Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which explains why Coquelle was in so adamant to see the Wright flyer!...You see, the French contributed a lot to aviation, before and after the Wright brothers.
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.
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!"
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.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.
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.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".
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.
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 are not presenting any arguments