the starting point, before ditching in the water


To me this says that while he couldn't perform Immelmanns or cuban eights, he had a stable and at least partially controllable machine.
I don't have any other reference that supports these claims, though.
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

Weisskopf did have the ability to coordinate turns and such... I don't recall him ever making a flight in 1899 (I also thought on the Aug 14, 1901 flight he flew 800-meters)

However, regarding first powered flight on record to the best of my knowledge... it goes to Clement Ader.


KJ_Lesnick
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

Archibald said:
None of them CONTROLLED its flight, I mean "I decide the moment when I take off, the moment when I land".
PLUS
None of them ever managed to TURN, simply because they didn't (or couldn't) insisted enough over the years.

I personally doubt that the amount of control the the Wright flyers had over their aircraft. Certainly, it was there, but it may not have left the decisions entirely within the hands of the pilot. Furthermore, three axis control isn't necessary for controlled flight - it is quite possible to fly competently with only two axis control.

Archibald said:
- A lasting contribution (from 1901 to 1911), not one-shot flights.

This second point I object to. Compared to many of the earlier researchers (eg. Cayley) contributed much more. The Wright brothers pioneered some techniques but were so secretive about their work that most of these techniques had to be reinvented by others around the world. The real achievements were in producing relatively safe and flexible aircraft that could enter mass production and this was done within five years of the Wright flights, using technologies developed largely in parallel. In short the much lauded achievement in 1904, existed at a time when there was much work independently going on around the world, and was in itself very close to being a dead end.

In the context of other achievements it doesn't look so special:
~5th century china (manned heavier than air flight using gliders)
~1850 control surfaces begin being added to gliders
~1850 first steam powered heavier than air flying scale model
~1870s ski-jump flights with sustainer motors
~1900 long distance flights possible (several hundred metres - often with control on at least two axis)
~1904 Wright brothers demonstrated powered take off and three axis control in the same machine.
~1910 routine controlled flights common (Blérot and Taube)
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

About Ader.

Ader is the first which managed a powered take-off. That's sure.
But that's not "true" flight.
Btw the Eole landed on its own will, not when the pilot decided about it. In fact the Avion III (1897) crashed.

About Weisskopf.

Ok, I was curious, and browsed a bit more on the web. And its flight seem doubtful.
Problem : all proof come from two documents
- a witness from 1901, which sound doubtful
- More testimonies, but collected in 1935!

More here
http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/History%20of%20Airplane/Whitehead.htm

Sounds an honest investigation work...


My humble opinion : Weisskopf made some excellent glided flights from 1901 to 1904 (which explain the 1935 testimonies).
Powered flight in 1901 , More doubtful.
Sounds more like a bit of mythomania to attract funds at the time. don't forget he was not very rich...



When the Wright come to Le Mans, France, just 100 years ago these days, they had better control than Farman biplane, which was rather a brute to fly.

The Wright brothers pioneered some techniques but were so secretive about their work that most of these techniques had to be reinvented by others around the world.

This is just true. It's the main critics adressed to the Wrights.

So we can reasonably agree on that

~1904 Wright brothers demonstrated powered take off and three axis control in the same machine.

Well, to me it's the very minimum to have a viable aircraft.
For Le Fana, the Wright main contribution was they invented piloting.
 
The key is that the Wrights were indeed the first to accomplish "sustained, powered, controlled" flight - but that they did not do it in December 1903 at Kitty Hawk, but at Huffman Prairie in September 1904, with the first closed-circuit flight. The 1903 Flyer was good only for straight-line flight. But they had that iconic photo (by the way, I wonder when it was first published?) and they went on to lead the word in 1904-08.
 
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

at Huffman Prairie in September 1904, with the first closed-circuit flight.

100 % agreed. You resumed in 12 words what I tried to say in 250 ;D
 
Just as you all seems to have reached an egrement, I would like to throw this one into the discussion.
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html
Have we got a winner?
Greetings
Mat
 
Sorry but that's looks like another "Whitehead".
No serious proofs, no turn, no controlled flight. In short: no PILOTED flight.

Taking-off with a powered machine is not flying...
 
This minor debate about whether the Wright Brothers flew first in 1903 or Gustav Whitehead flew first in August 1901. The debate has been going on for over 100 years. I would like to some of the members of this forum to weigh in on this subject. Let's keep it simple and polite. But also let us review the FACTS not the rumors or anecdotes. Let's have a clean and gentlemanly debate, shall we. No matter what somebody says in this debate, please take some time to think about what was said and your reply. Give it careful thought.

HINT: If you reaction is to call the other fellow names or disparage his nation, maybe take a few days to calm down and consider you answer. Consider what the other fellow is saying CAREFULLY. This is a professional conversation so behave accordingly.

Let us consider not only the chronological aspect of the claim, but if the vehicle had a proper control system, power-plant, and other factors, but also the impact upon a future industry, for instance, did the person in question continue with aeronautical progress or drop out of the game, what their impact was on the future of the new industry.

Perhaps we should first agree on what constitutes the first powered manned controllable flight as opposed to a manned, powered, hop with minimum of control. Some form of standard that EVERY contender must fulfill, then be ranked accordingly. I appeal to any statisticians out there to contribute to this part of the endeavor.

But first things first! Let me see how many of you would be interested in forming this unofficial panel/group and discuss whether we need a a dedicated Facebook Page of website. Let's form the core of a group and set our standards and operating methods.

If anybody would be interested in a long-term commitment on this subject you can send me a message or simply reply to thing posting.

If you think this would be a contentious waste of time, let me know that also.

Chuck
 
For more information about Gustav Whitehead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead
 
Waste of time? Certainly. The subject has been thoroughly debunked with just a small number of advocates clinging to the Whitehead priority theory.
 
papacavy said:
...first powered manned controllable flight as opposed to a manned, powered, hop with minimum of control.

To my opinion, that's, what clearly keeps Clemen Ader out of this discussion. It's even mentioned in your linked site as
"... Aviation historians give credit to this effort as a powered take off and uncontrolled hop of approximately 50 m " ;)
 
There is no need for debate, really. the facts are well established and documented historically: Ader has flown first, but could not really control his machine, only straight. The Wrights developped CONTROLLING the plane.

Then each one of us can choose the definition that suits the result he wants.
 
dan_inbox said:
There is no need for debate, really. the facts are well established and documented historically: Ader has flown first, but could not really control his machine, only straight. The Wrights developped CONTROLLING the plane.

Then each one of us can choose the definition that suits the result he wants.
Good end precise summary!
 
That's what i meant by blurred.
Was it not clear that my discourse on historical methodology was addressing exactly what you meant?

Without official observation, no photograph, let alone no testing equipments existing at the time, we only have private testimonies that can be dismissed as "fake" , "crazy" , " he couldn't see it, i found he was blind at the time..." , by later "researchers" having an agenda.
So would you agree that the claims for Calyey, Pilcher, Hero's steam engine, Theaetetus' enumeration of the five "Platonic" solids, Archimedes' enumeration of their semi-regular analogues, and many other ancient achievements, that have come down to us only through personal accounts, are inadmissble through the lack of any unbiased "official" record or test equipment?

later "researchers" having an agenda.
You mean like the Smithsonian employing Glenn Curtiss to vandalize a priceless historical artefact, to wit Langley's Aerodrome, until it sort of flew, just so that they could justify their claim that their own ex-staffer had beaten the Wrights? And then engaging in a decades-long legal battle with Orville Wright before finally being forced to cave in, and then agreeing to change sides with equal blind vehemence? Yes, I see what you mean. Whitehead never stood a chance.
It’s clear that you have fallen for the Orville Wright agenda that he broadcast from 1914 t0 1942 when Secretary Abbot caved in to his propaganda. It’s tiresome to read over and over again historians who have never studied the Langley Aerodrome story in any depth. I have yet to find anyone who has studied the “changes” Orville claimed Curtiss made in the the Langley antique to enable it to fly in 1914 when Orville said it couldn’t have in 1903.
 
It’s clear that you have fallen for the Orville Wright agenda that he broadcast from 1914 t0 1942 when Secretary Abbot caved in to his propaganda. It’s tiresome to read over and over again historians who have never studied the Langley Aerodrome story in any depth. I have yet to find anyone who has studied the “changes” Orville claimed Curtiss made in the the Langley antique to enable it to fly in 1914 when Orville said it couldn’t have in 1903.

You have to ask yourself too, if the Wright case was moonshine, why did the Smithsonian cave in after a lengthy legal battle, admit the hoax in court and sign a contract never to endorse any rival to the Wrights again? But please do not answer that in this discussion, see if there is already one about it and join that - or if not, start a new one.
 
Hoping this list of pre-Wright brothers attempts at flight is not too off topic.

A German-born teacher by the name of Jacob Friedrich Brodbeck allegedly made a brief uncontrolled flight in a spring-powered ornithopter in Texas in September 1865 – or in 1868.

Félix du Temple de la Croix, an officer in the French navy, allegedly completed the 1st successful flight in a motorized airplane, a steam-powered machine, albeit a brief and uncontrolled flight starting from the top of a hill, in 1874.

An English justice of the peace, Edward Purkis Frost, completed a steam-powered ornithopter in 1877 but was unable to take off.

Daniel Marion Asbury, a plantation owner, physician, inventor and amateur geologist living in North Carolina, completed a steam-powered ornithopter in 1881 but died, in 1882, before it could be tested.

A rear-admiral in the Russian navy, Aleksandr Fyodorovich Mozhaiski (spelling?), supervised some sort of test of his steam-powered airplane off a ramp near St. Petersburg between 1882 and 1886 but this proved unsuccessful.

in October 1890, Clément Agnès Ader’s steam-powered Éole allegedly made a brief and uncontrolled hop - allegedly the first unassisted take off of a powered and piloted heavier than air flying machine. A second steam-powered bat-winged aircraft, the Avion III, failed to lift off in October 1897.

A retired major with the Royal Engineers of the British Army, Ross Franklin Moore, tested a tethered ornithopter fitted with an electric motor linked by cables to a couple of high voltage power lines in 1892 but was unable to take off.

Famous German aviation pioneer Karl Wilhelm Otto Lilienthal completed an ornithopter in Berlin in 1894 but trials without its carbon dioxide engine proved unsuccessful. A second powered airplane was ready for testing when Lilienthal died as a result of a glider crash, in August 1896.

The steam-powered airplane designed by famous American inventor Hiram Stevens Maxim, the largest of its day, briefly lifted off its track in July (?) 1894.

In 1895, on a beach in Bombay, India, Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, allegedly tested an airplane powered by an ion engine, i.e. one that ejects ionized particles rather than hot gases.

An American by the name of Augustus Moore Herring allegedly made a brief uncontrolled hop over the shores of Lake Michigan, in October 1898, in an aircraft powered by a compressed air engine.

A lecturer at the University of Glasgow, Percy Sinclair Pilcher, completed an aircraft but died in a glider crash, in October 1899, before he could test it.

A telegraph operator / switch operator / dispatcher living in Texas, William Browning Custead, completed an ornithopter powered by a piston engine in 1899 and allegedly lifted off more or less vertically for brief periods of time in 1899 and / or 1900.

An Englishman by the name of Reginald Mansfield Balston completed an ornithopter no later than 1900 but never flew.

Around 1900, James W. Clark, an inventor, clock maker and bicycle repairman living in Pennsylvania completed an ornithopter powered by a piston engine but could not take off, even when he reengined it, in 1907. This ornithopter, now restored and mostly uncovered, can be admired at the Owl’s Head Transportation Museum, in Owl’s Head, Maine. It may well be the oldest surviving piloted ornithopter in the world.

Gustav Albin Whitehead, or Weisskopf, allegedly took off in a steam-powered aircraft in April or May 1899. It has also been suggested that he covered a distance of half a mile in August 1901, near Bridgeport, Connecticut. Others claim that Whitehead covered distances of 2 and 7 miles in January 1902.

Wilhelm Kress, an Austrian piano-maker who later became an engineer, tested a floatplane in October 1901 but barely escaped when it capsized and sank during trials.

Lyman Wiswell Gilmore claimed that, in May 1902, in California, he successfully tested a steam-powered airplane.

According to some people interviewed decades later, in 1902, Louis Gagnon, a railway engineer working at a gold mine in Rossland, British Columbia, Canada, tested a steam-powered flying machine that looked like a winged helicopter equipped with a propeller, the flying steamshovel, and briefly lifted off the ground.

Burrell Cannon, a Baptist minister from Pittsburg, completed a gasoline-powered aircraft, the Ezechiel airship, in 1902, and allegedly made a brief uncontrolled flight in 1902.

In 1902, William Luther Paul, a handyman from North Carolina, built a twin-rotor helicopter, the Bumble Bee, that may perhaps have lifted off for a few seconds.

It has been alleged that New Zealand Richard William Pearse flew ore than once between March and July 1903, something that he himself did not claim.

A captain in the French army, Ferdinand Ferber, mounted a small engine on the 5th glider he had designed and tested it, in June 1903, near Nice, using a rotating arm mounted in a tower; the underpowered machine did not perform well.

In August and November 1903, a city inspector, Karl Jatho, made short uncontrolled hops in Hanove, Germany.

A French electrical engineer, Léon Levavasseur, supervised the testing of an aircraft in September 1903 but the machine crashed after flying a short distance without any control.

The secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, astronomer and physicist Samuel Pierpont Langley, supervised two unsuccessful attempts using his Aerodrome, in October and December 1903.
 
Last edited:
According to a very serious source, the driving force (on the french side) against the Wrights was Gabriel Voisin. Between October 1906 (Santos Dumont 60 m hop) and January 1908 (Henry Farman first 1-km circuit) the French really thought they were in the first in the world to have flown.
At the time the Wrights had gone a bit paranoid and greedy after 1903-1905 proven successes; and (what seems mostly unthinkable in our highly connected world) little if none of their feats had crossed the Atlantic and been heard in Paris - Ferber being a notable exception.

So the French large pack of aviation pioneers (Bleriot was already there, too) were led to believe that Santos Dumont (a brazilian, in passing) had cracked the secret of flying in October 1906 in Bagatelle near Paris.

This feeling persisted until January 1908 when Henry Farman flying a Voisin biplane managed to turn and fly 1 km. Something the Wrights had done 3 years earlier in 1905... in tight secrecy ! Even Chanute wasn't 100% aware of what they had achieved, and Orville Wright personality showed a rather ugly side there.

But things changed in the spring 1908, and the Wright brothers came to France, to Le Mans (yes, same place as the car race, and riettes too) to show what their airplane was capable off.

Voisin and Farman accepted the challenge, and in July 1908 took an enormous blow to their ego and proudness. The Wright aircraft as flown in Le Mans truly buried every single French records since 1906.

Sounds incredible in the light of Bleriot crossing the channel exactly one year later, but as July 1908, the Wrights were still on top of the world.
Henry Farman accepted defeated and moved on. But Gabriel Voisin, (who lived until the 1960's), instantly started demolishing the Wrights, arguing that
1- They had used a catapult to takeoff because their engine was shit, when his aircraft and Santos Dumont did not
2- And then it did not really mattered, because Adeer had flown as early as 1890 or 1897.

Bottom line: Gabriel Voisin behaved like a dickhead, and Orville Wright was hardly better. Those two did poisoned the "who first flew" debate for decades thereafter, since Orville lived until 1948 and Gabriel Voisin even longer.

The Wrights had three distinctly separate controversies: one with the French, one with Glenn Curtiss, and another with the Smithonian and Pierpont-Langley. All three were quite ugly, although they were not wrong on all of them. Lot of bitterness overall. Sadly, it did not helped their case nor their legacy. But Gabriel Voisin was hardly better !

Since then facts have been re-established in a dispassionate way

- some including Ader TOOK OFF in straight line briefly, but landed against their will, did not turned, and went bankrupt in the end
- the Wrights used a catapult at random, and that's a viable criteria to dismiss what they did
- the Wrights biggest legacy was CONTROLLED FLIGHT: I takeoff, I turn, I climb, and I land when I desire (not when gravity prevails).
- the French kept crashing until October 1906 when Santos Dumont hoped for 60 m - and did not managed a turn until January 1908 and Henry Farman 1 km flight.
- so between December 1903 and at least October 1906, stretching well into 1908 - the Wrights were on top of the aviation world. Five complete years, I would say.

Those are facts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Who Flew First? An Inquiry into the first piloted heavier-than-air vehicle.

Jemiba said:
Why such efforts, when there are no doubts ?

Theory: in an era when proving your case was largely a matter of just getting enough people together to say "I saw it," the contract may have been just a means of shutting down the 1900-era version of the "911 Truthers." Whenever someone has a spectacular historical claim, such as the Wrights had, you're forever going to have nutjobs and conmen trying to undercut them. The contract may have simply been a way to keep the Smithsonian from giving the charlatans a platform.

Quite the reverse, the Smithsonian were the charlatans; the contract was to bring them to heel. The whole shameful saga is a matter of legal record.
They did not want their ex-President, Langley, beaten by a couple of no-account bicycle makers. So at first they refused to acknowledge the Wrights' achievement, presently changing tack to claim that Langley had flown first. They had his failed Aerodrome proudly on display as the first to fly, so they then employed Glenn Curtiss to modify it until it could fly. He turned it into a floatplane, tinkered with the wing size and tail and the like, and in 1914 got it to hop. They peddled a photo of the hop as proof that it could fly back in 1903. Decades later, when the scam was finally unearthed (ca. 1945?), they retreated to "capable of flight". Orville's estate finally proved the scam and beat them in court.
Embarrassed? Not a bit of it. Now, the Smithsonian wanted that original Wright Flyer in pride of place. A contract never to challenge the Wrights' primacy again, or endorse any other challenger, was part of that deal, and the Flyer was shipped back from London's Science Museum where it had been on loan.
A side effect has been the Smithsonian's implacable war against the Whitehead case, in honour of that contract.
I should perhaps emphasise once again that all this is a matter of historical and legal record.
 
Hoping this list of pre-Wright brothers attempts at flight is not too off topic.

Not in its new home :)

But it is incomplete. For example if we are considering gliders then we have Sir George Cayley's servant boy and, later, coachman. These were the first recognisably modern heavier-than-air devices, with main lifting wing and cruciform tail for stability and control.

Before that there have been many birdmen and other "tower jumpers" breaking their legs or worse, back into antiquity.

A couple of sources:
David Wragg, Flight Before Flying, Osprey, 1974
Charles Gibbs-Smith, Early Flying Machines 1799-1909, Methuen, 1975.
Richard P. Hallion, Taking Flight, OUP 2003.

Meanwhile, the key point about the Wrights is that they achieved sustained and controlled powered flight, thus demonstrating that their machine was a practical proposition. All at once, no messin'. Any challenger has to be able to demonstrate all those things too.
 
Last edited:
So the French large pack of aviation pioneers (Bleriot was already there, too) were led to believe that Santos Dumont (a brazilian, in passing) had cracked the secret of flying in October 1906 in Bagatelle near Paris.
When Santos-Dumont took off in his 14-bis, the FAI had just been formed and was basically French. This was their first official attendance. The 14-bis wobbled beyond the ability of the control system to correct and Santos-Dumont had to put it down quickly after only a long-ish hop. Gibbs-Smith, writing in Flight, has pointed out that it was not long enough to qualify as a sustained flight, and that is was not really controlled. But zut alors! The honour of France was at stake and here was a golden opportunity to rewrite history! But do not say so out loud if you happen to be in his native Brazil, even today.

Orville Wright personality showed a rather ugly side there.
Is that right? All the British first-hand accounts say that he was a decent and honest man.

But things changed in the spring 1908, and the Wright brothers came to France, to Le Mans (yes, same place as the car race, and riettes too) to show what their airplane was capable off.
Only Orville came over with a Flyer. Wilbur took another one on a tour of the States.

The Wright aircraft as flown in Le Mans truly buried every single French records since 1906.
It did far more, it blew the socks off every sceptic across Europe, of which there were - up to that moment - still a great many.

Sounds incredible in the light of Bleriot crossing the channel exactly one year later.
His plane was also somewhat underpowered. He got lucky and the wind was kind to him. Still, the same can be said of the Wrights at Kill Devil Hills back in 1903.

Orville Wright was hardly better.
Really? See above.

The Wrights had three distinctly separate controversies: one with the French, one with Glenn Curtiss, and another with the Smithonian and Pierpont-Langley. All three were quite ugly, although they were not wrong on all of them. Lot of bitterness overall. Sadly, it did not helped their case nor their legacy.
The Curtiss battle was not over primacy but patent infringements over the control system. Curtiss did so in a big way, and made so much money he could lawyer the Wrights to a standstill in court. Nor was he the only one; after Wilbur's death, Orville took to the warpath and sued anybody and everybody. He even sued Starling Burgess over the Burgess-Dunne, though his suit against Dunne himself in the UK was laughed out of court. In the US, the Wright-Burgess suit also dragged on, with Burgess forced to set aside $1,000 per plane he sold, in case he lost. It broke his company and he sold out - to Curtiss. Presently, Curtiss acquired the Wright business too, and the lawyers were finally back on the street.
A great example of the American dream, Glenn Curtiss: infringe others' IP and use that to make so much money you can grind them into the ground and buy them out.

Since then facts have been re-established in a dispassionate way

- some including Ader TOOK OFF in straight line briefly, but landed against their will, did not turned, and went bankrupt in the end
- the Wrights used a catapult at random, and that's a viable criteria to dismiss what they did
- the Wrights biggest legacy was CONTROLLED FLIGHT: I takeoff, I turn, I climb, and I land when I desire (not when gravity prevails).
- the French kept crashing until October 1906 when Santos Dumont hoped for 60 m - and did not managed a turn until January 1908 and Henry Farman 1 km flight.
- so between December 1903 and at least October 1906, stretching well into 1908 - the Wrights were on top of the aviation world. Five complete years, I would say.

Those are facts.
Well, up to a point:
- Ader's original Eole managed a straight hop indoors, but no more.
- The Wrights did not use the catapult on the magic day of the first flight; it is not "a viable criteria to dismiss what they did".
- 1909 was the "magic year" in which French aviation came good. It had much to do with three innovations; the adoption of Cayley's lifting main wing plus stabilising empennage in place of the Wrights' canard foreplane, the hinged aileron in place of wing-warping, and the arrival of the lightweight and reliable 50 hp Gnome rotary engine. And Bleriot's luck with his obsolescent little putt-putt.
 
Last edited:
Not much to nitpick, we are mostly in agreement over the whole thing.

Nor was he the only one; after Wilbur's death, Orville took to the warpath and sued anybody and everybody.

That was what I had in mind about Orville. No more.
 
So the French large pack of aviation pioneers (Bleriot was already there, too) were led to believe that Santos Dumont (a brazilian, in passing) had cracked the secret of flying in October 1906 in Bagatelle near Paris.
When Santos-Dumont took off in his 14-bis, the FAI had just been formed and was basically French. This was their first official attendance. The 14-bis wobbled beyond the ability of the control system to correct and Santos-Dumont had to put it down quickly after only a long-ish hop. Gibbs-Smith, writing in Flight, has pointed out that it was not long enough to qualify as a sustained flight, and that is was not really controlled. But zut alors! The honour of France was at stake and here was a golden opportunity to rewrite history! But do not say so out loud if you happen to be in his native Brazil, even today.

Orville Wright personality showed a rather ugly side there.
Is that right? All the British first-hand accounts say that he was a decent and honest man.

But things changed in the spring 1908, and the Wright brothers came to France, to Le Mans (yes, same place as the car race, and riettes too) to show what their airplane was capable off.
Only Orville came over with a Flyer. Wilbur took another one on a tour of the States.

The Wright aircraft as flown in Le Mans truly buried every single French records since 1906.
It did far more, it blew the socks off every sceptic across Europe, of which there were - up to that moment - still a great many.

Sounds incredible in the light of Bleriot crossing the channel exactly one year later.
His plane was also somewhat underpowered. He got lucky and the wind was kind to him. Still, the same can be said of the Wrights at Kill Devil Hills back in 1903.

Orville Wright was hardly better.
Really? See above.

The Wrights had three distinctly separate controversies: one with the French, one with Glenn Curtiss, and another with the Smithonian and Pierpont-Langley. All three were quite ugly, although they were not wrong on all of them. Lot of bitterness overall. Sadly, it did not helped their case nor their legacy.
The Curtiss battle was not over primacy but patent infringements over the control system. Curtiss did so in a big way, and made so much money he could lawyer the Wrights to a standstill in court. Nor was he the only one; after Wilbur's death, Orville took to the warpath and sued anybody and everybody. He even sued Starling Burgess over the Burgess-Dunne, though his suit against Dunne himself in the UK was laughed out of court. In the US, the Wright-Burgess suit also dragged on, with Burgess forced to set aside $1,000 per plane he sold, in case he lost. It broke his company and he sold out - to Curtiss. Presently, Curtiss acquired the Wright business too, and the lawyers were finally back on the street.
A great example of the American dream, Glenn Curtiss: infringe others' IP and use that to make so much money you can grind them into the ground and buy them out.

Since then facts have been re-established in a dispassionate way

- some including Ader TOOK OFF in straight line briefly, but landed against their will, did not turned, and went bankrupt in the end
- the Wrights used a catapult at random, and that's a viable criteria to dismiss what they did
- the Wrights biggest legacy was CONTROLLED FLIGHT: I takeoff, I turn, I climb, and I land when I desire (not when gravity prevails).
- the French kept crashing until October 1906 when Santos Dumont hoped for 60 m - and did not managed a turn until January 1908 and Henry Farman 1 km flight.
- so between December 1903 and at least October 1906, stretching well into 1908 - the Wrights were on top of the aviation world. Five complete years, I would say.

Those are facts.
Well, up to a point:
- Ader's original Eole managed a straight hop indoors, but no more.
- The Wrights did not use the catapult on the magic day of the first flight.
- 1909 was the "magic year" in which French aviation came good. It had much to do with three innovations; the adoption of Cayley's lifting main wing plus stabilising empennage in place of the Wrights' canard foreplane, the hinged aileron in place of wing-warping, and the arrival of the lightweight and reliable 50 hp Gnome rotary engine. And Bleriot's luck with his obsolescent little putt-putt.

Oh please. I respect the Wrights, learn to respect Bleriot then. If the Anzani was so bad, imagine the Wright engine by comparison.

The 25 hp Anzani proved more robust than Hubert Latham "wonder" Antoinette engine, and that was the key to his victory. Latham engine which was far more powerful and sophisticated broke twice (before and after Bleriot) and twice he ended in the Channel, the second atempt failure being quite cruel - he was very close from the english coast but was denied second place in the last minute.
Note that the third competitor - Comte de Lambert - flew a Wright biplane but crashed at takeoff and threw the towel.
 
Last edited:
Sounds incredible in the light of Bleriot crossing the channel exactly one year later.
His plane was also somewhat underpowered. He got lucky and the wind was kind to him. Still, the same can be said of the Wrights at Kill Devil Hills back in 1903.
...
And Bleriot's luck with his obsolescent little putt-putt.

Oh please. I respect the Wrights, learn to respect Bleriot then. If the Anzani was so bad, imagine the Wright engine by comparison.

The 25 hp Anzani proved more robust than Hubert Latham "wonder" Antoinette engine, and that was the key to his victory. Latham engine which was far more powerful and sophisticated broke twice (before and after Bleriot) and twice he ended in the Channel, the second atempt failure being quite cruel - he was very close from the english coast but was denied second place in the last minute.
Note that the third competitor - Comte de Lambert - flew a Wright biplane but crashed at takeoff and threw the towel.

The Anzani was better but it was not good, it still had plenty of breakdowns. Bleriot took a big risk with it that day. His plane was also small and light, more at the mercy of the weather than the Gnome-powered machines then appearing. Bleriot took a big risk with that, too. He got lucky, but even so he only just made it. (Not my lone opinion, I do get this stuff from respectable history books and contemporary journals) It would be another four years before another Frenchman, Capt. Felix, would fly a 70 hp Gnome-powered Dunne D.8bis back the other way through a rainstorm, and a few days later even lock its controls and go wing-walking.
 
Sure. If the Anzani was such piece of shit, I just don't want to think about the Wrights own engine. In passing, this makes Lambert even braver to have even thought (and tried, although very briefly) crossing the Channel with such piece of junk.
 
Sure. If the Anzani was such piece of shit, I just don't want to think about the Wrights own engine. In passing, this makes Lambert even braver to have even thought (and tried, although very briefly) crossing the Channel with such piece of junk.
The Anzani was good for its day, it was not shit. Similarly, the Antoinette was far from junk, it was one of the first aero engines you could expect to get more than ten minutes out of before it seized up. Cody had installed one in the airship Nulli Secundus for its non-stop round trip from Farnborough to London and back, ca. 1907, and again in his Army Aeroplane No.1 in 1908. If Lambert's installation or maintenance lacked in finesse, that was not the fault of Louis Vavasseur. Then again, the first internal-combustion aero engine ever to do its stuff was unlikely to be of Mercedes Formula 1 standard, no more than the Wrights' awful engineering of airframe stability and control was of production standard.
We must not forget that everything was on the edge of possibility in those days, and every attempted flight on the raggedy edge between heroism and insanity.
Let us be clear, a little joshing to lighten the mood is fine, but rude words and overly harsh judgements are not.
 
Last edited:
Then again, the first internal-combustion aero engine ever to do its stuff was unlikely to be of Mercedes Formula 1 standard, no more than the Wrights' awful engineering of airframe stability and control was of production standard.
We must not forget that everything was on the edge of possibility in those days, and every attempted flight on the raggedy edge between heroism and insanity.
Yeah. This is two bicycle mechanics doing this on their own time and money in their back shed. Airplane, engine, everything built by them. Even the freaking wind tunnel.

It's easy to do it well when you can go for advice to someone else who's done it first.

Someone once said of the early air shows, "The crowds came to see men die, and die they did."
 
The Wrights first came up with a powered, controlled apparatus for heavier than air flight---but Bleriot invented the airplane.
Tail in back--engine in front.
 
Back
Top Bottom