# why didn't the Wright brothers think of ailerons?



## Marcel (Apr 17, 2016)

Last week when I was at Kitty Hawk I saw the brothers' ingenious wing warping system. But I couldn't help wondering why they came up with it. They already knew the concept of a horizontal rudder, their elevator, so the step to using the same thing to increase our lessen the wings lift ( =ailerons) seems small to me. Yet they didn't think of it and needed a paper box to invent the warping system. 

Just wondering.


----------



## stona (Apr 17, 2016)

Because birds twist their wings, copied in early gliders and then by the Wrights.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 20, 2016)

> But I couldn't help wondering why they came up with it. They already knew the concept of a horizontal rudder, their elevator, so the step to using the same thing to increase our lessen the wings lift ( =ailerons) seems small to me.



Marcel, the idea of twisting the wing tips goes back to the Wrights' first kite glider, which was built in 1899/1900 and was subsequently used in almost all their future aircraft. The apocryphal story is that Wilbur grabbed a rectangular box that a tyre (or 'tire') inner tube came in and twisted it at both ends, after thinking about birds' wings.

At that time, in fact until 1904, the concept of an inset hinged control surface had not been fitted to an actual full scale aircraft, and even then it was a copy of a Wright glider, in France by a chap named Robert Esnault Pelterie, or REP; one of the forgotten aviation pioneers who contributed a great deal to aviation. Wing warping worked for the Wrights and their control surfaces that were eventually fitted to the 1903 Flyer came about through trial and error, as you know; the hinged rudder, for example came from flights with the 1902 glider, the first aircraft to be capable of being controlled about all three axes of movement. This was made hinged because of adverse yaw flipping the aircraft onto its back and nearly killing Orville, so the rudder was made hinged instead of fixed; initially it was tied in to the operation of the wing warping cradle, but after the 1904 Flyer was given a separate lever next to the now upright pilot in the 1905 Flyer.

Anyway, back to ailerons (French for 'little wing') versus wing warping, the aileron didn't catch on immediately and after Wilbur did his demo flights in France in 1908, everyone was convinced that wing warping was the way ahead - including, famously, Louis Bleriot, who reputedly stated, after seeing Wilbur flying his aircraft at Le Mans, "To hell with the aileron...", such was the impact on aviation the Wrights ideas made at the time.

At this stage, French aircraft were largely not controllable around all three axes of movement, possessing no lateral control and being fitted with only elevators and a rudder, so when making a turn the aircraft side slipped clumsily all over the place. For longitudinal stability, the answer was increased dihedral on the main planes, which led to the term 'total stability type' for aeroplanes without lateral controls. When Wilbur made his demo flight in August 1908, he gracefully banked his machine into turns and captured the imagination of everyone present; he had quite the impact and until that time, few in France believed the claims that had been made about the Wrights.

Structurally ailerons made better sense and it was only until greater production of types in the couple of years before WW1 that they became widespread, but wing warping hung on in the likes of Bleriot's military variants of the XI and the Etrich Taube, for example. From a hindsight point of view its easy to make the leap to ailerons, but you have to remember that what we know today took a while to gain a foot hold and few realise just how far in advance the Wrights were over everyone else by the end of the first decade of the Twentieth Century, so they naturally had enormous influence. After then, however, France led the world in aviation, even into the first few years of the Great War, when ailerons superseded the Wrights' wing warping.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 22, 2016)

Thanks Nuuman. Of course I am looking with hindsight, but the whole wing warping seems to be so clumsy. I wondered while the brothers seemed to have a tendency of using the simplest solution, why they didn't do this. Your point of them focusing on the buzzard's flight makes sense.
I don't want to take anything away from the Wrights. What they did was an amazing feat of research, insight and enginering. Many of the things they used have not been invented by them, but they seemed to have an overview over all problems involved that others lacked. Further more they seemed to be able to solve anything, like constructing a revolutionary engine in a very short time.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2016)

I think that in the early days the wing warping and ailerons were purely to keep the aircraft level in flight, though it was used on combat aircraft like the eindekkers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 22, 2016)

Marcel said:


> Of course I am looking with hindsight, but the whole wing warping seems to be so clumsy. I wondered while the brothers seemed to have a tendency of using the simplest solution, why they didn't do this.



Yes, but to the Wrights, wing warping _was_ the solution; the aileron didn't exist in 1899. It took awhile for lateral control to evolve as few understood how a bird moved in flight and this is where the Wrights were ahead, since with their wing warping, they could bank their aircraft in a turn, something other pioneers took a while to grasp. In Alberto Santos Dumont's rather odd looking 14bis, in which he stood upright to fly, the aircraft had no means of assisting or correcting lateral motion; it had no control surfaces on its main wings, only a pivoting elevator and it didn't even have a controllable rudder for steering. It had accentuated dihedral on the main wings. Yet, this ungainly machine made the first sustained powered flight in mainland Europe in October 1906 - it flew in a straight line for a few hundred metres. Compare with the Wrights, who had flown over 100 flying hours in three powered aeroplanes by the end of 1905.

The wing warping system was extremely clumsy to operate and flying an early Wright aircraft, including their gliders was an awkward process. I got the opportunity to lie in the position on a Wright 1902 glider reproduction (at the excellent Virginia Air Museum) and worked the wing warping cradle. You really had to shove with your hips in the direction of the turn, but as soon as you had done so, you had to centre it, otherwise, the thing would just keep turning unabated in the direction of the turn until you fell out of the sky. Of course the rudder was interconnected with the wing warping for balance in the turn until the ground breaking 1905 Flyer, which could carry two people. Wilbur was initially against adding another lever for controlling the rudder, believing it would be too great a work load for the average person, so ther rudder was connected to the wing warping cradle. The elevator however was extremely sensitive and required very slight movement of a lever operated by the pilot's left hand. If pulled too steeply the thing would stall and, again, fall out of the sky.

It's interesting to note that when Louis Bleriot turned to wing warping, he used almost the exact same method of structural design; even the fabric on the wings was laid diagonally across the surface as on the Wright machines - I've had the opportunity also to examine an early Bleriot aircraft. Although Bleriot used a single stick for wing warping and elevator the principle was the same. Interestingly enough, Bleriot and REP mentioned in my early post, in a gentlemanly gesture_ jointly_ applied for the patent for a single control stick, which has become the standard of control, along with a pivoting bar to actuate the rudder.


----------



## simplex (May 10, 2016)

> the aileron didn't exist in 1899


The ailerons were patented when Wilbur Wright was 1 year old (see: Matthew Piers Watt Boulton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).



> the Wrights, who had flown over 100 flying hours in three powered aeroplanes by the end of 1905.


If you read a few articles written at the end of 1905 and the beginning of 1906, you will see that the majority of them look like clipped from tabloids, see: References (Wright Brothers).

One of the most representative is "*La Conquête de l’Air par deux Marchands de Cycles*", author - Robert Coquelle. This journalist, who visited the Wright brothers on December 12, 1905, realized immediately the two inventors "took their contemporaries for idiots".

This is exactly what he wrote:

"_— Permettez, M. Wright, vous avez absolument le droit de me refuser de voir votre aéroplane. Mais je ne dois pas vous cache que si vous vous obstinez à ne pas me donnez des explications complémentaires sur vos expériences, votre conduite sera sévèrement jugée par le monde aéronautique européen. On dira que vous avez « bluffé » et, qu’en fait de vol plané, vous avez surtout pris vos contemporains pour des imbéciles._"
( Source: 1905-12-23 to 26, Robert Coquelle, “La Conquête de l’Air par deux Marchands de Cycles”, L’Auto, Paris, Samedi 23 - Mardi 26 décembre 1905, Scrapbook - Library of Congress, US.)


----------



## stona (May 10, 2016)

Coquelle did not realise, nor did he write, that the Wrights took their contemporaries for fools. I don't know how well you read French, but the whole paragraph is conditional.

"...que si vous vous obstinez a..." .....That IF you persist in ...... (not giving explanations)

"On dira...." Future tense, if the Wrights do one thing then another WILL follow. People will say that they had taken their contemporaries for fools (imbeciles).

He goes on to say that as a result of this outburst the brothers explain that they cannot show Coquelle the aircraft as it is totally disassembled, but they will give 'renseignements', best translated as information in this context, which will at least partly satisfy his curiosity.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (May 10, 2016)

From the Automotor Journal, January 6, 1906:

THE "WHITE FLYER/* — THE MOTOR^DRIVEN AEROPLANE OF THE BROTHERS WRIGHT.

Any lingering doubts that may still be entertained in regard to the reality of the Wright Brothers performances are now likely to yield to the circumstantial report which the enterprise of our contemporary, L'Auto, has enabled it to place before its readers. The French journal in question, as soon as it was convinced that the rumours of successful motor-driven aeroplane flight were more than mere rumours, at once dispatched a representative (M. Coquelle) to Dayton, Ohio, to investigate matters on the spot, and this investigator has furnished to his paper a detailed account, the perusal of which goes far towards removing any doubt as to the substantial correctness of all the claims that have been made on behalf of the two brilliant experimenters, and fully establishes the general truth of the statements previously published on the subject by Captain Ferber.

This is not, however, the only confirmation of the statements we were enabled to make last week, which has since come to hand. A further report has been furnished by Mr. Weaver to M. Frank Lahm, of the French Aero Club. Mr. Weaver, it will be remembered, was some time ago commissioned to ascertain what truth there was in the various rumours, and, in accordance with instructions, he sent to M. Lahm a telegram (which we reproduced at the time) stating that the claims made on behalf of the Brothers Wright were fully substantiated. Mr. Weaver's report, dispatched by post at about the same time as his telegram, is now to hand, and fully confirms the report rendered by M. Coquelle.

The whole subject is of extreme interest, and it will ultimately, no doubt, be regarded as epoch-marking in the highest degree. We are dealing with the first reports of absolutely the first successful attempts to accomplish mechanical flight, and it is not astonishing, therefore, that a large mass of material has already found its way into the Press. The discovery of exactly what the Wright Brothers have accomplished, and its publication to the world under the circumstances, must certainly be regarded as a credit to the enterprise of French journalism.

For the benefit of our readers we propose to sum up the available data on this absorbing topic under the following headings : —

1. What the Wright Brothers have actually accomplished.

2. The evidence on which the statements are based.

3. The means by which they have effected it.

4. The reasons for their reticence.


1« What the Wright Brothers have actually accomplished*

The record of actual accomplishment is shown by all the further evidence which has now come to light, to be almost exactly what it was declared to, be in the letter to Captain Ferber, mentioned in our number of Dec. 9th, that is to say, they have made a large number of different flights averaging a speed of a kilometre to the minute (or not much under 40 miles an hour), and on one occasion actually covered a distance of 24^ miles before touching ground.

These flights and experiments were carried out in a large meadow in the neighbourhood of Dayton, where on the ground of a friendly farmer the two enthusiastic aeronauts, who in Dayton and private life are bicycle manufacturers, had erected a shed for the accommodation of their flying machine. Round this patch of prairie, which was a rough quadrangle of about i£ kiloms. in extent, flights were conducted and various manoeuvres and experiments at different heights from the ground carried out. The maximum height attained was about 80 feet, and the "White Flyer" (the name the Wrights have bestowed on their machine) careered round and round the field till the various distances which we have previously recorded were accomplished.
The actual distances over the ground mentioned are only approximate, for the method of calculating distance was by means of a small anemometer rigged up on the flying machine, the anemometer of course only actually recording the distances travelled through the air. Experiment, however, proved that the records substantially agreed in most cases with the distance travelled over the ground, as the flights were conducted round and round approximately the same course.

As in their gliding experiments, the recent flights of the Wright Brothers with their motor-driven aeroplane, have been extraordinarily conspicuous for a total absence of accident, due, no doubt, very largely to the remarkable mixture of bravery and caution which we have previously pointed out as characteristic of all their proceedings. In fact, in nearly all the flights they succeeded in ending up and coming to ground near the shed from which they started, and only exceptionally had the aeroplane to be carried back any distance by other means of transport* The nearest approach to an accident was on one occasion when Mr. Wilbur Wright swooped at slightly too acute an angle towards the ground, and instead of righting himself again descended abruptly amid a numerous herd of pigs, whose astonishment when this portent — this enormous white bird— descended upon them like a bolt from the blue, may be imagined. The witnesses, to whose evidence we shall next refer, and who were present at many of the actual flights executed, were most impressed, at any rate during the later flights, with the amazing manageability of the machine. It moved up and down, executed turns and figures exactly as the aeronaut managing it desired, and on one occasion performed an almost exact figure of eight inside a square of some 400 metres. Wilbur and Orville Wright, as in their gliding experiments in North Carolina, managed, rode, or flew (whichever expression is preferred), the machine alternately. The last splendid flight on the 5th of October, of 24} miles, was really only brought to a conclusion by the exhaustion of the petrol supply for their motor.

2« The Evidence on which the Statements are based*
The campaign of experiment for the year was brought somewhat abruptly to a conclusion with the
last great flight of October 5th, owing to the fact that one of their lriends who had been privileged to witness previous experiments, although "straitly charged not to do so." had been talking rather big about the wonderful things that he had seen. The consequence was that a large detachment of Daytonians assembled on the ground, to the great annoyance of the aeronauts, who, fora reasons to which we shall refer later, were still anxious to avoid anything in the nature of publicity. They accordingly decided to bring their experiments for this year to a conclusion somewhat sooner than they had intended, and dismantled their aeroplane with a view to thoroughly overhauling it and introducing various improvements. M. Coquelle consequently was unable to see anything more than the parts of the machine which has established these wonderful records, and had to derive what consolation he might from inspecting the shed from which it had repeatedly issued to its triumphs. But he was able to collect very thorough evidence while in the district from a number of trustworthy people who had witnessed the flights. The first of these to whom he betook himself was a resident in the neighbourhood of the "scene of the exploits," who discharges the functions of a Justice of the Peace, Mr. M. D. Beard.
He bore witness to having seen the Wright aeroplane manoeuvring above his property with what he described as extraordinary ease, and he felt convinced that the intrepid manipulator was not in the slightest danger.
Practically the same statements were made by Mr. Beard to Mr. Weaver, who, as we have above explained, investigated the question independently, and to his name may be added that of Mr. W. C. Foust, of Dayton.
Altogether, there are some seven independent witnesses whose names have been collected, and who are prepared to vouch for the correctness of the reports furnished.

(continues next post)


----------



## GrauGeist (May 10, 2016)

From The Automotor Journal, January 6, 1906 (continued)

3<< The Means by which they have Effected It*
No photograjhs or authentic reproductions or representations of the actual motor-driven aeroplane with
which these flights were accomplished have, as far as we are aware, been made public, though a sketch has been published which must be regarded as mainly imaginary or ideal, as the machine was admittedly taken to pieces at the time of M. Coquelle's visit. By drawing attention, however, to the differences between the motor-driven machine and the aeroplane with which the long glides of 1902 were effected, a general idea of the structure of the machine can easily be formed. For this purpose we reproduce the illustration of that machine which we gave on Feb. 6, 1904. It will be remembered that in general outline it resembled the aeroplane of Mr. Chanute, without the polyhedral tail. Instead, it was provided with a vertical tail at the rear for steering sideways and keeping the machine "on a level keel," and a small plane mounted in front, the angle of which was controlled by the operator by means of cords. In gliding from a height, the way this machine was manipulated was as follows : — If the downward tendency was too great, the front movable plane was slightly elevated, causing the whole machine to rise against the wind. If the wind were raising it too much, the movable plane was accordingly depressed, tending to cause the front of the machine to dip deeper into the air and swoop towards the ground. If what Mr. Chanute terms "a whirling billow of air" tipped up one or the other side of the machine, this was corrected for by movements of the vertical rudder, causing the aeroplane to swing round like a bird executing a curve, and so bring the depressed side up level again.

The motor-driven aeroplane with which the successful flights of the present year have been conducted closely resembles the gliding machine which we now reproduce, excepting of course that it has a motor and propellers attached. There are, however, other differences. Instead of the single guiding or controlling movable plane in front, there are two of them mounted, one above the other, and somewhat higher in position. Similarly the tail has been duplicated, there being now two tails, a couple of yards apart, behind each of the propellers.
The general dimensions of the aeroplane are slightly greater than the gliding machine, being now 40 ft. from tip to tip, the large planes themselves being 6 ft. wide, and separated from one another by a space of 6 ft.
The number of vertical struts also has been increased. They are stayed and reinforced by diagonal piano wires, and the whole apparatus made very strong and rigid.

There has been no attempt to sacrifice everything for lightness. The motor is mounted at the extreme rear of the lower aeroplane. It is a 4-cylinder machine, constructed by the Wright Brothers themselves, and present ing much similarity with a 4-cylinder Pope-To'edo motor of the same power, viz., 24-h.p The two propellers are mounted about half-way between the upper and lower planes close to the rear struts, being stayed to the corresponding front struts, and are chain -driven from the motor, revolving at a very high rate of speed. The struts of the whole machine are formed of birchwood with light canvas to form the gliding surface.
As in the guiding machine the aeronaut lies prone, his chest resting on a cushion, and his head just below the two movable guiding p'anes, his feet not being very far in front of the motor. To produce proper balancing, a dead weight of some 50 lbs. is attached to the front part of the aeroplane to assist in counterbalancing the motor, which weighs some 250 lbs. In a recent statement, signed by both the Brothers Wright, they observe that no special pains have been taken to render their machine exceptionally light. The motor is no lighter than usual, and the whole thing is very solidly and firmly made. As at quite ordinary speeds they find that it is possible to lift and maintain in the air 66 lbs. pcr'h.p. and very much more at higher speeds, this is quite credible and shows pretty clearly that as far as mere engine power is concerned, flying has been possible for many years past. It is skilled manipulation of the machinery which has been wanting.

It will be obvious from what we have said above, and what we have on previous occasions put before our readers, that the greater part of the conquest of the air, which the Wright Brothers have effected, was accomplished when they learned successfully to perform their record glides with the machine which we formerly illustrated and now again reproduce. They made no secret at the time, and authorities on the subject like Mr. Chanute have been always fully convinced, that their success in gliding was due partially to the horizontal position of the aeronaut — a position, by the way, which it requires at first, at any rate, considerable pluck to assume — and the arrangement of the subsidiary planes, particularly the movable and controlling front plane.
When a machine of this type had proved to be repeatedly capable of performing glides up to nearly 300 yds. in length against a moderate wind by being simply started from the top of a hill, it was obvious that with motive power sufficient to represent the wind, and but a little extra power sufficient to represent the effect of gravitation, extended flight would be possible, and that the manipulation and management of the machine would not be greatly different, and this is what practice has proved to be the case. The really important elements of their invention therefore, consist of these three things, and we put them in order of increasing importance — the horizontal position of the aeronaut, the vertical tail or tails, and the forward approximately horizontal controlling plane, or planes. There may be other things which we do not know of as yet, but it is obviously those elements which have, so far as can be judged, made the difference between the extraordinary success which the Wrights have accomplished, and the ignominious failures which have been the record of practically everybody else.

The absolute control and manoeuvrability of the machine, together with the degree of safety attained,
are well illustrated by the fact that on one occasion when the engine stopped, the aeroplane glided slowly and quietly to the ground without occasioning the slightest trouble or the slightest injury. In fact, their regular method of coming to earth is to stop the engine some little time before they intend alighting and then to glide down.

A few words should be added regarding the method of starting adopted. The two guides or supports, which are clearly shown underneath the old aeroplane, and which are preserved in the motor-driven machine, are mounted on the top of a triangular little trolley, which runs on wheels on an ordinary rail. The aeroplane is mounted on this and held steady while the aeronaut assumes his recumbent position. The motor is started, the propellers begin to revolve, and the aeroplane runs down the rail on its carriage, being held straight by an assistant operator for the first few yards, and then as it gathers speed it rises in the air (leaving its carriage behind it) " as easily and gracefully," said one of the eye-witnesses, " as a butterfly."

4<< The Reasons of their Reticence*
There remains to be considered the extraordinary reticence of the Wrights in regard to their marvellous
experiments — a reticence so remarkable that it has surrounded the whole of their proceedings (since in 1903 they packed up their first motor-driven aeroplane and "went home convinced that the day of flying machines had come") with an atmosphere of distinctly piquant — not to say irritating — mystery.
It is so opposed to the usual American methods, though it must be admitted that it is not opposed
to the previous record of the Wright Brothers themselves. The public generally knew absolutely nothing
about their experiments on North Carolina Beach at Kittyhawk until they described them in the Journal of the Society of Western Engineers. Probably it was their intention to electrify the world when they were quite satisfied with what they had accomplished at Dayton. A remarkable point is that they apparently have not been satisfied. This is in part, we believe, due to troubles, if they can be called troubles, with their motor, which developed some very troublesome idiosyncrasies. It gave 24-h.p. quite regularly on the bench for apparently as long as they cared to run it, or at any rate for as long as it had been run. It
also apparently gave 24-h.p. when mounted on the aeroplane, and when flight commenced. It kept up its full power fairly well for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, and then gradually fell off to about 14-h.p.
This, no doubt, has prevented their giving such practical demonstrations of the art of flying as they would have wished. Probably also there are considerations of patents. On reflection, we are disposed to rate very little the suggestions put forward by M. Archdeacon and others, that the Wrights have nothing patentable, and that their success is entirely due to their skill. It is mainly due to their skill, no doubt, but it is impossible to deny that it is also due to a very large extent to the improvements in construction to which we have referred above. These are ingenious, they are decidedly novel, and they have produced a new and useful effect never before approached. If this is not good subject matter for a patent, we would like to ask what is ? From this point of view, of course, a motor-driven aeroplane would come under any patents they may have taken out for the gliding machine we illustrate. But that ought to be protection, ample and sufficient.

That they may have made other improvements of distinct importance, and that they wish to be fully protected is but probable. These considerations would alone be sufficient to explain their reticence. Further reasons may be their natural disinclination to have experiments, which they still obviously regard as only tentative — " the things they have done but earnest of the things that they will do " — witnessed by a gaping and unsympathetic mob.

How far they have gone in the effort to secure secrecy and prevent premature publication of their
doings has been shown by an incident unearthed by the enterprising M. Coquelle. It appears that the Dayton Daily News had a sensational article already in type last September, describing the Wrights' experiments. It was only with great difficulty that they succeeded at the last moment (for a consideration) in preventing its appearance. M. Coquelle actually obtained. possession of a copy of this suppressed paper, containing the report to which we refer, provided with the following headlines:
— " Victorious Experiments of Flying Machine."
" Wright Aeroplane comes safely to Earth after a Remarkable flight near Dayton."
The whole article was some fifty lines in length, and was illustrated by portraits of the two Wrights. Its
existence surely is the most complete confirmation, if any were needed, of the evidence we have brought forward above.

In any case, whether Governments are generous or stingy, and whether patents have been applied for or not, their unique skill, if they are willing to condescend publicly to exhibit their prowess in Europe or America, ought certainly to ensure them an ample return for the rest of their days. And there is every reason to believe that they also regard the honour of having been the first to solve the problem of the ages, as no small part of the reward they have so justly earned.

- end of article -

For anyone that may be interested in the full edition of "The Automotor Journal - 1906" that this portion was copied from, goto: Full text of "The Automotor Journal: 1st Half 1906"

It's a great read of the breaking technology of the day.


----------



## simplex (May 10, 2016)

Even the flights from Dec. 17, 1903 are not supported by evidence. (1) There is the declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater who said the Wright Brothers had only glided that day. (2) There also exists a well known picture which once magnified reseals (see the image) not so well known details like the visible slope in front of the flyer. Even admitting the photo was taken on Dec. 17, 1903, also it was published for the first time in September 1908, this can not be considered a true flight, as long as gravitation towed the apparatus with a considerable force. 





_1) Detail from the well known picture showing "Flyer I 1903" taking off on Dec. 17, 1903. The slope going down in front of the plane is clearly visible
._




_3) The declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater: "the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their ﬁrst real flight came on May 6, 1908"._


----------



## GrauGeist (May 10, 2016)

simplex said:


> Even the flights from Dec. 17, 1903 are not supported by evidence. (1) There is the declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater who said the Wright Brothers had only glided that day. (2) There also exists a well known picture which once magnified reseals (see the image) not so well known details like the visible slope in front of the flyer. Even admitting the photo was taken on Dec. 17, 1903, also it was published for the first time in September 1908, this can not be considered a true flight, as long as gravitation towed the apparatus with a considerable force.
> 
> View attachment 343135
> _1) Detail from the well known picture showing "Flyer I 1903" taking off on Dec. 17, 1903. The slope going down in front of the plane is clearly visible
> ...


I might point out a few things, first of all, the verified eyewitness accounts of the time takes precedence over 50 year old retrospect.

Secondly, virtually ALL aircraft of those early days needed an means of assist to get airborn. The requirement for powered flight was they they were able to self-propel once aloft and avoid crashing. And it's absolutely no secret that the Wrights took advantage of the slope and a rail system to get airborn.

Perhaps you should take the time to read the two-part article I posted a little earlier that covers their flights in detail. The Automotor Journal was an absolute authority of the day for all things motorized, by the way.


----------



## simplex (May 10, 2016)

*"They carried the machine up on the Hill", John T. Daniels, eye witness*

The fact that Flyer I 1903 just glided, aided partly by the engine, was confirmed apparently unwillingly by John T. Daniels, an eye witness, in a letter addressed to a friend:

"_Manteo_ _NC, June 30 —- 1933,_

_Dear friend,_

_I Don’t know very much to write about the flight. I was there, and it was on Dec the 17, — 1903 about 10 o’clock. They carried the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track, and started the engine … and he went about 100 feet or more, and then Mr. Wilbur taken the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track and he went off across the Beach about a half a mile …_
_Sincerely,_
_John T. Daniels, Manteo NC, Box 1W_"
Source: Eyewitness Account of First Flight by John Daniels

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 10, 2016)

> ...A few words should be added regarding the method of starting adopted. The two guides or supports, which are clearly shown underneath the old aeroplane, and which are preserved in the motor-driven machine, are mounted on the top of a triangular little trolley, which runs on wheels on an ordinary rail. The aeroplane is mounted on this and held steady while the aeronaut assumes his recumbent position. The motor is started, the propellers begin to revolve, and the aeroplane runs down the rail on its carriage, being held straight by an assistant operator for the first few yards, and then as it gathers speed it rises in the air (leaving its carriage behind it) " as easily and gracefully," said one of the eye-witnesses, " as a butterfly."


Full text of "The Automotor Journal: 1st Half 1906"


----------



## simplex (May 10, 2016)

Regarding the eye witnesses, Dayton Daily News wrote on Oct. 6, 1905 an incredible story that talks about many people, including authorities from different towns, who saw the Wrights flying. No name is mentioned. Such a text has zero credibility (and take into account that it is a primary source). Many other journals and newspapers were inspired by this SF article.

*The Flight of a flying Machine*
——
*Was in the Air Twenty-Five Minutes Thursday Afternoon Near Simms Station.*
——
*WRIGHT BROTHERS HAVE PERFECTED INVENTION.*
——
*Have Been Experimenting All Week on the Huffman Prairies, East of Dayton, With Their Aeroplane.*
——
*LARGE PARTY SEES TESTS.*
——
*The Inventors and Builders of the Machine Have Built a Shed on the Prairie for Storing the Big Air Ship — Flights Have Startled the Residents of the Neighborhood. Great Interest Manifested.*
——​With improvements innumerable made to their craft, after months of work, Orville and Wilbur Wright, the youthful Dayton inventors, are making a series of flights in the vicinity of Simm’s Station, on the Dayton, Springfield and Urbana electric road, several miles from Dayton. These trials have been undisputedly some of the most successful expeditions that flying machines have ever made.

*Residents of the locality where the experiments have been lately carried on turn out en masse at each ascension*, and predict great results from the enterprise of the two Daytonians.

Likewise, *many from Dayton and a number of authorities from different towns are daily witnesses of the remarkable flights*, and are similarly profuse in their predictions of success.

Thursday afternoon a flight was made, and *according to reliable witnesses*, the machine soared gracefully for some 25 minutes, responding to all demands of the pilot. At the expiration of this time, fear that the machine could not be sustained aloft much longer, a descent was made by one of the inventors.

Every day this week flights have been made, almost, with equal success.

The expectations of the Wright brothers have been decidedly surpassed by their most recent experiments, and they feel that their craft is in the immediate neighborhood of perfection.

The brothers have been experimenting for the past two years. Their first successes attracted wide attention and were chronicled throughout the country.

*Several Dayton people went out to the Huffman prairies Thursday afternoon to witness the trials*. Some time ago the Wright brothers, who are both expert mechanics, conceived the idea of building a flying machine. They made some of their drawings in this city and from here they went to South Carolina to build the machine and try it out. They worked diligently to perfect their plans and finally succeeded in building a machine which would fly.

They gave the machine a severe tryout on one of the long stretches of beach in the south, and *after a stay of over two years!! they returned to Dayton and built a shed on the Huffman prairies*, where they are giving their machine a thorough test.

Source: 1905-10-06, “The Flight of a Flying Machine”, Dayton Daily News, Ohio, US, October 6, 1905, Scrapbook - Library of Congress, US.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 10, 2016)

If you had taken the time to read what I posted earlier, you would have seen a great many names of witnesses, including a judge. A judge would most certainly have a great deal of credibility.

So why are you trying so hard to discredit something that has been confirmed by official aeronautical associations and other established authorities over the past century?

And your highlights indicating "nameless" people is no different than seeing an event on the news - does the reporter contact each and every person seen in the crowd during the telecast? No.
Do they contact a few people who may have been directly involved or in direct proximity? Yes.

The Automotor Journal covered all of that in great detail and like I mentioned earlier, were a difinitive source of reliable information for the industry.


----------



## simplex (May 11, 2016)

Those witnesses of the Wright brothers are highly dubious men and if you take them one by one you discover that they are not disinterested people. For example, on Dec. 3, 1905, Orville Wright took Weaver, the brother in law of Lahm (american balloonist living in Paris who was trying to verify the claims of the brothers), to the farmer Stauffer who had rented the farm that included the pasture where the two brothers were testing their planes. The story of Stauffer sounds like coming from a Joules Verne novel and you immediately suspect he was paid to lie. The Wrights were his subtenants. There were commercial relations between them. 

*"Nous sommes allés* ensuite chez *le fermier Stauffer* qui demeure un kilomètre plus loin. C’est le vrai type de fermier américain, bavard, au visage enjoué. *Il a en bail la ferme où se trouve le champ d’expériences*. Le 5 octobre, il travaillait dans le champ à côte, où le terrain est plus élevé que le pré. Lorsqu'il a remarque l’aéroplane en l’air, il disait a l’homme qui l’aidait: « Voilà les Wright qui recommencent », et il continuait son travail, mais, en même temps, avec un œil sur l’immense oiseau blanc qui suivait sa course autour du champ. « Je continuais toujours mon travail, ajouta-t-il, jusqu'à ce que j’arrive à la barrière, la sacrée chose tournait toujours, je croyais qu’elle ne s’arrêterait jamais ». Je lui ai demande combien de temps il pensait que le vol avait duré, et il m’a répondu que cela lui semblait bien avoir duré une heure."

Source: 1905-12-31, “Nouveaux Détails sur les Frères Wright et Leur Aéroplane”, L’Auto, Paris, December 31, 1905.

The initial text was in English but was translated by Lahm for the french public.


----------



## Marcel (May 11, 2016)

Everything from that era sounds like it comes from a Jules Verne novell. Language and culture has changed much in 100 years. 

But wether you are right or not, fact is that when the Wrights came to Europe, they were clearly ahead of everyone here in 1908.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

So I assume that you (once again) have not read the article from the Automotor Journal.

It seems to me that you don't want to accept the truth and are trying very hard to work around it.

So I think we should stop at this point and see who it is, that you "think" was the first, Simplex...some Frenchman perhaps?

Or perhaps that Whitehead and his mysterious flying canoe?


----------



## Marcel (May 11, 2016)

Oef, nationalism comes into play, now we should start taking cover 

You know, Dave, actually who is "first" is irrelevant. It depends much on what you want to accept as the definition of flight. One could say for instance Maxim was earlier than the Wrights, after all he flew a powered aircraft at 10cm for a couple of seconds.
Fact is that the Wrights inspired many aviation enthousiasts, especially in France, which made that the development of aviation gained momentum, resulting in very practical aircraft within a couple of years. This you cannot say of any other contester to the title "first".


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

I am beginning to suspect the very same, Marcel.

The Wrights did solve alot of problems and opened the door to practical powered flight. Their exploits are very well documented, many nations jumped at the chance to have a Wright Flyer and learn how they were used.

That initself says volumes about who was "first" in powered flight, honestly.

But as with any technology, they were quickly overtaken by new advances...especially during the "great war" which came soon after their time in the limelight.


----------



## Marcel (May 11, 2016)

The in first manned flight were the Mongolfier brothers in their balloon. 
The first in manned, powered flight was probably Henri Giffard, flying a steam powered airship
The first in manned, powered, heavier-than-air flight was Clemend Adler who flew about 50 meters in his Avion.
The first manned, powered, heavier-than-air, controlled flight were in my opinion the Wright brothers.

You see, the French contributed a lot to aviation, before and after the Wright brothers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

Marcel said:


> ...You see, the French contributed a lot to aviation, before and after the Wright brothers.


Which explains why Coquelle was in so adamant to see the Wright flyer!


----------



## stona (May 11, 2016)

I have now read all the articles by Robert Coquelle to which a link was provided.There is no evidence in it that Coquelle did not believe that the Wrights had achieved what they claimed. Indeed Coquelle assures us at the end of the second article that in the next one we will see that he has found _'temoignage probants',_ which I can only translate as 'convincing testimony' to the flights.

Simplex started this debate by misunderstanding, and quoting without context, the French article. Maybe he assumed nobody else here could read French. If the intention was to argue that Coquelle reported that the flights were a bluff and that the Wrights never achieved what they claimed, and in the process took their contemporaries for fools, then I can assure all those who don't read French that the reverse is true.

Having found and bought a copy of the special edition of the Dayton Daily News, Coquelle and Johnson set off to find witnesses. Subsequently the sub-headline of the fourth article contains the phrase _'Le doute n'est plus permis !' _Surely I don't need to translate that 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 11, 2016)

Glad you read that stuff Steve, although I have a French name, my French is not as fluent as it once was. It would take me some time to read it. Thanks.


----------



## stona (May 11, 2016)

Marcel said:


> Glad you read that stuff Steve, although I have a French name, my French is not as fluent as it once was. It would take me some time to read it. Thanks.



Language is a funny thing! I spent several years living and working in France and became quite fluent in French. Now, with lack of practice, I still find no difficulty in understanding written French or the spoken language. I can happily watch a film or television programme in French. I do however struggle to be as fluent when I speak the language myself and past experience has shown that this can take at least a couple of weeks of being in France (or any other Francophone nation) to overcome. When speaking, at first, I find myself translating in my head, whereas when listening the understanding is intuitive. It takes a while for the brain to re-wire to another language. The older I get the longer it takes!!!!!

I once had the unenviable task on an Anglo-French project of being the unofficial translator, as well as doing my 'proper' job. I spent most of my time trying to translate jokes, and that is very, very difficult indeed 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## simplex (May 11, 2016)

That January 6, 1906 article that appeared in The Automotor Journal, London, highly distorts the real message of Robert Coquelle who simply made fun of the Wright brothers, titling the fourth and last part of his article (Dec, 26, 1905, L'Auto):

"A la prairie Huffman. — Interview de quelques témoins. ... — Une ascension *d’une heure 40* s’est terminée par une *descente rapide au milieu de petits cochons noirs*. — *Le doute n’est plus permis!*"​
Coquelle writes about an 1 h 40 min flight ended with a landing in the middle of a group of small black pigs and finally he jokes concluding that doubts are no longer permitted.

The Automotor Journal misinterpreted the story of Coquelle, the simple joke "*Le doute n’est plus permis!*" being taken as a serious conclusion. 

"L’Auto ... dispatched a representative, Coquelle, to Dayton, Ohio, to investigate matters on the spot, and this investigator has furnished to his paper a detailed account, the perusal of which goes far towards *removing any doubt* as to the substantial correctness of all the claims that have been made on behalf of the two brilliant experimenters"
Source, 1906-01-06, "THE “WHITE FLYER." ——THE MOTOR-DRIVEN AEROPLANE OF THE BROTHERS WRIGHT", The Automotor Journal, pp. 17-20.


----------



## simplex (May 11, 2016)

Regarding the superiority of the Wright planes, this is a myth. W. Wright appeared in August 1908, in France, with a plane that could not take off using its own on board means and which was powered by a Bariquand & Marre engine. The duration records the two brothers established in France and US (autumn 1908) were due to the reliability of this french motor not to other factors.

Read, "_Aviation in US. Seven french engines for the Wright brothers, L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127_" (L'Aérophile ) which says that the french company "Barriquaud-Mare" had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and "_Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23, 1908_ (Progress of the Wright Aeroplane Experiments [Scientific American, 1908] ) that also talks about french engines.

*As a conclusion*, The Wright brothers contributed nothing to the progress of powered flight up to 1908. The aviation appeared without them in 1906.
Even admitting they flew in 1903 (also there is no evidence to support this claim), as long as they constantly refused to publish any technical drawings or pictures of their powered planes, the two brothers from Dayton can not pretend their work inspired other inventors.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

I am starting to see a little French flag waving here, which is very unfortunate.

As far as the Wright's engine is concerned, the first engine used, was an aluminum block engine made by their mechanic, Charles Taylor in 1903. It may have been a very simple, low power design, but it proved to be well-suited to their needs.

The Wrights also developed a propeller that produced 75% efficiency, peaking at 82%...a feature that set the standard for aviation.

The French contributed a great deal to aviation, but trying to erase other's contributions in order to make yours look better is actually an embarrassment to all those pioneers and makes you look very small-minded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 11, 2016)

simplex said:


> That January 6, 1906 article that appeared in The Automotor Journal, London, highly distorts the real message of Robert Coquelle who simply made fun of the Wright brothers, titling the fourth and last part of his article (Dec, 26, 1905, L'Auto):
> ​"A la prairie Huffman. — Interview de quelques témoins. ... — Une ascension *d’une heure 40* s’est terminée par une *descente rapide au milieu de petits cochons noirs*. — *Le doute n’est plus permis!*"



This is nonsense and is becoming rather boring. You can't keep taking fragments of the articles out of context to support an argument which cannot be supported by the larger text.
The incident with the pigs was simply a description of a flight from one of the eye witnesses ( a farmer described rather oddly as a 'gentlemen' [sic] ) and not some invention of Coquelle's in order to make fun of the Wrights.


"Il est enthousiasmé par les expériences des frères Wright, mais il déclare qu’à aucun prix il ne consentirait à prendre leur place sur la poutre armée. L’ascension dont il a gardé le meilleur souvenir aurait, paraît-il, duré 1 h. 40 m. Une fausse manœuvre aurait même amené une descente assez rapide de l’appareil, non loin de la ferme, au beau milieu d’un troupeau de petits cochons noirs. Notre interlocuteur ajoute que tout le monde aux environs était convaincu de la réussite des inventeurs et qu’on n’a pas manifesté une trop grande surprise le jour où ils sont presque rentrés dans leur hangar, à leur retour. "

The witness who saw the near disastrous encounter with the pigs was himself, understandably, not about to go flying for any money. It was, again unsurprisingly, the flight which he remembered best. The same witness also added that all the local people were convinced of the success of the inventors and were not particularly surprised when they almost flew right back into their hangar on a return flight.

Nobody is denying the influence that the French had on early aviation, but denying the contribution of others is simply a form of jingoism.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 11, 2016)

simplex said:


> Regarding the superiority of the Wright planes, this is a myth. W. Wright appeared in August 1908, in France, with a plane that could not take off using its own on board means and which was powered by a Bariquand & Marre engine. The duration records the two brothers established in France and US (autumn 1908) were due to the reliability of this french motor not to other factors.
> 
> Read, "_Aviation in US. Seven french engines for the Wright brothers, L'Aérophile, Apr. 1, 1908, pag. 127_" (L'Aérophile ) which says that the french company "Barriquaud-Mare" had just delivered seven 40 HP Antoinette like plane engines to the Wright brothers and "_Progress of the Wright airplane experiments", Scientific American, May 23, 1908_ (Progress of the Wright Aeroplane Experiments [Scientific American, 1908] ) that also talks about french engines.
> 
> ...


You don't sound very convincing and I am inclined to agree with graugeist that you're just a French nationalist. Steve, as you may be aware by now can read French just as well and I can read it a little, too. You're looking for sentences to support your silly claim by quoting them out of context. It is not a smart way to discuss, and specially since it is so easy to discover by others. Up until now, you have not presented real evidence for your claim that the wright brothers did not contribute anything.

You're now picking on the engine, while you know very well that the Wright's contribution was not the engine, but the whole set of controles along all axis and the effecienty of their propeller. Even Santos Dumon acknowledged that.


----------



## simplex (May 11, 2016)

Contribution means to make public the results of your work, research, experiments, etc..
If you keep everything for yourself and other people obtain the same results as you and make them public before you, they are considered the real inventors and you remain just a pretender!
Being indulgent and admitting the Wright brothers really flew in 1903, 1904 and 1905, if they showed no power plane before 1908, how can they be considered the fathers of aviation?

Coming back to that January 6, 1906 article that appeared in the Automotor Journal, it is full of misinterpretations. Coquelle did not see any part of the plane. He just made up a funny little story about inspecting, together with a former cyclist from Dayton, the workshop of the brothers. 

"*2. The Evidence on which the Statements are based.*
The campaign of experiment for the year was brought somewhat abruptly to a conclusion with the last great flight of October 5th, ... They accordingly decided to bring their experiments for this year to a conclusion somewhat sooner than they had intended, and dismantled their aeroplane with the view to thoroughly overhauling it and introducing various improvements. *M. Coquelle consequently was unable to see anything more than the parts of the machine which has established these wonderful records*, and had to derive what consolation he might from inspecting the shed from which it had repeatedly issued to its triumphs."
Source: January 6, 1906, The Automotor Journal

Another paragraph, from the same January 6, 1906, Automotor Journal, considered credible the affirmation of the Wright brothers that they flew 66 lbs. per h.p., which further discredits the author of the text.

"As at quite ordinary speeds they find that *it is possible to lift and maintain in the air 66 lbs. per h.p. and very much more at higher speeds*, this is quite credible and shows pretty clearly that as far as mere engine power is concerned, flying has been possible for many years past. It is skilled manipulation of the machinery which has been wanting."

Also, the same article reads, at one point, a nonsense: "*with motive power sufficient to represent the wind*". The formulation "power sufficient to represent the effect of gravitation" can be translated to "power sufficient to produce enough lift" but "to represent the wind" shows serious misunderstandings from the part of the journalist who wrote the text.

"When a machine of this type had proved to be repeatedly capable of performing glides up to nearly 300 yds. in length against a moderate wind by being simply started from the top of a hill, it was obvious that *with motive power sufficient to represent the wind*, and but a little extra power sufficient to represent the effect of gravitation, extended flight would be possible, and that the manipulation and management of the machine would not be greatly different, and this is what practice has proved to be the case."

As a conclusion, there is not too much value in that "The Automotor" article. It is just a compilation of french and american older texts interpreted in an original way.

Even in US, the Wright brothers were not believed, as late as Jan. 13, 1906 (see: *1906-01-13*, “T*he Wright Aeroplane and Its Fabled Performances*”, Scientific American, New York, Munn & Co., January 13, 1906, Vol. XCIV, No. 2, p. 40.)


----------



## Marcel (May 11, 2016)

simplex said:


> Even the flights from Dec. 17, 1903 are not supported by evidence. (1) There is the declaration of Alpheus W. Drinkwater who said the Wright Brothers had only glided that day. (2) There also exists a well known picture which once magnified reseals (see the image) not so well known details like the visible slope in front of the flyer. Even admitting the photo was taken on Dec. 17, 1903, also it was published for the first time in September 1908, this can not be considered a true flight, as long as gravitation towed the apparatus with a considerable force.
> 
> View attachment 343135
> _1) Detail from the well known picture showing "Flyer I 1903" taking off on Dec. 17, 1903. The slope going down in front of the plane is clearly visible
> ...


The slope that you think you see in the photo is not there. If that would have been from the kill devil hill, it would have been a very clear and deep slope. I know, I was recently there the slope that you claim to see, if it is there, is a very shallow dip and clearly not the slope of one of the dunes there. So you're seeing things that are not there and it doesn't help your your credibillity.



simplex said:


> As a conclusion, there is not too much value in that "The Automotor" article. It is just a compilation of french and american older texts *interpreted in an original way.*



Which you should know as you have been doing that for all these posts here


----------



## simplex (May 11, 2016)

*"the drift became a negative quantity", W. Wright, November 16, 1900*

A paragraph that shows how out of touch with the aeronautics of the time W. Wright was:

_We spent quite a large portion of our time in testing the lift and drift of the machine in winds of different velocities, and with various loads. I will not go into this matter deeply just now but will say that in a wind blowing twenty miles per hour the drift of the machine when loaded to bring its weight up to fifty pounds was eight pounds. With the same wind blowing up a hill having a rise of one in twelve the drift was only three or four pounds and on a still steeper hill but with a lighter wind *the drift became a negative quantity* and the machine both rose and made its way against the wind till it lost its balance._
Letter of W. Wright to O. Chanute, November 16, 1900, Source: Dayton, November 16, 1900

The drag (drift) never changed its sign as W. Wright, who did not understand basic physics, believed. He did not realize that the steeper the slope the higher the tangential weight of the kite. At a certain angle of the incline, the tangential weight got so great that it became equal to the drag and the kite started to behave like a glider.


----------



## simplex (May 11, 2016)

*Physical impossibility*: "_We find that the greatest speed over the ground is attained in the flights against the stronger breezes._", Wilbur Wright, August 28, 1904

It is known that *ground speed = airspeed - headwind speed (Vg=Va-Vw)* where the airspeed is constant and independent of the headwind speed, as long as the engine delivers a constant power. In conclusion if the headwind speed grows the ground-speed decreases. It does not get higher.

In 1904, the Wright Brothers started to test a new plane, Flyer II, somewhere near Dayton, Ohio where they managed to get permission to use a flat pasture for their experiments. The winds were light there and, in the beginning, they had no catapult to quickly accelerate their machine and throw it into the air. They simply started the engine of the airplane which began to move along a track (a runway) while a headwind of moderate intensity was blowing and finally they got into the air and flew slower if the headwind speed was lower and faster if the headwind was stronger (see letters 1 and 2) which is a known physical impossibility. _*Only one conclusion can be drawn, the two letters describe imaginary flights and Wilbur Wright was simply bluffing with the intention to convince Octave Chanute and others that he had really flown.*_

*Letter 1:* Fragment from a letter addressed by Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute, on August 8, 1904: 

"_One of the Saturday flights reached 600 ft. ... We have found great difficulty in getting sufficient initial velocity to get real starts. While the new machine lifts at a speed of about 23 miles, it is only after the speed reaches 27 or 28 miles that the resistance falls below the thrust. We have found it practically impossible to reach a higher speed than about 24 miles on a track of available length, and as the winds are mostly very light, and full of lulls in which the speed falls to almost nothing, we often find the relative velocity below the limit and are unable to proceed. ... It is evident that we will have to build a starting device that will render us independent of wind._" 
Source: Page 52 of Octave Chanute Papers: Special Correspondence--Wright Brothers, 1904 | Library of Congress

*Letter 2:* Fragment from the letter written by Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute on August 28, 1904: 

"_Dayton, Ohio, August 28, 1904. Dear Mr Chanute ... ... Since the first of August we have made twenty five starts with the #2 Flyer. The longest flights were 1432 ft., 1304 ft, 1296, ft. and 1260 ft. These are about as long as we can readily make on over present grounds without circling. *We find that the greatest speed over the ground is attained in the flights against the stronger breezes*. We find that our speed at startup is about 29 or 30 ft per second, the last 60 ft of track being covered in from 2 to 2 1/4 seconds. The acceleration toward the end being very little. When the wind averages much below 10 ft per second it is very difficult to maintain flight, because the variations of the wind are such as to reduce the relative speed so low at times that the resistance becomes greater than the thrust of the screws. Under such circumstances the best of management will not insure a long flight, and at the best the speed accelerates very slowly. In one flight of 39 1/4 seconds the average speed over the ground was only 33 ft per second, a velocity only about 3 ft per second greater than that at startup. The wind averaged 12 ft per second. In a flight against a wind averaging 17 ft per second, the average speed over the ground was 42 ft per second, an average relative velocity of 59 ft per second and an indicated maximum velocity of 70 ft per second. We think the machine when in full flight will maintain an average relative speed of at least 45 miles an hour. This is rather more than we care for at present. Our starting apparatus is approaching completion and then we will be ready to start in calms and practice circling. Yours truly Wilbur Wright._" Source: Page 55 of Octave Chanute Papers: Special Correspondence--Wright Brothers, 1904 | Library of Congress

If we apply the formula Vg=Va-Vw where Va = ct., it follows that:

First flight: 
33 fps = 59 fps - 12 fps - Impossible
Second flight: 
42 fps = 59 fps - 17 fps

The real ground speed for the first flight should have been 47 fps not 33 fps, 5 fps greater than in the second case and not 9 fps smaller as W. Wright wrote. 

An airplane flying against the wind is like a boat going upstream. There is absolutely no way for the plane or the boat to gain ground speed from the flow of fluid. No matter what the pilot does, the plane or the boat is slowed down. Regarding the phrase _When the wind averages much below 10 ft per second it is very difficult to maintain flight, because the variations of the wind are such as to reduce the relative speed so low at times that the resistance becomes greater than the thrust of the screws. Under such circumstances the best of management will not insure a long flight_, *this is total nonsense*. 

W. Wright wrongly believed the drag increased with a decrease of the average headwind speed. He was convinced that stronger headwinds helped the plane to gain ground speed and the calm weather was the worst enemy of his plane. W. Wright had in mind an anchored kite when he composed the two letters about imaginary motorized flights "done" in 1904. In the case of a kite the higher the wind speed the higher the lift, the heavier the kite and the better it can fly. However, the kite is in a completely different case. There the thrust, the tension in the cord, automatically increases as the wind picks up and the drag increases. In the situation of a kite the airspeed is the headwind speed while *in the case of a plane the average airspeed is constant and depends only of the engine power, being independent of the average wind speed*. As a general conclusion, the most favorable situation for a plane in flight is headwind speed = 0.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

Simplex, you are not presenting any arguments, you're instead making yourself look like an ass AND wasting our time.

Allow me to present you with two very interesting bits of French aviation history.

1874 - Felix Du Temple; managed to get airborn in a monoplane powered by a steam engine for a short distance - *AFTER ROLLING DOWN A SKI JUMP*.
His acheivement was recorded as such:
- "Félix du Temple, a French naval officer, watched the steam-powered plane he devised speed down a ski-jump-like ramp and sputter through the air with the guileless young sailor at the helm."
- "It is said the craft managed to make a brief hop a few feet off the ground after being rolled down an inclined slope, gliding a short distance, and landing safely. - but the propulsion system was too weak to sustain the flight and the control system was ineffective.
- "It was more of a "hop" than a real flight."
- "Félix Du Temple with his brother, built a monoplane which (accelerated down a slope) staggered briefly into the air"

Hmm...a slope? This sounds remarkably familiar.

Ferdinand Ferber, who was known for building poorly constructed copies of the 1901 Wright glider and was an outspoken critic of the Wright Brothers, exclaiming to Chanute: "The aeroplane must not be allowed to reach successful achievement in America". It wasn't long after that, when he attempted to purchase a Wright Flyer from the Wright brothers in 1905, but they declined his offer. It may be noted that Ferber was wanting to purchase the Wright Flyer, not a glider, because he was aware of their flights. Interestingly enough, he was killed in 1909 while attempting to fly Voisin's flyer.

It also might be noted that Chanute was well aware of the Wright's many flights and was in attendance during many of their trials and powered flights between 1900 and 1903. He was also well aware of how they tried to keep their control methods secret and thought that the Wrights were wasting their time with the many expensive lawsuits regarding the control patents.
In Chanute's own words:
"I admire the Wrights. I feel friendly toward them for the marvels they have achieved; but you can easily gauge how I feel concerning their attitude at present by the remark I made to Wilbur Wright recently. I told him I was sorry to see they were suing other experimenters and abstaining from entering the contests and competitions in which other men are brilliantly winning laurels. I told him that in my opinion they are wasting valuable time over lawsuits which they ought to concentrate in their work. Personally, I do not think that the courts will hold that the principle underlying the warping tips can be patented."


----------



## simplex (May 11, 2016)

Octave Chanute discredited himself, in a letter to Captain Ferber, claiming he saw the Wright brothers flying but not saying when and in the same time minimizing the importance of the flight, calling it *petite envolée, *to have more credibility. Chanute teamed up with the brothers trying to give weight to their lies. Why he did this? Because, as W. Wright remarked in 1910, Chanute wanted to be considered the mentor of the two brothers and the real brain behind their planes.
_Chicago_, _Ill_., 9 _novembre_ 1905
Cher capitaine Ferber,
Je viens de recevoir votre lettre du 26 octobre. Je crois que vous pouvez octroyer toute confiance à ce que les Wright vous ont écrit de leurs accomplissements (_sic_). *Je n’ai vu, de mes yeux, qu’une petite envolée d’un demi-kilomètre*, mais ils m’ont mandé leurs progrès de semaine en semaine et leurs amis intimes qui ont vu les longs parcours du commencement d’octobre, m’ont confirmé verbalement la semaine dernière, quand j’étais à Dayton, pour voir une envolée projetée de 60 kil. en une heure, qui n’a pu avoir lieu par raison d’un grand orage.
Les Wright se sont inspirés de l’exemple de la France qui a tenu secrets ses progrès de ballons dirigeables depuis 1885. Ils se sont arrangés avec leurs journaux à Dayton. Il y a bien eu une indiscrétion et un article publié, mais sa circulation a été supprimée.
Les Wright devaient vous écrire vers le 4 novembre.
Agréez, cher monsieur, l’expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.
(_Signé_) : O. CHANUTE.

Chanute was dishonest and ambiguous. He always left an open door, he could have used had the brothers been demonstrated as liars, like in the article you can read below: 

*1906-04-14*, Octave Chanute, “Chanute on the Wright Brothers’ Achievement in Aerial Navigation”, Scientific American, New York, Munn & Co., April 14, 1906, Vol. XCIV, No. 15, p. 307.
*"Chanute on the Wright Brothers’ Achievement in Aerial Navigation.*
To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:
Upon my return last evening from a ten days’ trip to New Orleans I received your letter of 19th and telegram of 29th instant, asking me for a verification of the statement in the Illustrirte Aeronautische Mitteilungen, that I witnessed a flight of about half a kilometer by the aeroplane machine of the Wright brothers.
This is quite true. The Wright brothers have for the past two years been in possession of a successful flying machine driven by a motor, to my certain knowledge, and have been gradually perfecting it.
On the 15th of October, 1904, I witnessed a flight of 1,377 feet performed in 23 4-5 seconds, starting from level ground and sweeping over about one-quarter of a circle, at a speed of 39 miles per hour. The wind blew at some six miles per hour, but in a diagonal direction to the initial course. After the machine had gone some 500 feet and risen some 15 feet, a gust of wind struck under the right-hand side and raised the apparatus to an oblique inclination of 15 to 20 degrees. The operator, who was Orville Wright, endeavored to recover an even transverse keel, was unable to do so while turning to the left, and concluded to alight. This was done in flying before the wind instead of square against it as usual, and the landing was made at a speed of 45 to 50 miles an hour. One side of the machine struck the ground first; it slewed around and was broken, requiring about one week for repairs. The operator was in no wise hurt. This was flight No. 71 of that year (1904), and on the preceding day Wright brothers had made three flights — one of 4,001 feet for less than a full circuit of the field, one of 4,903 feet covering a full circle, and one of 4,936 feet over rather more than a full circuit, alighting safely.
The illness of a near relative, who had to be taken to the seashore, prevented me from being present at the greatly longer flights of September and October, 1905, but I visited Dayton in November, on my return, and verified the absolute accuracy of the statements which the Wrights have since made, over their own signatures, to the Aérophile of Paris and to the Aero Club of New York. There is no question in my mind about the fact that they have solved the problem of man-flight by dynamic means.
Believing that this solution had a money value, they have, until recently, preserved whatever secrecy they could, particularly when those who chanced to learn of their experiments made inquiries as to the construction and details of their apparatus; but since the French papers have published that negotiations were pending for the use of their machine, they have given some particulars of their performances. As the first use will be in war, it is my belief that the various purchasers will desire to preserve such secrecy as may be practicable concerning the further developments.
In addition to the great feat of inventing a practical flying machine the Wright brothers have, in my judgment, performed another improbable feat by keeping knowledge of the construction of a machine, which can only be operated in the open, from the incredulous but Argus-eyed American press.
I send you a page cut from The Car of London, which may prove of interest. The Aérophile of Paris for December, 1905, and January, 1906, contains fuller accounts.
O. CHANUTE.
Chicago, Ill., March 31, 1906.
———
Despite claiming he witnessed “a flight of 1,377 feet performed in 23 4-5 seconds”, on “the 15th of October, 1904”, O. Chanute ends his letter with an ironic phrase:
“*In addition to the great feat of inventing a practical flying machine the Wright brothers have, in my judgment, performed another improbable feat by keeping knowledge of the construction of a machine, which can only be operated in the open, from the incredulous but Argus-eyed American press.*”
The two inventors from Dayton made a practical plane, flew with it numerous times but in the same time managed to hide their apparatus from the curious eye of the press, which in the opinion of Chanute was a feat as unlikely as flying a heavier than air machine. Had Chanute really seen O. Wright flying half a kilometer he would not have made such a satirical statement.


----------



## simplex (May 11, 2016)

> you are not presenting any arguments


I am afraid you did not read my post referring to the two letters written by W. Wright to O. Chanute in August 1904. Go back to that post and read it carefully.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

I'm afraid you haven't provided anything nor quoted anything that supports your case.

You're simply wasting our time, perhaps you would feel more comfortable in a high-school debate class that *may* support your revisionist dreams...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2016)

Rene Fonck shot down the Red Baron to avenge the death of Georges Guynemer.


----------



## Graeme (May 12, 2016)

Ahhh......Simplex. Still pushing the "They Just Glided" theory I see. 

We met on PPRuNe nearly 2 years ago. After 35 pages the moderator finally stepped in and ended it....

The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908. - PPRuNe Forums


----------



## Marcel (May 12, 2016)

simplex said:


> *"They carried the machine up on the Hill", John T. Daniels, eye witness*
> 
> The fact that Flyer I 1903 just glided, aided partly by the engine, was confirmed apparently unwillingly by John T. Daniels, an eye witness, in a letter addressed to a friend:
> 
> ...



Let me put there what the website you quote says as a remark to this letter:


> Here is his letter to a friend describing what he saw just as he wrote it. The letter was written 20 years after the famous event and Daniels *confused some of the events that occurred on Dec. 17th with events that occurred on the 14th. The coin toss he describes occurred on the 14th.*


Eyewitness Account of First Flight by John Daniels

With other words this account is not reliable. Yes, the Wrights flew from the Hill *on 14th december* as confirmed by the brothers themselves. You just easily ignored that didn't you? Would you please get the hell out of this thread?

Simplex is just full of it.


The link Gaeme provides tells all...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2016)

I'm going to mimic the moderator from the site posted by Gaeme.

Thanks for locking this Chris!

_*"I am seeing a case here of if it 'ain't want I (ME) believe' it cannot be right. That is clearly crass. Not even Mr Crouch who has been close enough to the facts, the site, and with the history in written terms before him and, who knows, other factors that the photographs prove to be inconclusive - though others don't *_


_*The one above shows that the horizon is not 'level' - it shows that the wings are not level. Both allow for deceptive matters to creep in. Little, but then photographs do lie!*_


_*Whatever. This subject is going round in circles with simplex1 almost insisting that his take is spot on. I don't agree and neither does Mr Crouch. It is, therefore, a matter of what the museum thinks of it and I know who my money is on.*_


_*It is a matter of corroborated record of what happened so who are we to try and change history.*_


_*The matter is over gentlemen. The end was in sight some days ago and that is where it stops. Thanks all the same."*_

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (May 15, 2016)

All begins from Leonardo da Vinci’s “Codice sul volo degli uccelli” _“Book about how byrds fly”_









and subsequent drawings








Otto Lilienthal machines are clearly inspired from those of Leonardo and the Wright brothers clearly understood that the accident that cost Lilienthal's life was the lack of lateral control










and warping the wing tips for lateral control was then widespread






until appeared some primitive ailerons with Santos Dumont








and Glen Curtiss










but was Henri Farman to “invent” the aileron as we know it today.






As many inventions, it was made from step to step


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2016)

Don't forget the Taube which carried the theory that a bird-shaped aircraft would be the most efficient and is perhaps the closest design to an actual bird that any successful aircraft design managed to get.

It also used wing-warping as a means of control instead of ailerons (the original Etrich and Rumpler version out of the many types produced by many manufacturers)

Even more impressive, is that it was actually put into military service for a time.


----------



## Elmas (May 15, 2016)

Tenente Giulio Gavotti






(17 October 1882 – 6 October 1939), in a Taube, set two firsts in the history of aviation: he was the first man to make an aerial bombardment from an aeroplane and as well as the first to perform a night mission in the Italo-Turkish war, Lybia, 1911.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2016)

Didn't Gavotti also attack a warship by throwing two bombs at it by hand?


----------



## Elmas (May 16, 2016)

No, Gavotti dropped four "Granate Cippelli" on a Turkish troop camp. In a very dangerous ( for him, of course....) way.....


----------



## nuuumannn (May 17, 2016)

> but was Henri Farman to “invent” the aileron as we know it today.



No, sorry Elmas, it was Robert Esault Pelterie, not 'On Ree Far Man.

Robert Esnault-Pelterie | French aviation pioneer

Also, the 14bis wasn't fitted with 'ailerons'; they were more like spoilers that disrupted the flow of air round the wing - in the event they had little effect on the aircraft's course. The 14bis was not controllable about three axes of movement, hence the claims of first flights perpetuated by Brazilians don't qualify for sustained controlled powered flight.


----------



## pbehn (May 18, 2016)

The fact that Flyer I 1903 just glided, aided partly by the engine, was confirmed apparently unwillingly by John T. Daniels, an eye witness, in a letter addressed to a friend:


I am not an expert but I have spent years watching aeroplanes fly, none of them move an inch down the runway without the engines running. The first Wright flyer performed as well as any bi plane with a 14BHP motor could be expected to.

Regarding wing warping wiki says this "
Along with five other European aircraft builders, from 1910, Blériot was involved in a five-year legal struggle with the Wright Brothers over the latter's wing warping patents. The Wrights' claim was dismissed in the French and the German courts.[31]"

Maybe this could have affected some designers choices?


----------



## Elmas (May 18, 2016)

A History of Aerodynamics
See page 364.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 22, 2016)

Can't see that page unfortunately. What is the author's source? There is plenty of information about Robert Esnault Pelterie out there that contradicts that statement, for example:

"The pioneering U.S. aeronautical engineer Octave Chanute published descriptions and drawings of the Wright brothers' 1902 glider in the leading aviation periodical of the day, _L'Aérophile_, in 1903. This prompted Esnault-Pelterie, a French military engineer, to build a Wright-style glider in 1904 that used ailerons in lieu of wing warping.[4] The French journal _L’Aérophile_ then published photos of the ailerons on Esnault-Pelterie’s glider which were included in his June 1905 article, and its ailerons were widely copied afterward.[7][14][15]"

From here: Aileron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"After studying engineering at the Sorbonne in Paris, Esnault-Pelterie built his first glider, a very rough copy of the Wright glider of 1902 but constructed without an understanding of the Wright brothers’ control system. As a result, he abandoned the attempt to fly the glider with a wing-warping system and became the first flying-machine pioneer to make use of ailerons, moveable surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing, to maintain lateral control."

From here:

Robert Esnault-Pelterie | French aviation pioneer

This page lists reference sources about REP, including several that state he 'invented' the aileron, which, of course he did not, (see here "The aileron was first patented by the British scientist and inventor Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1868, based on his 1864 paper _On Aërial Locomotion_." from Aileron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) although he was the first to fit it to a man-carrying aircraft.

The Pioneers : An Anthology : Robert Esnault-Pelterie (1881-1957)


----------



## Elmas (May 23, 2016)




----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 4, 2016)

Oh well, Elmas, might relent and give you that, but Farman certainly didn't invent the aileron, nor was he the first to use it.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2016)

James W. said:


> So which came 1st, 3D active coordinated control surfaces on aeroplanes, airships, or torpedo/submarines?



The latter two work differently to ailerons, which deflect differentially; the left goes up while the right goes down and vice versa, whereas on airships and torpedoes, the horizontal surfaces worked as elevators, both in synch with each other. To turn, the vehicles used rudder.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 2, 2016)

No worries James, although I think the most modern subs with X configured fins might have differential control surfaces. You might be right regarding subs with Albacore hulls, they _might_ have differential fins, but certainly not earlier submersibles like your traditional U-boats etc.


----------



## simplex (Jul 30, 2017)

The ailerons were first patented by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1868. They are not the invention of the Wright brothers.

This case was closed long ago.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2017)

And here we go again...


----------



## pbehn (Jul 30, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And here we go again...


Adler it is nothing but spam, no reference to the original post or even the thread title. I would love to know what these two long since dead men ever did to produce such bile in 2017.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2017)

Well that is taken care of. In this thread at least...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 27, 2018)

A very good book is David McCullough's biography of the Wrights. He goes into great detail about wing warping. What stood the Wrights apart was they approached the idea of flight scientifically. Used experimentation and data to refine the development.


----------

