The Wrights -- a lesson in history and intrigue!

[Skyhawk_310R]

Not a particularly noteworthy day to write this, but sometimes that's not important. In recent days, despite the passing of well over 100 years since their achievement in 1903, the Wrights have again had their standing challenged by men with an ulterior motive. This is not new. In fact, among the more interesting aspects of this period from the first flight over Kitty Hawk, NC on December 17, 1903 and to 1908 when the Wrights demonstrated aircraft control well beyond what others could achieve, the Wrights were the victims of several underhanded efforts to write them out of history!

Samuel P. Langley provided the lynchpin for the first of these dirty tricks, but Langley was never a willing part of this. In fact, it really happened after the old man passed away. Langley was the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute at the time he pioneered the invention of what he called "the aerodrome." It's ironic that this term was later adopted to describe a base where planes took off and landed. Due to this coveted position, and his national respect, Langley received $50,000 in US government funding for his project. This put him light years ahead of other developers who were largely restrained by low funds and more family oriented support networks. It should also be added that others were pure charlatans who petitioned investors for their private money with the sole intent of pocketing the money and never producing anything capable of flight! This gave the age a hint of scandal wholly outside the control of legitimate inventors like Langley and the Wrights.

What the Wrights did that put them apart was their innovations of aircraft control, their rework of previously flawed mathematical models for airfoils, and their development of aircraft propellers. In fact, the Wrights received assistance from the Smithsonian so it must be added that Langley was a pure scientist who did not worry with competition and was perfectly willing to advance the science of aviation. The Wrights wrote the Smithsonian to ask for all the data they had and Langley's museum generously provided the Wrights with all they had! Unfortunately, this information ended up being more of a hindrance! Otto Lillienthal's pioneering mathematics for airfoils was proven entirely wrong by the Wright's glider tests!

This forced the Wrights to build their own wind tunnel, which ironically ended up being the state of the art for its time. They extensively tested airfoil shapes until they arrived at the most efficient shape, and along the way they mathematically developed entirely new models for airfoils which have withstood the passage of time. Then, they used the same wind tunnel to develop propellers that were 80% efficient back in 1903, which were only five percent less efficient than propellers manufactured today!

That would have been enough to cement their legacy, but they also pioneered the concepts of aircraft control, including consideration of the now classic three axis of aircraft control, pitch, yaw, and roll. They developed an intricate systems of cabling to facilitate wing warping to control roll. They used elevators and rudders to control pitch and yaw respectively. This was all pioneering both in concept and execution, and so the Wrights submitted a successful patent for all this technology with the US government. In these patents become the source of the intrigue.

From 1903 to 1906 the Wrights advanced their concepts on their Wright Flyer, and honed their pilot skills until they were able to astonish witnesses at airshows. While other pilots were barely able to maintain a straight line for a few hundred yards in ideal weather conditions, the Wrights were able to sustain flight for an hour, and perform a series of complex pattern work over the field, including figure-8's, box patterns, and turns about a pylon. In the course of their work, the Wrights also ended up become the two best pilots in the world.

But, by 1906, others were closing in as the opportunity for business success was undeniable. The Wrights also realized this and ended up tempering their public flight demonstrations until the US government finally awarded the brothers their patents on aircraft control and control systems. Glenn Curtiss wanted this technology, but did not want to pay the Wrights their legally entitled royalties to use their technology. So, Curtiss frankly stole it! The matter came to a legal head when Curtiss lost a famous patent lawsuit. Not satisfied to simply pay up and take his lumps, Curtiss hatched a rather strange and dishonorable action.

Curtiss worked with Langley's replacement as the new secretary of the Smithsonian, a man named Charles Walcott. Walcott, previously being Langley's understudy, did not take well to seeing Langley bested by the Wrights. While Langley himself was truly professional on the matter, Walcott certainly was not. Instead, he agreed to cooperate with Curtiss' idea, which was to gain unlimited access to Langley's aerodrome, copy it, and rework it as much as Curtiss needed to in order to get it into the air. Curtiss' goal was simple and undeniable. He hoped that by getting the aerodrome to fly, he could persuade the US government that this was a copy of the original aerodrome, vice a very significantly upgraded one, and therefore was capable of controlled and sustained flight. Curtiss then hoped to convince people that the Wright's patent was nullified since they really did not invent the means of aircraft control. In essence, Curtiss, having already lost a patent suit, wanted this stunt to be the means by which the Wrights would have their patent dishonored by the US government so that he could use the Wright's control systems without paying them any royalties. Curtiss also hoped to recover some of his lost respect having been humiliated in public in losing the Wright's patent suit.

With extensive rework, changes, and upgrades to the aerodrome, Curtiss was capable of making a flight that wasn't much better than what the Wrights had achieved with their 1903 Wright Flyer back in Kitty Hawk. The rub is that Curtiss achieved this flight in 1914, eleven years after the Wright Flyer's historic first flight! To term it an unfair and unprincipled effort would be a gross understatement! Yet, people today tend to regard the Wright's protection of their patents as bordering on paranoia. I would submit that when it is based upon fact it no longer can be considered to be paranoia!

Yet, under Walcott's direction, the Smithsonian ran wild with the results of Curtiss' flight. In the 1914 Smithsonian Report publication, A.F. Zahm went so far as to openly declare the aerodrome to be the "first man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free flight." What a bold statement! Yet, that was the reality of the situation. The Smithsonian had literally declared open war on the Wrights, and along the way facilitated a corrupt effort by Glenn Curtiss to steal patented technology for his own personal enrichment. To this day, this represents a severe stain on the reputation of the Smithsonian Institute, and remains a source of righteous condemnation of Glenn Curtiss and Charles Walcott.

Things were made worse by the reality that in 1912, Wilbur Wright died of complications of typhoid fever. Whether justified or not, Orville Wright believed that his older brothers death was rooted in the extreme emotional anxiety caused by the withering patent fights not only fought with Curtiss, but with many other fledgling aircraft builders. Octave Chanute was instrumental in this widespread theft of the Wright's technology as he widely published the information for all to read and adopt. Chanute became friends with the Wrights in 1900, as they started their pioneering work. Chanute disagreed as a matter of philosophy with the Wright's patents for aircraft control, believing that the patent -- despite being legally issued -- was simply wrong. As a result, Chanute published everything without permission of the Wrights. This led to considerable friction between Chanute and the Wrights. Chanute's own words speak on the issue:

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.

It would be fair to term Chanute's concerns to be a stand on scientific principle. But, for those who violated the Wright's standing patents, it was a far more monetary motivation. They simply wanted to use the technology without paying royalties to the Wrights.

Where this led was in hindsight almost unavoidable. Orville Wright concluded that the Smithsonian, under Walcott's control, had conspired with a rival to undermine the Wright's aircraft and aviation technology business. This mistrust was furthered by a total lack of cooperation by the US government, which shockingly refused, at least initially, to purchase any Wright Flyers. The government's concern was having been horribly burned by wasting $50,000 of investment capital in Langley's aerodrome work. This soiled the view of aircraft on the part of the US Army until several years later when the truth of the Wright Flyers success from European aircraft sales confirmed the worth of the Wright Flyer. The horrible reality is that the US government bet on the wrong horse and now, because of the pain of it, had suddenly fallen well behind European nations in aircraft technology! This would have profoundly negative consequences on America during World War I.

Given these two parallel developments, Orville Wright bestowed the 1903 Wright Flyer to London's South Kensington Science Museum. America's greatest gift to world aviation was sitting in honor in a British museum. The Smithsonian had officially asked for the Wright Flyer, but a bitter Orville Wright made his wishes very clear. He published that the 1903 Wright Flyer would remain in London until his death. Orville Wright also added a caveat about a change in this plan after his death. One frankly wonders how Charles Walcott could have looked himself in the mirror as he asked Orville Wright to move his airplane to the Smithsonian Institute!

Walcott died in 1928, and Charles Abbott was named secretary of the Smithsonian Institute. Abbott quickly worked to undo the damage done to both the Smithsonian and to the Wright's legacy. He published statements retracting those made in 1914. Unfortunately, Orville Wright considered those statement of Abbott, published in the 1928 Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, as too lukewarm in revising the very bold statements published in 1914. In short, it was not enough for Wright to reverse his desires and move the coveted 1903 Wright Flyer from London to Washington. In fairness, Abbott was in a corner. He wanted to repudiate what was done in 1914, but had political realities he had to account for. It is fair to say he did as much as he could at the time.

In 1942, Abbott went the full measure, asking aviation legend Charles Lindbergh to serve as an intermediary with the now aged Orville Wright. Further, Abbott published another paper in the same year that clearly repudiated the 1914 Faustian bargain made between Walcott and Curtiss. Abbott went further by making a very public apology and generous plea to Wright in the 1941 paper that read:

If the publication of this paper should clear the way for Dr. Wright to bring back to America the Kitty Hawk machine to which all the world awards first place, it will be a source of profound and enduring gratification to his countrymen everywhere. Should he decide to deposit the plane in the United State National Museum it would be given the highest place of honor, which is its due.

No one could have possibly written more magnanimous words, nor made a more heartfelt apology! Sadly, the bitterness of history was still too much for Orville Wright to publicly reverse course. Not even these efforts of Abbott and Lindbergh could achieve their desires while Wright was alive. But, unknown to any person, it did have an effect. Orville Wright changed his will, and that new will bequeathed the 1903 Wright Flyer to the Smithsonian Institute upon Wright's death. In 1948 the will was read, and the 1903 Wright Flyer was brought home, where it was indeed put in place as center of honor in the Smithsonian Institute Arts and Sciences building. It was not moved again until it was relocated in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.

Ken

 

[stiz]

I still reckon the "first flight" was little more than a glide. What is very often not said is that they used a catapult system to launch all their aircraft down a skid (yes, even the later ones). Take into account they pointed the aircraft down a slope, into a gale and shot it forward .. its easy to see how a light plane could become airborne. I'm not saying they didn't do a lot of innovative stuff which regards to engines, control systems etc, and their later planes were vastly superoir to the other planes available at the time, but calling their "first flight" a powered flight is pushing it a bit in my opinion, but then people still think that lindbergh was the first person ever to fly over the atlantic so hey ho!

 

[Skyhawk_310R]

I'm afraid you are wrong on several points. As someone who has twice visited the place of the historic flights, the hill was not where they launched the plane. Rather, they launched it on a flat surface. Second, their catapult system was used later. All they used on the historic flight was Orville holding the right wing level as it went down the rail.

http://www.nps.gov/wrbr/historyculture/thefirstflight.htm

One look at the historic photo shows the level nature of the ground. The hill was simply where the US government located the iconic monument. Further, they used a restraining wire to steady the aircraft before Wilbur went to full power while standing still on the rail. At full power, Wilbur signaled for release of the restraining wire and the plane went down the rail on its own power.

Ken

 

[zswobbie1]

In a startling announcement a few days ago,Jane's All the World's Aircraft has named an August 1901 flight by Connecticut aviation pioneer Gustave Whitehead as the first successful powered flight in history, beating the Wright Brothers by more than two years. Jane's, which calls itself the world's foremost authority on aviation history, with great authority, has traditionally backed the Wrights as first in flight. Now they say the evidence for Whitehead's flight is strong enough for the publication to reverse course and recognize it as the first successful powered flight.
Jane's Editor Paul Jackson describes what happened in Bridgeport, Connecticut, on August 14, 1901.
"It was in the summer of 1901 that Whitehead flew his airplane, which he called the Condor. In the early hours of 14 August 1901, the Condor propelled itself along the darkened streets of Bridgeport, Connecticut, with Whitehead, his staff and an invited guest in attendance. 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." The length of flight and altitude reached make the Wright's first powered foray pale in comparison.
Jackson credits the long work of aviation researcher John Brown for much of the recently uncovered evidence that Whitehead's flight was indeed number one. Brown's website,[url]www.gustave-whitehead.com[/URL] , is packed with evidence.
The evidence that Jane's presents is compelling. There are multiple photographs, overwhelming evidence of Whitehead's preparation for the first flight — Condor was the 21st airplane he built — eyewitnesses, dozens of newspaper accounts of the story and ample evidence not only of an engine sufficient for the flight but one whose basic design was used on many subsequent successful airplanes by other designers, including Glenn Curtiss. Moreover, Whitehead made another successful powered flight in an airplane with three-axis controls in 1902, more than a year before the Wright's first flight.
The decision by Jane's is sure to fuel the most controversial discussion in aviation, perhaps ever, as aviation enthusiasts take sides, either with the Wright Brothers, who made history on the North Carolina dunes in December 1903, or Whitehead, who, the evidence now seems to indicate, did the same two-and-a-half years earlier on the quiet streets of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

 

[zswobbie1]

There is an interesting contracts controversy brewing over at the Smithsonian. Yes, it is possible to have an interesting contracts controversy. In this case, the contract was signed in 1948 between the estate of Orville Wright and the Smithsonian. The contract required that, in exchange for the famed Wright flyer, the Smithsonian would never recognize that anyone else was first in flight. That does not sit well with historians who believe that the first in flight was actually German immigrant Gustav Whitehead. Putting aside the historical debate, a contract requiring the museum legally to deny historical claims is plainly unethical. Is it an unenforceable unconscionable contract?

The 1948 contract states:

“Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor its successors, nor any museum or other agency … or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight.”

Accordingly, the Smithsonian has long insisted the first flight occurred on Dec. 17, 1903 with the Wright Brothers on their historic flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. However, a recently uncovered photograph has been cited to support the claim of Whitehead that he went airborne on Aug. 14, 1901. In the end, it does not matter. A contract remains in effect that contradicts the very foundation of museum ethics . Here is the code. This includes: “Curators are responsible for ensuring that all verbal and written interpretation is accurate and accessible, physically and cognitively, whether prepared by themselves or their subordinates.” Curators are also required to “ensure the integrity and objectivity of their scholarship and research projects by compiling reference materials and supporting documentation, keeping abreast of current scholarship.”

http://www.foxnews.com/science/inte...ts-smithsonian-decrees-flyer-was-first-plane/



​

 

[Skyhawk_310R]

Multiple photographs?

Show me these "multiple photographs" showing this man in Connecticut flew before Dec 17, 1903. Show me just one. Considering it would be the greatest achievement in the 20th century, I suppose you could show us here just one.

I'm fully aware of the "stories" out there. I'm even aware of what the Connecticut legislature did as a cheap stunt to make money on tourism. BTW: I think that will actually backfire on them, but that's another story for another day.

So, I ask that you provide those "multiple photographs" of what this other man did. The so called "photograph" is really a wide angle photograph of a wall in a museum upon which on the far wall is another photograph. That photo on the wall is a blob, a blur, completely unable to substantiate anything of scientific quality. There is zero documentation saying what this other photo was about, nor any date frame. We do know that the man who claimed he could fly rings around farm fields in 1901 put his invention into storage and never even demonstrated it to a member of the US government despite there being intense national interest at the time.

Moreover, in 1900, the Aero-Club de France offered the Deutsch de la Meurthe, a very rich 100,000 franc prize for the first person to fly any type of flying machine from Saint Cloud to the Eiffel Tower. That prize was won in 1901 and the achievement was celebrated around the world. The Wrights knew about it. They also knew about the second prize established in 1903 of 1,500 francs (still a great sum of money for the day) for the first flight of a heavier-than-air machine on a straight distance of at least 100 meters. But, despite qualifying to earn that prize in 1901, we are supposed to believe Whitehead was so uninterested in earning 1,500 francs, or at least ask about the princely 100,000 franc prize, that he kept his successful aircraft in storage and never even spent a penny to mail a letter to Paris! Octave Chanute certainly communicated the Wrights' achievement to the Aero-Club de France, and ultimately that ended up going down into a nasty bit of nationalistic derision. It was not until 1908 when a demonstration by the Wright Flyer changed minds. But, at least the Wrights tried to collect the prize.

Further, we are supposed to believe he flew multiple times but that not a single period newspaper published a photo of the event with the plane in the air. This despite the Wrights having their photograph appear in worldwide print within a week of the event! It only took one "press secretary" in Octave Chanute for the Wrights to ensure news got out around the world quickly. Despite choosing one of the most remote areas of eastern America at the time, the Wrights had a contingent from the nearby US Lifeboat Service (forerunner of the Coast Guard) on hand to lend assistance plus witness the event. One member even took the celebrated photo that without any doubt shows the flight. Nothing blurry about that photo, nor anything about a photo of a photo!

I'm open minded about Whitehead. All I need is physical proof. There are not multiple historians who advanced this Whitehead story. It is really only one fringe historian of low regard who created it and nearly every other aviation historian has either condemned his effort, or considered it so laughable they did not even wish to associate their name to it in dispute. Janes is the only noteworthy publication to accept the "evidence," which as I wrote, is flimsy at best. Why Janes did this is something only they can answer to, but I can say they suffered more rebuke for it than any credit for it.

Ken

 

[Skyhawk_310R]

OK, here are two photos. The top one is the one that this historian John Brown says is the photograph that shows the Gustave flight. The one on the bottom is the famous image the Wrights used to show they flew on December 17, 1903. Which one do you think survives objective scrutiny?

And here is a link to a CNN news article discussing the issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/travel/wright-brothers-first-flight-fight/index.html#comment-955554117

Note: I did not alter the top photo. All that was done is someone (not me) took the panaramic photo of the museum interior, focused on the photo in the photo that Brown is pointing to, and extracted and enlarged just that portion.

Ken

 

[Skyhawk_310R]

BTW: check out this link and see the possible involvement of Albert Zahm (same guy I discussed in my original post) on the Gustav Whitehead story. Folks might think this story is recent, but it is not. In fact, Orville Wright himself commented on the emergence of the claims, which seemed to have hit critical mass first in a 1940 radio show appearance by Whitehead himself where he made the claim. Then, in 1945, Reader's Digest saw fit to publish an article on the matter. Just three years prior to his own death, that prompted Orville Wright to finally issue a public statement on the issue.

http://www.wright-brothers.org/Hist...s_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Gustav_Whitehead.htm

Yes, I realize I'm citing a source affiliated with the Wright Brother's legacy. But, I think the period statements in quotation, plus the links provided to objective fact seeking that did take place during the time, remain valid.

I created this thread because I think on the 110th anniversary of the Wright's achievement, a look at the intrigue of the period would be interesting. Though I did not anticipate it, the intrigue to this day remains fully in force, and for various reasons.

Ken

 

[CWOJackson]

I created this thread because I think on the 110th anniversary of the Wright's achievement, a look at the intrigue of the period would be interesting. Though I did not anticipate it, the intrigue to this day remains fully in force, and for various reasons.

I'm not sure whether the intrigue over the first flight was much of an issue in the day. The real intrigue from that era was the feud between the brothers and Glenn Curtiss.

 

[Skyhawk_310R]

I'm not sure whether the intrigue over the first flight was much of an issue in the day. The real intrigue from that era was the feud between the brothers and Glenn Curtiss.

No doubt a lot of it centered there. But, unfortunately, it also went past that. The Aero-Club of France withheld their 1,500 franc prize from the Wrights for years. I forgive that one because of a very understandable desire of Frenchmen to want another Frenchman to win the prize they offered, and let's be honest, period newspapers were renown for outright lying, so it's natural for people to hold onto their money until they can be offered proof! And further to their credit was their almost immediate recognition once they were finally able to see the Wright Flyer perform so well on their French airshow.

Then, you have Albert F. Zahm and Charles Walcott. Those two were a real piece of work! Zahm went on a multi-decade crusade against the Wrights that went well beyond what even Glenn Curtiss did. But, then again, Zahm eventually took an executive position with Curtiss Aircraft, so perhaps that nexus was a long running one between the two.

Then, there is the most recent case of John Brown, who ran wild with dredging up the previously discounted claims of Whitehead's flight. It's easy to discount Brown's use of the photograph as that's laughable on its surface. But, beneath the veneer of that dubious photo lies something worse. Here is a man who calls himself an historian, and yet while he's very quick to condemn the Smithsonian for signing an agreement to recognize the Wright Flyer's history, he completely ignores the back story which led to that agreement. He dangled a claim undermining the integrity of the Smithsonian while at the same time ignoring what was truly the scandal of years past. Good historians never do that! They always seek the back story. Such a back story investigation by Brown would have rediscovered the various investigations launched in the 1930's and early 1940's that went back to discover key pieces of the Bridgeport newspaper story that did not match the views of people the newspaper claimed were there to see the event.

What I cannot understand is why Jane's would leap to the story as quickly as they did when the rest of the aviation history industry rejected it?

I think the real value here is to consider that people are human too! Intrigue often follows from monetary goals, business competition, and choosing sides so people can earn a living. Sometimes, that just comes down to a desire to achieve some degree of notoriety.

Ken