Wright brothers' witnesses. Recent discovery!

[stona]

Now you are clutching at straws.
I look at a lot of contemporary WW2 documents, and if I had a pound for every mistaken date I could retire to a tropical island with a pina colada and a page three model.
Many diaries, of all types are written up retrospectively, as are many other records. This, and errors in transcription, are the principal reasons that mistakes are made.
Sometimes it's just human error. How many cheques written in January are dated with the previous year?

BTW, you didn't answer my question. 'To a certain extent'? What is that supposed to mean? Either he believed they made a powered flight, or he did not.

Cheers

Steve

 

[simplex]

Had Chanute been convinced the Wrights had flown he would not have said in a talk: "the Wright brothers, whose flying machine is said to have been successfully tested on the 17th of December.". It is evident Chanute had some doubts.

Octave Chanute to Wilbur Wright
Chicago, January 1, 1904

I duly received your telegram and very interesting letter in Cincinnati. I suppose you were apprehensive that if you had given an account of your performance, it might have led to requests for pictures, descriptions, or methods.
I did not mention you by name till nearly the close of my talk. Then, after pointing out the paradox that one must have skill in managing it before he attempts to ride on a flying machine, I said. "This was the kind of practical proficiency acquired by the Wright brothers, whose flying machine is said to have been successfully tested on the 17th of December. For three years they experimented with gliding machines, which will be described further on, and it was only after they had obtained thorough command of their movements in the air that they ventured to add a motor. "How they accomplished this must be reserved for them to explain, and they are not ready to make known the construction
of their machine nor its mode of operation. ..."

 

[pbehn]

The discussion is purely academic as it is based on a definition or test of "powered flight". The Wrights were satisfied with their first effort and so built another, better one and then another. I cannot see any merit or reason to discredit what they did. When it comes to "evidence" the picture you posted shows the policeman's leg blurred because it was moving yet the plane is in crisp focus.

 

[stona]

Had Chanute been convinced the Wrights had flown he would not have said in a talk: "the Wright brothers, whose flying machine is said to have been successfully tested on the 17th of December.". It is evident Chanute had some doubts.

It is evidence that he didn't witness the flight himself.

Cheers

Steve

 

[simplex]

Two physical impossibilities reported by Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute:

1) "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. ", Wilbur Wright, August 8, 1904

The plane lifted at 23 mph having the Thrust smaller than the Drag all the time (no catapult was used)!

2) "We find that the greatest speed over the ground is attained in the flights against the stronger breezes.", Wilbur Wright, August 28, 1904

The reality is that a headwind slows down a plane and this is exactly the opposite of what W. Wright claimed he had measured.

Only one conclusion can be drawn, the two letters describe imaginary flights and Wilbur Wright was simply bluffing (unfortunately for him using misconceptions, wrong beliefs, not good physics and math) 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

Attention: The flights Wilbur Wright talked about in his August 8 and 28 letters to Octave Chanute (see were done close to Dayton Ohio, at a few meters above a flat pasture. No catapult was used.

Wilbur Wright did not know that the airspeed of a plane is independent of the wind-speed

The elder of the two brothers had a logbook for keeping track of the lies transmitted with the help of his letters to Octave Chanute and others. In this notebook, at page 8, with flight data about alleged flights performed on August 13, 1904, Wilbur wrote the same figures as in the August 28, 1904, text addressed to O. Chanute but in a more organised manner.

This is what he recorded and calculated (see the attached picture):

Flight 28 (second flight of August 13, 1904)
Av wind = 12.2 fps
Speed = 33.2 fps
Rel. Speed = 45.4 fps

Flight 29 (third flight of August 13, 1904)
Av wind = 17 fps
Speed = 42 fps
Rel. Speed = 59 fps

Flight 30 (fourth flight of August 13, 1904)
Av wind = 14 fps
Speed = 35 fps
Rel. Speed = 49 fps

Remark: The wind-speed was measured with a ground anemometer and the ground-speed of the plane was calculated from the flight time and the distance traveled across the pasture.

As you can see, for each of the three flights, W. Wright correctly applied the formula:

Ground Speed = Relative Speed - Wind Speed

However, he missed the fact that the relative speed (the airspeed) must be the same for all flights because a plane moving in a block of air traveling in a certain direction has no means to know that the air is moving. The plane always sees itself as traveling in calm air (no wind).

Relative Speed= ct (This is what W. Wright did not know when he did the math for his imaginary flights of August 13, 1908)

If you look at the three trials mentioned above you will see that instead of going down, with an increase of the headwind-speed, the ground-speed was also growing!!

Source: Page 6 of Diaries and Notebooks: 1904-1905, Wilbur Wright
(The 1904-1905 Notebook of Wilbur Wright)

Definitely what Wilbur wrote in his logbook and in the August 28, 1904, letter to O. Chanute is a proven fraud. He simply could not have obtained three different air-speeds for three distinct headwind-speeds had he and his brother really flown a powered plane.

 

[pbehn]

It is evidence that he didn't witness the flight himself.

Cheers

Steve

In the days before TV, video and youtube people were guarded about what they knew for a fact and what they had heard or been informed of.

 

[pbehn]

Oh good heavens Simplex. A wind speed indicator even today is just that an indicator, they are not accurate and only measure it at one point. The windspeed anywhere changes everywhere all the time (watch the Olympics in a sheltered stadium) even a few feet off the ground it changes as anyone who ever worked on any refinery knows.

There is an error in your assumption because the aircraft has to remain in the air. In a low head wind the aircraft may have to have a high drag, high angle of attack to provide the lift. A higher headwind could provide enough lift just by smooth airflow over the aerofoils leaving more available thrust to move forward. As previously stated this is extremely marginal low powered flight, they were always on the edge of stalling. The Wrights chosen configuration, with elevator in front of the fuselage maximised lift from what later became mainly just a control surface.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I suppose the photos of the Wright's 1904 flights were fake as well.

 

[simplex]

A plane, flying in a block of air (headwind, tailwind, lateral wind, etc.) that moves in a certain direction, is unaware the wind blows. The plane believes it flies in still air. The plane is like a boat going upstream, downstream or crossing a river. The relative speed of the boat is always constant.

There is absolutely no way to increase the airspeed recorded by a plane by flying with or against the wind.

 

[stona]

Sigh

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There is absolutely no way to increase the airspeed recorded by a plane by flying with or against the wind.

If you have any excess thrust or drag reduction your airspeed will increase.

Do you hold at least a PPL?

 

[simplex]

The pictures of the alleged 1903-1905 powered flights were first published in September 1908, after the August 1908 flights of W. Wright in France.

THE CENTURY MAGAZINE
SEPTEMBER, 1908, No. 5

THE WRIGHT BROTHERS' AEROPLANE
BY ORVILLE AND WILBUR WRIGHT
WITH PICTURES FROM PHOTOGRAPHS SUPPLIED BY THE AUTHORS​

See: https://www.libraries.wright.edu/special/wrightbrothers/packet/centurymagazine.pdf

What can be said with certitude is that the photos were either made of faked before September 1908 or before the actual precise date the magazine's issue No. 5 appeared.

Had the Wrights published them in 1903 - 1905 their credibility would have been much greater.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The pictures of the alleged 1903-1905 powered flights were first published in September 1908, after the August 1908 flights of W. Wright in France.

THE CENTURY MAGAZINE
SEPTEMBER, 1908, No. 5

THE WRIGHT BROTHERS' AEROPLANE
BY ORVILLE AND WILBUR WRIGHT
WITH PICTURES FROM PHOTOGRAPHS SUPPLIED BY THE AUTHORS​

See: https://www.libraries.wright.edu/special/wrightbrothers/packet/centurymagazine.pdf

What can be said with certitude is that the photos were either made of faked before September 1908 or before the actual precise date the magazine's issue No. 5 appeared.

Had the Wrights published them in 1903 - 1905 their credibility would have been much greater.

Again, the BS flag is raised. In 1904 is has been more than established that the Wrights conducted flights in their 2nd aircraft on the site that is now Wright Patterson AFB. To say these 100+ year old photos were faked is just utter and complete nonsense as they (like many photos in this national archives) have been examined and vetted.

 

[pbehn]

The pictures of the alleged 1903-1905 powered flights were first published in September 1908, after the August 1908 flights of W. Wright in France.

THE CENTURY MAGAZINE
SEPTEMBER, 1908, No. 5

THE WRIGHT BROTHERS' AEROPLANE
BY ORVILLE AND WILBUR WRIGHT
WITH PICTURES FROM PHOTOGRAPHS SUPPLIED BY THE AUTHORS​

See: https://www.libraries.wright.edu/special/wrightbrothers/packet/centurymagazine.pdf

What can be said with certitude is that the photos were either made of faked before September 1908 or before the actual precise date the magazine's issue No. 5 appeared.

Had the Wrights published them in 1903 - 1905 their credibility would have been much greater.

And if I had made a flight in 1903 but hadn't any patents or production agreements I wouldn't publish any photos either, It is quite clear reading these letters and even in Wikipedia the Wrights didn't want their ideas stolen, with good reason. The first Wright flier flew in a very limited fashion, it was actually a controlled stall, the third flier carried a passenger and was something the Wrights could take to market, which they did. History is full of people who invented things and made no money at all out of their invention.

 

[pbehn]

Did the Wrights diaries record anywhere that they thought Chanute was a nosey interfering pain in the @ss, obviously demanding proof and information for his own ends?

 

[simplex]

Another example of zero evidence that a flight performed by one of the two brothers really happened.

This is the letter sent to the Wrights by Amos Ives Root, 48 hours after Root allegedly saw Wilbur Wright flying in a circuit. (In the January 1, 1905, issue of his periodical Root claimed he had seen Wilbur flying on September 20, 1904.)

Is this a letter written by somebody who had witnessed the first flight in a circuit ever performed by a man carrying airplane? There is absolutely no reference to any flight seen by Root two days before. He just wanted to write an article about the two brothers that he personally met in the summer of 1904.

1904-09-22, A. I. Root, "Letter to Wilbur and Orville Wright", September 22, 1904, 1 page, Library of Congress, US.

The A. I. Root Co. MANUFACTURERS OF Bee-Keepers Supplies.​

Wright Cycle Company,
Dayton, Ohio.

Dear Friends:-
Enclosed clipping was just mailed me from a relative in Xenia, Ohio. Now, if everybody else is putting you into the papers, what harm will it do for me to give you a little write-up that has already been submitted to your inspection? I have already dictated what I would like to say and will try to mail it to you to-day or to-morrow. I do not know the date of the enclosed clipping but it was evidently made since you have got up the derrick. I am thinking about that air-ship all day long and dream about it nights. When you get out of the corn fields and come back to the starting point, let me know and I will be down again. I will write you further probably by next mail. I thought you ought to know what was "flying around" in the papers.

Yours very truly,
A. I. ROOT

1904-09-22, "Undated clipping, from a newspaper, sent to Wilbur and Orville Wright, on Sep. 22, 1904, by A. I. Root who had received it from a relative in Xenia, Ohio", see the September 22, 1904 letter of A. I. Root to the Wright brothers.

THE FLYING MACHINE.
——————​

The Wright brothers were experimenting with their airship on Mad river prairies yesterday. They started the machine with 1,200 pounds weight, and at a height of 10 feet sailed a distance of one thousand feet across the field, and anchored, the working being entirely satisfactory to the Messrs. Wright who have been seven years perfecting the machinery. They say they will make an ascension at St. Louis before the exposition ends.

 

[pbehn]

Simplex, where is this going? If the Wrights first flight was actually by the flyer III then it makes them even more brilliant as designers. It is a conspiracy theory without meaning or end.

 

[Robert Porter]

They were not even shared at the time, penicillin production processes were patented but the new processes increased production massively. A controversial issue, penicillin is a natural product and cannot be patented but the production processes can, if a company cannot gain any benefit from what may be years of research why should they invest?

I have no issue with making a return for the heavy investment often necessary to bring a product to market. Having worked in IT my entire adult life, much of it with Banks and Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies I can say with some authority there is a huge difference in equitable income vs profit gouging. For example at a not to be named pharmaceutical giant the decision on which drugs to hike prices on was often driven by if the drug was required vs one that you could do without. Drugs that were required like Plavix by patients with stents etc were routinely hiked as we knew the sales would stay relatively intact as there were few if any alternatives. While antacid drugs were often marketed at profitable but low levels profit speaking as there were plenty of alternatives.

 

[Shortround6]

We have had a number of debates on this website about the Bearcats record climb to 10,000ft which was done into a 40mph head wind if I recall correctly.
Just about all aircraft will exhibit a shorter take-off run going into a headwind and the stronger the wind the shorter the take-off run.

Granted there used to be an annual pancake breakfast event in which the participants flew backwards from one airport to another (minimum flying speed was less than the prevailing wind) but these early aircraft were closer to powered kites than even gliders as we know today.
Where they fell on the lift to drag curve and angle of attack is certainly up to speculation. Just above stall would be a high angle of attack and high drag vrs lift. Think early Jet operating on the edge of stall/drag bucket where even full power could not get the plane out of trouble yet at a lower angle of attack and higher airspeed the same power would give much higher speed.

The Wrights had a problem with the early engine, it gave just enough power to barely fly with the engine cold. As the engine warmed up it lost power and the nominal 16hp fell to closer to 12hp with the engine hot. Quoted power is all over the place.
Please note that this engine was rather crude and the "carburetor" was little more than an air passage over "pan" with a cloth wick to help atomize the fuel.
Just getting the same power from flight to flight was quite a trick. any improvements to the engine seem to be pretty much forgotten but may bear as much on the success of certain flights as any change in airfoils, construction or control mechanism.

Power of the 1904/1905 aircraft was supposed to increased to 18hp and the later aircraft may have had a bigger radiator/cooling system making the engine a bit more consistent in power output.
The 1905 aircraft having quite a few differences from the 1903 model.

 

[simplex]

A. I. Root has an article (dated September 1, 1908, and written after the flight demonstrations of W. Wright at Le Mans) with a really funny title. How could this man have written "not only out in the open" had he really witnessed W. Wright flying in 1904?!

1908-09-01, A. I. Root, "The Wright Brothers And Their Flying - Machine, Not Only
"Out In The Open" But "Up In The Air."", Gleanings, Sep. 1, 1908, p. 1097.

The title implies that up to the first flights of Wilbur in France the two brothers had been seen just out in the open not up in the air.