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

[steelpillow]

Bleriot invented the airplane.
Tail in back--engine in front.

Not really. Many folks had tried out this configuration, and it had flown successfully on gliders and on powered models. A few, such as Whitehead and Vuia, had built powered aeroplanes. Whether Whithead succeeded in flying it before Bleriot is a matter of controversy, but what is not in doubt is that in 1906 Bleriot was still fiddling with bizarre tandem-biplane designs, while Trajan Vuia got on and built a high-wing tractor monoplane with rear-mounted empennage. Bleriot was perhaps the first to make it work properly, but no way did he invent it.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Some Brazilians and some French I met in my life (I am Humanities student, so I am not an expert) would say Santos Dumont.

 

[Nik]

Sounds like a replay of the utterly virulent steam-engine lawyering that may have set back that tech by half a century, due too much ingenuity wasted trying to out-flank rivals' patents. Cries of 'My Precious !!' to be heard from every quarter...

I'm reminded of the comparable battle between Edison & Swann who, fortunately, recognised the impending, expensive stale-mate, dismissed their lawyers, pooled their patents, agreed their markets and 'shook on it'...

 

[Jackonicko]

Apart from being unpowered, George Cayley deserves great credit for his contraption!

 

[steelpillow]

Apart from being unpowered, George Cayley deserves great credit for his contraption!

Cayley was the first to identify:

• The key technical problem of powered flight, viz. "to support a given weight by the application of power to the air",
• The four fundamental forces involved: weight, lift, drag and thrust.
• The four technical disciplines to be conquered: propulsion. structure, aerodynamics and stability and control.
• The configuration which would eventually become "conventional", to wit a lifting wing with tail-mounted horizontal and vertical stabilising and control surfaces.

He published his seminal three-part paper On Aerial Navigation through 1809-10, thus founding the modern science of aeronautics. Some authors do credit him with the invention of the modern aeroplane.

Sadly the internal combustion engine had not yet been demonstrated, although experiments were beginning to be performed with gunpowder. Cayley understood that some form of engine driven by internal explosions would be the most practical way forward and began some researches in this direction himself. His problem was not a lack of invention but a lack of knowledge and materials.

For such reasons he is widely acknowledged as the father of aviation. See for example J.A.D. Ackroyd; "Sir George Cayley, the Father of Aeronautics", Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 56. Parts I and II, in Issues 2 (May, 2002), pp. 167-181) and 3 (Sept 2002, pp. 333-348) respectively. (I would hesitate to describe him as the father of aeronautics as a whole, as Ackroyd does, since he was well beaten in the lighter-than-air department by the Montgolfier brothers, Jacques Charles and others (I shamefully forget who first figured out the science of lifting gases, but it was perhaps the true first stirring of modern aeronautics as a rational scientific discipline).

 

[publiusr]

I'm reminded of the comparable battle between Edison & Swann who, fortunately, recognised the impending, expensive stale-mate, dismissed their lawyers, pooled their patents, agreed their markets and 'shook on it'...

Hear that, Bezos?

Anyone try bamboo in the early years?

 

[steelpillow]

...the Wrights ... managed to come up with a very good propeller, and an gasoline engine light enough to do the job.

Yes, their prop was probably the secret weapon that clinched it. Although others had researched propeller aerofoils, the Wrights were the first to mate proper research with practice. They also had an employee who did some of the grunt work on the engine, I have seen some debate about who deserves the real credit for its success.

It's been a while since I read up about this, but it appears the French "Cambrian explosion" of aviation was actually triggered by a article published in a French paper, comprehensively describing the Wright's glider experiments. There was so much to learn from that single article that French aviation kick-started right away.

Would like to know more about that.

With regard to Jatho and Whitehead, the former really only achieved a simple hop, and Whitehead seems to have stayed in aviation until 1910, without ever repeating his (claimed) early accomplishments. In 1910, his financial backer withdrew his support due to Whitehead's continued lack of success ... that's quite telling, in my opinion.

Whitehead was always strapped for cash and made engines to pay for his flying machines. So his flying was a bit stop-and-go as he would have to churn out a few engines before he could afford the next experiment. But he was a bad manager and what with being sued by a customer (perhaps what you are thinking of), suffering industrial accidents and being sidetracked by helicopters and other non-aviation inventions, his aeroplane work became extremely sporadic as time went by. The other thing people forget is that during his "contentious" period he was developing flying cars not just aeroplanes as such. Curiously, eyewitness reports of his No. 21 puttering down the road to the flying site with its wings folded have never been questioned, it is only when the wings are unfurled and takeoff is alleged that the Smithsonian leaps up to honour its contract with the Wrights' estate.

The Wrights might have given the impression of being bean-counting spoilsports as far as aviation was concerned, but to be fair, they were modest bicycle manufacturers trying to make money from the very important innovations they had pioneered

But what stuck in the Smithsonian's throat was that they put the senior academic establishment firmly in its place, effectively publicly humiliating their most senior officer Secretary Langley. The damage they have done to received wisdom since then is incalculable.

 

[steelpillow]

Anyone try bamboo in the early years?

First, let us not forget that there were pioneers in the Far East too. What else would they use? It was used in the West too, as it has good strength-to-weight properties.

SF Cody certainly adopted it as his preferred material. Both his manned kites and his aeroplanes used it extensively. His method of choosing a piece was to flex it thoughtfully, eye it along its length and use his experience and intuition to judge whether it would be strong enough. Sometimes he would strengthen it by binding it round at regular intervals to stop cracks forming or spreading.
His last plane did break up in the air, but an eyewitness involved has stated that he noticed a design flaw and that Cody had put a wire in compression. Whether that or a weak piece of bamboo or something else was the cause of the breakup was never established.

In general, mainly because of its regular leaf joints, bamboo is not a sufficiently consistent material to be suited to structural calculations (which Cody could not master anyway, as he was dyslexic/dyspraxic), so as far as I know it was never used on the production line.

Doesn't really count here, but during WWII the Japanese developed a wire-wrap technique using splinters of bamboo, to assemble electronic circuitry, because there was a shortage of solder.

 

[Archibald]

...the Wrights ... managed to come up with a very good propeller, and an gasoline engine light enough to do the job.

Yes, their prop was probably the secret weapon that clinched it. Although others had researched propeller aerofoils, the Wrights were the first to mate proper research with practice. They also had an employee who did some of the grunt work on the engine, I have seen some debate about who deserves the real credit for its success.

It's been a while since I read up about this, but it appears the French "Cambrian explosion" of aviation was actually triggered by a article published in a French paper, comprehensively describing the Wright's glider experiments. There was so much to learn from that single article that French aviation kick-started right away.

Would like to know more about that.

Ferdinand Ferber.

Ferdinand Ferber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He wrote to Chanute as early as 1901 and was aware of the Wrights achievements from October 1905.

Chanute himself was born in France.

 

[Archibald]

Ferber wrote to the Wrights in spring 1905 to buy one of their airplane.
In October the Wrights answer came back as negative BUT they described their achievements and machines in details. A year later this allowed french pioneers to takeoff and hop in straight lines: October 23 1906, Santos Dumont 60 m to 771 m a year later by Farman. BUT no turn until Farman flew 1 km in a loop in January 1908.
Of course the Wrights had turned as early as 1904 plus flown over miles and miles. So they had a 4 years headstart. That was clearly felt in July 1908 at Le Mans big air fest. Ernest Archdeacon was left in a state of shock "nous sommes battus nous n'existons plus."
"We are beaten we have been wiped out."

 

[steelpillow]

There is a useful and well-researched article on Wikipedia about this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_the_first_powered_flight
I wrote it originally and others have chipped in to improve it since.

 

[Archibald]

Thank you. To me it sounds clear enough - the Wrights had a three to five years headstart over anybody else. Including turns and control.
If some kind of "honest consensus" was to be made:
-They took off late 1903, nobody else left the ground before 1906 at the earliest.
-They controlled and turned as early as 1904, nobody else did it before 1908 at the earliest.

Whatever claim at flight before 1906 or before the Wrights is either a) very doubtful or b) made null by not being controlled, turns included, and also unwanted landings.

The Wrights took off at will, controlled their flights, turned, flew miles and decided when to land: right from 1904-1905.
Nobody else anywhere in the world did that until 1909 at best.

 

[steelpillow]

To me it sounds clear enough - the Wrights had a three to five years headsart over anybody else. Including turns and control.

That is certainly the accepted view. However there has been so much sound and fury over the Whitehead debate that getting to the truth of his achievements is nigh on impossible; most contemporary evidence has been hoovered up by either the Smithsonian or their opponent pro-Whitehead institution in Germany, and both refuse to let you see their materials unless you sign an agreement not to challenge their version of history. This from a highly respectable technical institution in a country where free speech prevails! FWIW the Smithsonian were the first to clam up, so the German institute decided to fight fire with fire.

What shocks me most is that the Smithsonian now acknowledge their conflict of interest but still refuse to open up. One can only conclude that the materials in their possession tell a story that would breach their contract and risk losing them their current prize possession. In short, they have something to hide, and not for the first time. They make bland assurances that this is not the case, but then they are contractually obliged to do so. I can think of no other believable motivation for enforcing the same contractual conditions on independent researchers who view those particular materials. Can you?

 

[Archibald]

Ok I see. The Smithsonian truly backed itself in a (stupid) corner or blind alley.

However there has been so much sound and fury over the Whitehead debate that getting to the truth of his achievements is nigh on impossible;

Stupid sensational media headlines too - of no value without a solid and irefutable proof.
But if the Smithonian clamps down on Whitehead material, then it kind of dig that media grave deeper and deeper. Which is a pity.
Just trying to wrap my mind around the whole thing.
And you tell me it is related to that pre 1942 Langley / Curtiss ugly business of them ?
So that makes Whitehead a collateral victim of that ?
Would the present day Wright heirs savage the Smithsonian if they released some material related to Whitehead 1901 1903 murky claims ?

 

[steelpillow]

Ok I see. The Smithsonian truly backed itself in a (stupid) corner or blind alley.

However there has been so much sound and fury over the Whitehead debate that getting to the truth of his achievements is nigh on impossible;

Stupid sensational media headlines too - of no value without a solid and irefutable proof.
But if the Smithonian clamps down on Whitehead material, then it kind of dig that media grave deeper and deeper. Which is a pity.
Just trying to wrap my mind around the whole thing.
And you tell me it is related to that pre 1942 Langley / Curtiss ugly business of them ?
So that makes Whitehead a collateral victim of that ?
Would the present day Wright heirs savage the Smithsonian if they released some material related to Whitehead 1901 1903 murky claims ?

Well, that is the strong suspicion. We can be sure that the Langley/Curtiss shenangians led to the contract which obliges the Smithsonian to diss (as collateral damage) Whitehead; the Institute admits as much. But it denies hotly that there is anything to hide. However it is a matter of opinion as to whether we should rely on their good name as they suggest, or understand them to be diligently fulfilling their legally binding contract to the point of dishonesty.
There are several books written by Whitehead's protagonists, including one titled "History by Contract". I have found them impossible to get hold of; again, one can only hazard opinions as to why all copies seem to have been so diligently hoovered off the market.

 

[Archibald]

Interesting.
There are many subtilities and different possible scenarios (something the medias, as usual, will completely miss)
- Scenario 1 Whitehead controlled flight before the Wrights (1901 ? 1902 ? the year 1903 before December ?)
- Scenario 2 Whitehead gets off the ground before the Wrights, not controlled (same dates as above: 1901 ? 1902 ? the year 1903 ?)
- Scenario 3 Whitehead gets off the ground after the Wrights but before the French, both not controlled (so 1904, 1905, part 1906)
- Scenario 4 Whitehead controlled flight after the Wrights but before the French get off the ground (same years, rinse, repeat)

Which one of these four scenarios seems most probable, with what we presently knows ?

Scenario 1 for sure would be a sound of thunder in aviation history.

But scenarios 2, 3 and 4 would still be interesting. And I'm reminded of my first readings on the subject, 30 years ago - before the Internet era. This gem of a magazine.

A very good reading, even 30 years later. Must still have it somewhere at Mom's house. Bottom line: no problem with the Wrights coming five years ahead of the entire French pack. This is History. And screw any nationalist dickhead saying otherwise, I'm not one of them.
This point duly noted,
I would really be interested to get the final truth about Whitehead: what did he achieved, compared to the Wrights and, well, Santos Dumont early small hop of October 1906 ? (if we used these two as "boundaries" because FAI)

 

[steelpillow]

Interesting.
There are many subtilities and different possible scenarios (something the medias, as usual, will completely miss)
- Scenario 1 Whitehead controlled flight before the Wrights (1901 ? 1902 ? the year 1903 before December ?)
- Scenario 2 Whitehead gets off the ground before the Wrights, not controlled (same dates as above: 1901 ? 1902 ? the year 1903 ?)
- Scenario 3 Whitehead gets off the ground after the Wrights but before the French, both not controlled (so 1904, 1905, part 1906)
- Scenario 4 Whitehead controlled flight after the Wrights but before the French get off the ground (same years, rinse, repeat)

There are no significant claims of Whitehead flying after ca. 1902. He did build planes and helicopters for arciund another 10 years, but there is never any suggestion of them taking off. So 1 and 2 are the only scenarios on the table. This is very sensitive to which plane/claim we are talking about. Lore has it that the No.21 flew but its control system didn't work and he just scraped past an obstacle by throwing himself sideways. If true, does that make the No. 1 controllable or a lemon? On the other hand, he claimed to have flown a full circle over Long Island Sound in the No.22 which had twin props and steering was (intended to be) accomplished by varying the relative thrust, but corroborating evidence of such a flight is non-existent.
My personal take is that if Santos-Dumont had to land because his control system failed, but the FAI nevertheless recognised him, then Whitehead's keeping going with an alternative control system, after the main one failed, has to be endorsed at least as much, maybe more. It has been argued that weight-shifting is not a fit control system, but many a modern ultralight flier (powered hang-glider or parafoil) would disagree. To maintain any consistency the FAI should choose; demote Santos-Dumont, promote Whitehead, or both.
There are some good sources on Whitehead referenced in his Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead.
I would especially recommend Weissenborn, Georg K. "Did Whitehead Fly?". Air Enthusiast. Vol. 35, 1988.

 

[publiusr]

The Wrights are still ahead...with modern materials only now becoming ready for wing warping. Birds still much to teach... body english and all: https://techxplore.com/news/2022-09-bird-flight-eye-uncrewed-drones.html

 

[steelpillow]

The Wrights are still ahead...with modern materials only now becoming ready for wing warping. Birds still much to teach... body english and all: https://techxplore.com/news/2022-09-bird-flight-eye-uncrewed-drones.html

Many early pre-flight designs, such as Ader's series of three, relied on bird- or bat-like wing warping. This despite various aileron designs being patented through the 19th century. The Wrights can hardly lay claim to primacy there.

And while wing warping can be satisfactory for small/slow craft, such as the original Wright Flyer with its 12 hp engine, for anything of any size and power the control forces become excessive. Once up to 50 hp or so, the forces on the controls at any speed were described by their pilots as "the pilot could not fly the aeroplane, instead the aeroplane flew the pilot."

Orville visited the UK in 1910. As an honorary member of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain (it was not yet granted its Royal charter), he officially witnessed on its behalf a flight of the first automatically stable aeroplane, the Dunne D.5. His UK lawyer, Griffith Brewer, was the other official witness. Orville is on record as expressing great surprise at its combination of stability and excellent manoeuvrability, properties which up until then he had believed to be mutually exclusive. He was also greatly surprised that the small elevons, which Dunne had fitted, could exert the strength of force required for such manoeuvres. Once he got back to the States, the brothers abandoned warping for the far more practical ailerons.

So although overall they achieved great things, in this small matter the Wrights were not ahead of the curve as suggested, they were actually stick-in-the-mud conservatives who had a thing or two yet to learn about controlling an aeroplane blessed with any useful level of power. No doubt modern researchers (of which there are several) will rediscover the problems of balancing flight characteristics against control forces, once they attempt to build a practical manned aeroplane.

 

[Archibald]

Didn't NASA tweaked their F-18 with wing warping recently ? but for different objectives (from memory).

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Interesting.
There are many subtilities and different possible scenarios (something the medias, as usual, will completely miss)
- Scenario 1 Whitehead controlled flight before the Wrights (1901 ? 1902 ? the year 1903 before December ?)
- Scenario 2 Whitehead gets off the ground before the Wrights, not controlled (same dates as above: 1901 ? 1902 ? the year 1903 ?)
- Scenario 3 Whitehead gets off the ground after the Wrights but before the French, both not controlled (so 1904, 1905, part 1906)
- Scenario 4 Whitehead controlled flight after the Wrights but before the French get off the ground (same years, rinse, repeat)

Which one of these four scenarios seems most probable, with what we presently knows ?

The what if-feriery can get very complicated.
By way of a example;- Percy Pilcher is widely reported as having a 4HP engine in his workshop in 1899, and if not for the gust of wind that caused his fatal accident he could have taken flight in 1900.

I believe there’s maybe a few more similar.

 

[steelpillow]

The what if-feriery can get very complicated.
By way of a example;- Percy Pilcher is widely reported as having a 4HP engine in his workshop in 1899, and if not for the gust of wind that caused his fatal accident he could have taken flight in 1900.

According to Wikipedia, "It is now estimated that a modern flexible Rogallo wing hang glider requires at least 6 hp (4 kW) at the prop shaft and about 45 lbf (200 N) of thrust just to maintain level flight." Pilcher would have been lucky if his primitive and inefficient 4 hp engine actually assisted his gliding hops and did not just weigh them down.

I believe there’s maybe a few more similar.

Half-baked and ill-informed "Maybe..." fancruft suffuses our knowledge of aviation's byways. Fodder for this site to discredit will never cease.

 

[steelpillow]

Hi,

And while wing warping can be satisfactory for small/slow craft, such as the original Wright Flyer with its 12 hp engine, for anything of any size and power the control forces become excessive. Once up to 50 hp or so, the forces on the controls at any speed were described by their pilots as "the pilot could not fly the aeroplane, instead the aeroplane flew the pilot."

Well, that's maybe a bit pessimistic. The "Fokker Scourge" of 1915 - a spell of heavy losses to RFC pilots - was due to the introduction of the wing-warping controlled Fokker Eindecker to the Fliegertruppen. Of course, the Fokkers forward-firing guns had a lot to do with this, but it's worth noting that the premier Eindecker pilot, Max Immelmann, really impressed Allied airmen with the amazing agility of his mount. And that Eindecker came in 80 HP, 100 HP and (as a prototype) 160 HP versions.

So I would say that wing warping was quite practical and efficient in the early years of civil aviation, and up to a point, it even withstood the competitive pressures of wartime before being replaced by aileron control.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Yes it was fine up until around 1909, when the 50 hp Gnome arrived. After that you needed an increasingly better-balanced warping system to keep it usable. The quote I gave is genuine of the period, and the Wrights were far from the only ones to abandon it for the improvements brought by the aileron.

The Fokker E.III represented the state of the art in what was a dying technology. It was certainly better balanced in this respect than its wing-warping monoplane predecessor, the Etrich Taube (largely manufactured by Rumpler), but was still not a dogfighter by any stretch. Its success was entirely due to its interrupter gear. When half-decent Allied scouts appeared in 1916, Immelman was soon shot down.

The other problem was stalling. This usually resulted in a spin, which nobody at that time knew how to recover from. The Immelman turn was a dangerous gambit unless you were highly experienced.
In the stall, and especially on entering a spin, twisting forces are typically exerted on the wing. Where a warping system is employed, the wing deliberately has no resistance to twisting and the force has to be resisted by the pilot. But since the spin was regarded as lethal, it didn't matter if the warping flew him for his last few seconds of life, as he was doomed anyway.
Later on, when stall recovery became a thing, wing-warping became a double no-no.

So I suppose yes, it withstood the rigours of 1914-15 "up to a point".

 

[fortrena]

A potentially controversial thought re. the bicycle work of the Wrights.

Might it be possible that the inherent instability of a bicycle played at least a slight role in guiding their development of a proper, three axis control system for their 1902 glider and subsequent flyers?

 

[Archibald]

I heard about this, and I think it makes some sense. Early aircraft were (duh !) inherently unstable, and there the Wrights extensive bicycle experience may have came in handy. Unlike too many martyrs, they suffered no serious accident until that unfortunate crash with Selfridge - first aviation casualty, ever (minus all the LTA crashes and dead).

 

[steelpillow]

Might it be possible that the inherent instability of a bicycle played at least a slight role in guiding their development of a proper, three axis control system for their 1902 glider and subsequent flyers?

That is not quite right. A well-designed bicycle is inherently stable when in motion, otherwise riding it "no-hands" would be as difficult as riding a unicycle. Such bicycles were already commonplace by the late nineteenth century and the Wrights would have perforce been fully cognizant of the principles involved.

The Wrights deliberately made their early planes unstable for quite another and, as it turned out, spurious reason. It was argued that a stable aeroplane would remain fixed in its flight path and could not be persuaded to change course when desired. If you wanted it to be steerable, then it had to be aerodynamically unstable. This view had quite a strong following in the aeronautical community of the day, the Wrights included. Keeping an early Flyer in the air required skills not unlike those of the unicyclist.

However a contrasting movement within that same aeronautical community saw instability as highly unsafe and impractical, and sought the inherently stable aeroplane. Chief among these were JW Dunne, Jose Weiss and Handley Page in the UK, and Igor Etrich in Germany. In the event, stability proved highly desirable for most applications; only the aerobatic "fighting scout" proved to benefit from neutral or negative stability, if its manoeuvrability were not to be dampened. This is one of the main reasons for the high death toll among combat pilots during WWI, not to mention the deaths among purchasers of Wright Flyers and their imitations. Interestingly Dunne, the most technically successful of the automatic stability advocates, also long recognised the need for a range of types with different characteristics, to fulfill different roles.

 

[Avimimus]

The what if-feriery can get very complicated.
By way of a example;- Percy Pilcher is widely reported as having a 4HP engine in his workshop in 1899, and if not for the gust of wind that caused his fatal accident he could have taken flight in 1900.

According to Wikipedia, "It is now estimated that a modern flexible Rogallo wing hang glider requires at least 6 hp (4 kW) at the prop shaft and about 45 lbf (200 N) of thrust just to maintain level flight." Pilcher would have been lucky if his primitive and inefficient 4 hp engine actually assisted his gliding hops and did not just weigh them down.

Pilcher's designs (including his triplane) would have been a bit less aerodynamically efficient than Sellers (who developed one of the first wind-tunnels and had more time to refine his designs). The power to weight ratio of engines in 1908 would also likely have been considerably greater.

However, the evidence suggests that multiple engine arrangements in the 4hp to 6hp range were capable of carrying people aloft by 1908. See these excerpts from letters to Flight:

Flight, May 20, 1911.

Low-Powered Flight.

Under the heading of "The Dipping Front Edge," in his letter in your issue of April 22nd, 1911, "Sky Pilot" makes the statement that Mr. A. V. Roe holds the record for flying with low horse-power, viz., 9-h.p.
It may interest him to know that Mr. Sellers, of Kentucky, flies with 4-h.p., and that Mr. Gordon, of California, flies with 5-h.p. Both the above actually fly.
Your magazine improves with every issue.
New York. JOHN GUY GILPATRIC.


Flight, August 12, 1911.

Low-Powered Flight.

Since sending my last letter re low-powered flight I have written Mr. Sellers, and through his courtesy I am enabled to give you details of his machine. I enclose his letter and one of the photos which he has kindly furnished.
Port Washington, July 6th. J. G. GILPATRIC.

[Enclosure from Mr. Sellers.]
Your letter of the 20th was received on my return from New York. I am not anxious at present to make public the details of my aeroplane, but shall give you the information asked for in your letter, and, if you wish, you are welcome to send this letter to FLIGHT and that paper can publish it and the enclosed photos if desired. I did not read the article you mention so do not know what is claimed in it. The machine shown in flight in the two photographs enclosed was built in 1908. The rudder shown is only a temporary makeshift. My object in building this machine was to try out some results obtained in laboratory experiments, and incidentally to produce a light, small, slow and small horse-power machine. The first engine used was 2-cyiinder, 4-cycle, opposed, air-cooled, weight 23 lbs., bore and stroke 3 1/8 ins. giving 4-b.h.p. at 1,400; later increased to near 5-b.h.p. by auxiliary exhaust ports. Propeller 54 ins. by 24 ins. Weight of machine ready to fly, with this engine, 78 lbs. My weight 130 lbs. The present engine is of the same type but 3 5/8 in. bore and stroke, about 8-h.p.
Weight of machine with this engine = 110 lbs., propeller 66 ins. diameter by 30 ins. maximum pitch. The first engine would fly the machine but would not give enough power to climb or turn. The present engine gives plenty of power while not overheated. Both engines quickly overheat in warm weather (air cooled).
Area of this aeroplane 200 sq. ft.; planes 3 ft. by 18 ft. We timed a number of flights in still air; speed 21 miles per hour. The machine is light but has been found strong enough to stand intermittent use for two years.
Baltimore, June 29th. M. B. SELLERS.


Flight, October 14, 1911.

Low Powered Flight.

A correspondent, R.G.P., has asked for particulars of the Gordon and Sellers machines, which are notable on account of their ability to fly with small power. The Gordon machine is a familiar 2-2-P-1 Curtiss, apparently very lightly constructed.
The Sellers machine I consider distinctly novel and fairly safe. Its formula is 0-P-4-1. The main planes have a pronounced "stagger," as in the Goupy. The motor and tractor are mounted on the second plane from the bottom. I regret I am unable to furnish any dimensions, but enclose a sketch.
The machine illustrated is by no means standard; it is only one of this type used for experimental purposes by Mr. Sellers.
Port Washington, L.I., U.S.A. J. G. GILPATRICK.

 

[publiusr]

Did Leonardo da Vinci have access to bamboo? His "helicopter" might work at Venus, if not immediatly destroyed

 

[phantomphan]

This is a great thread!

 

[Foo Fighter]

This is a great thread!

Agreed, threads like this make the internet more positive than negative and I love 'em.