why didn't the Wright brothers think of ailerons?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!"
Click to expand...

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
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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, "The Wright Aeroplane and Its Fabled Performances", Scientific American, New York, Munn & Co., January 13, 1906, Vol. XCIV, No. 2, p. 40.)
 
Last edited:
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
.
View attachment 343136
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".
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Which you should know as you have been doing that for all these posts here
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
Last edited:
you are not presenting any arguments
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Dronescapes
Aviation Pioneers. Glenn H. Curtiss And The Wright Brothers. The History Of Flight
Replies
1
Views
719
Gnomey
Gnomey
Elvis
First film of an airplane flying
Replies
9
Views
769
Marcel
Marcel
A
Utility of French naval balloons during Napoleonic War?
Replies
5
Views
1K
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
S
The Wright brothers’ patents (full text) and their low importance for aviation
Replies
3
Views
1K
Marcel
Marcel
The Basket
Should the British Empire supported the CSA?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
7K
swampyankee
swampyankee
Back