WOW big news..wright bros not 1st?

This is very interesting indeeed. If this turns out to be true I will have to do a soft reboot on my grandsons memory( he is very young) and the rest of us will needed a very hard reboot!

Wow, I can see this happening with all the secrecy on something like this.

Jim
 
I'm sticking with the Wright Brothers. If this guy did in fact fly successfully in 1901 he should've been more PR-conscious and documented at least one of the flights with movie footage or still photos. This would have been a huge media event in 1901, just as the Wrights' flight was in 1903.
 
Given the huge amount of publicity that resulted from the Wright brother's flights as well as the commercial success which followed, it really begs the question as to why the Wright brothers claims were not more vigorously disputed at the time. Jane's states there are photos, witness statements, and even newspaper articles to back up the claim that Whitehead was first. Where has this evidence been for the last hundred years?
 
COLUMBUS!, First, And Now Will Neil Armstrong Be Next??....many believe that was a HOOYAVOOD Stunt...They ,those who believe in SASQUATCH!...This Will Be "THE MOTHER OF ALL CONTROVERSIES".Will sit this one out...and let facts unfold!...I fear a lot of fools will further make a BURRO's BOTTOM out of themselves!
 
Hey Dave this is not the first time I have heard this...who knows but it would be rare for Janes to be willing to go back and retract it's stand on historical issues of such importance.
Ted
 
All I can say is you have to follow where the data leads you. If it's Whitehead, so be it; if it's the Wrights I'm fine with that, too. A lot of people around the world were working the same problem at the same time using a variety of approaches.

N.
 
txnetcop said:
Hey Dave this is not the first time I have heard this...who knows but it would be rare for Janes to be willing to go back and retract it's stand on historical issues of such importance.
Ted
Click to expand...
its the first ive ever heard of it...never said i believe it...i dont know much about the Janes stuff,as when i first got on computers..i looked in to the "janes world" but it was all so expensive i skipped it,,i was just a bit surprised as i got this info from the flying magazine's online email...

id "snope" it...but since i dont care for that ladies personal opinions either...........
 
Ther is long standing discusin in NZ that a New Zealander (Richard Pearse) actually flew in 1901 as well. I have my doubts as the design dosen't seem to be aerodynamically possible - it may of managed a short uncontrolled hop -but that isnt controlled flight.
 
Whitehead's supposed flights have been disproved several times. It'll have to be some totally new irrefutable evidence that's been hidden away for over 100 years.
 
In the original article, in a quote attributed to Whitehead, he says the machine has no mechanism to turn, If you can't turn than I don't think you can reasonably call it a "controlled flight"
 
norab said:
In the original article, in a quote attributed to Whitehead, he says the machine has no mechanism to turn, If you can't turn than I don't think you can reasonably call it a "controlled flight"
Click to expand...

In the still air of dawn, the Condor's wings were unfolded and it took off from open land at Fairfield, 15 miles from the city, and performed two demonstration sorties. The second was estimated as having covered 1½ miles at a height of 50 feet, during which slight turns in both directions were demonstrated."
Click to expand...
Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-pla...spReportId=MjEyODIxODIxS0#zPy2rmBPeBhgzEj2.99

Then we have a discrepancy in stories. If it had no mechanism for making turns, how did he make turns in both directions? And I agree, if you cannot turn the craft it really isn't controlled flight.
​
 
Willy said:
Whitehead's supposed flights have been disproved several times. It'll have to be some totally new irrefutable evidence that's been hidden away for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Yup, the Whitehead (Weisskopf) flights are documented...and disproved very loudly as supposedly not being the first flights.
Personally, I think there were a lot of personal politics involved with the Whitehead vs Wright Bros. Especially since the Smithsonian had money backing the Wright Bros and they made sure the media got involved.
Whitehead was just a tinker working by himself, not unlike Santos-Dumont.
It reminds me of the Tesla vs. Edison BS. But in the end...Tesla won that one anyway even if he did die a pauper.

norab said:
In the original article, in a quote attributed to Whitehead, he says the machine has no mechanism to turn, If you can't turn than I don't think you can reasonably call it a "controlled flight"
Click to expand...

First controlled flight....I agree that they weren't controlled. The Whitehead designs didn't have any real workable control mechanisms.
First powered flight in the US...Yes, it was.
That was the whole premise under the Smithsonian and other flight journals of the day disproving Whitehead and laying the fame on the Wrights.
but ya know...I never seen the Wright Flyer I do any circling in the Kitty Hawk film either. :D So how do we know it could turn any better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top