Digital Mars - D - 100th Anniversary of first flight, the 1903 Wright Flyer

↑ ↓ ← → "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

According to last month's Scientific American magazine (Dec 2003),
Alberto-Santos-Dumont made the first *public* demonstration of flight in a
field on Nov 12, 1906, and flew for 722 feet.  Because there was no proof to
the contrary at the time, he was hailed as the first man to fly.  "His
countrymen today still revere Santos-Dumont as the Father of Aviation."  But
in Dec 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers had flown a powered, heavier-than-air
plane 852 feet in controlled, sustained flight... unfortunately they were
very secretive, and would not allow the press or spectators to witness their
success.  Earlier that same day, the "first" flight considered successful,
was only 120 feet.  They, however, were certainly not the first men to
fly... men had been flying since 1783, in balloons and gliders.  By 1903,
powered balloon flights and glider soaring were commonplace... what they did
not have was powered, controlled flight in a heavier-than-air machine.
Clement Ader can be credited with the first powered takeoff in 1890, but his
steam-powered aircraft reached an altitude of eight inches, sufficient to
classify it as a flight only to his French countrymen.  Even New Zealand got
into the air before us:  Richard Pearse, in March 1903, flew a
bamboo-and-canvas monoplane about 450 feet before crashing into a gorse
hedge, which doesn't really meet the definition of "controlled flight".  ;)

Seems to be an interesting story.  You may want to read it.

Sean


"Bono Vox" <bono art.com> wrote in message
news:brv5dr$1g1e$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 A little correction :-)

 The first flight was made by Santos Dummondt in Paris in 1903 before the
 brothers Wright. In this ocasion the "14bis" has landed from a field near


 by itselt cross Paris turned around the Eiffel tower and came back to the


 Yes, I know you learn in the school about the first fly being made by the


 Brothers. And yes, I know you will not believe about them "airplane" has


 after, used a catapult to land and do not turn to any side.

 -jr

Dec 19 2003

↑ ↓ ← → "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
news:brvkii$283s$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 According to last month's Scientific American magazine (Dec 2003),
 Alberto-Santos-Dumont made the first *public* demonstration of flight in a
 field on Nov 12, 1906, and flew for 722 feet.  Because there was no proof


 the contrary at the time, he was hailed as the first man to fly.  "His
 countrymen today still revere Santos-Dumont as the Father of Aviation."


 in Dec 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers had flown a powered, heavier-than-air
 plane 852 feet in controlled, sustained flight... unfortunately they were
 very secretive, and would not allow the press or spectators to witness


 success.


They invited anyone from the local townfolk who wanted to watch. I think
about 6 showed up. One of them was asked to operate the camera, which is
where that famous photo came from.

 Earlier that same day, the "first" flight considered successful,
 was only 120 feet.  They, however, were certainly not the first men to
 fly... men had been flying since 1783, in balloons and gliders.  By 1903,
 powered balloon flights and glider soaring were commonplace... what they


 not have was powered, controlled flight in a heavier-than-air machine.
 Clement Ader can be credited with the first powered takeoff in 1890, but


 steam-powered aircraft reached an altitude of eight inches, sufficient to
 classify it as a flight only to his French countrymen.


Ader made many claims that were later disproven, such that I'll wait to see
a flying replica of his "Eola" before believing that one.

 Even New Zealand got
 into the air before us:  Richard Pearse, in March 1903, flew a
 bamboo-and-canvas monoplane about 450 feet before crashing into a gorse
 hedge, which doesn't really meet the definition of "controlled flight".



It's highly unlikely that Pearse actually flew, as eyewitness accounts are
notoriously unreliable, there is no corroborating evidence, and from looking
at the wing area of his machine and the horsepower of his engine it seems
very improbable it could have hopped more than a few inches. Fanciful
exaggerations and newspaper accounts of "flights" were commonplace at the
time. (Contemporary newspaper accounts of the Wrights' first flight were
dismissed as a hoax.)

The Wright Flyer had a 40 foot wingspan biplane, a 90% efficient propeller,
the most advanced and efficient airfoil of the day, and about 12 HP. Pearse
had a small winged monoplane, no airfoil at all, probably a 40% efficient
propeller, and 15 to 22 HP. The Wright Flyer was barely able to get aloft.
Which is why the claims of Pearse are not credible. (Recall that at the
time, Otto Lilienthal's tables of lift/drag were the standard of the day,
and only the Wrights knew that they were off by a factor of 3. Anyone
building an airfoil based on those tables, if they bothered to actually
engineer their airfoils at all, simply would not have generated enough
lift.)

I've read many interesting claims about other first flights - Ader, Pearse,
Weisskopf, Langley, etc. A common thread is that nobody has ever been able
to replicate their achievements. But people have duplicated the Wright Flyer
and have matched the achievement of the original (97 feet and 150 feet for
the Wright Experience replica, despite its subsequent inglorious failure on
Dec. 17).

The Smithsonian commissioned a replica of the Langley "Aerodrome" to prove
that Langley was first to fly. Unfortunately for Langley, all they did was
prove the Aerodrome was incapable of flight. Some group replicated
Weisskopf's machine, and in towing it showed it could "fly", but remember
that towing it behind a pickup is quite a bit different than a primitive
engine/propeller. Anything will "fly" given enough power. The Discovery
Channel recently ran a show where some enthusiasts achieved "flight" of an
outhouse by attaching rocket engines to it.

Dec 19 2003

↑ ↓ ← → "Charles" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

 Correct...
 Lift=Cl * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface
 Also...
 Drag=Cd * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface


Cool!  Where did you get this formula ?

C

"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message
news:bs04gj$30nm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Anything will "fly" given enough power.


 Correct...
 Lift=Cl * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface
 Also...
 Drag=Cd * 0.5 * Rho * speed^2 * Surface

 As long as you are able to generate enough speed you probably could fly
 a sky scraper... <g>
 The important factor is the 'speed' with it powered by 2 which of course
 is generated by power as stated... ;-)

 OK, let's not get into VTOL's....

 The Discovery
 Channel recently ran a show where some enthusiasts achieved "flight" of




 outhouse by attaching rocket engines to it.


 HA!

 -- 
 ManiaC++
 Jan Knepper

Dec 20 2003

↑ ↓ ← → Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.us> writes:

Walter wrote:

 They invited anyone from the local townfolk who wanted to watch. I think
 about 6 showed up. One of them was asked to operate the camera, which is
 where that famous photo came from.


I thought I remembered that they had it on film... I.e. actual prove 
more or less... (Hey they didn't have Photoshop at that time to 'patch' 
a digital picture. Speaking of which, I don't think they had digital 
pictures either...)

An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes 
and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they 
actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed 
officer died in on of their test flights...

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

Dec 19 2003

↑ ↓ ← → "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message
news:bs04nj$3150$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:

 They invited anyone from the local townfolk who wanted to watch. I think
 about 6 showed up. One of them was asked to operate the camera, which is
 where that famous photo came from.


 I thought I remembered that they had it on film...


To celebrate the anniversary, I put it on www.digitalmars.com <g>.

 An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes
 and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they
 actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed
 officer died in on of their test flights...


Isn't it ironic that the other claimants to first flight apparently
abandoned their quest at their moment of triumph? Another common
characteristic of the other first flighters is that none of them contributed
a single principle to aeronautical engineering, whereas the Wrights
contributed several still in use today.

Dec 19 2003

↑ ↓ ← → Juan C. <Juan_member pathlink.com> writes:

If it weren't for the Wright Brothers, there would be no flight attendants, and
that's a bad thing.

In article <bs07ob$45g$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message
news:bs04nj$3150$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:

 They invited anyone from the local townfolk who wanted to watch. I think
 about 6 showed up. One of them was asked to operate the camera, which is
 where that famous photo came from.


 I thought I remembered that they had it on film...


To celebrate the anniversary, I put it on www.digitalmars.com <g>.

 An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes
 and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they
 actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed
 officer died in on of their test flights...


Isn't it ironic that the other claimants to first flight apparently
abandoned their quest at their moment of triumph? Another common
characteristic of the other first flighters is that none of them contributed
a single principle to aeronautical engineering, whereas the Wrights
contributed several still in use today.

Dec 19 2003

↑ ↓ ← → "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Juan C." <Juan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bs0ajb$8cv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 If it weren't for the Wright Brothers, there would be no flight


 that's a bad thing.


LOL.

But seriously, if the Wrights hadn't done it, someone else would have
eventually, probably by 1910. (By 1908 european aviation, developing
independently since Santos Dumont's 1906 flight, still hadn't added roll
control, and didn't until the Wrights demonstrated the enormous advantage of
it in european air shows. Roll control seems painfully obvious to us now,
but events of the time showed that it wasn't obvious at all.)

Dec 19 2003

↑ ↓ ← → Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.us> writes:

Walter wrote:

 But seriously, if the Wrights hadn't done it, someone else would have
 eventually, probably by 1910. (By 1908 european aviation, developing
 independently since Santos Dumont's 1906 flight, still hadn't added roll
 control, and didn't until the Wrights demonstrated the enormous advantage of
 it in european air shows. Roll control seems painfully obvious to us now,
 but events of the time showed that it wasn't obvious at all.)


Well, you would be surprized how many remote controlled beginners are 
out there learning to fly plaines without roll controls.
I have flown with remote controlled aircraft as well. I didn't even want 
to go there without roll control. ;-)

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

Dec 20 2003

↑ ↓ ← → Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.us> writes:

Walter wrote:
I thought I remembered that they had it on film...


 
 To celebrate the anniversary, I put it on www.digitalmars.com <g>.


Thanks! Will take a look at it!

An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes
and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they
actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed
officer died in on of their test flights...


 Isn't it ironic that the other claimants to first flight apparently
 abandoned their quest at their moment of triumph? Another common
 characteristic of the other first flighters is that none of them contributed
 a single principle to aeronautical engineering, whereas the Wrights
 contributed several still in use today.


Exactly my point... Obviously they had some success and were not 
discouraged by any setbacks...

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

Dec 19 2003

↑ ↓ ← → Alix Pexton <Alix thedjournal.com> writes:

Just for the sake of throwing more names into the ring. Last week there 
was a documentory on the BBC about a British pioneer of flight by the 
name of Percy Pilcher. He was considered to be the successor to 
Lilienthal, but met the same fate (Both died in glider accidents). 
However, Pilcher was only flying his glider, called the Hawk because the 
engine for his triplane had broken down, and he needed something to show 
the potencial investors he had invited along to the demonstration.

For the documentory, they built a plane that was as close to Pilcher's 
design as they could get, and it flew for well over a minute on the 
third attempt.

Pilcher Died in 1899, and therefore he could of flown before the Wright 
Brothers.

*IF* his plane was really like the one they built for the documentary, 
and it is a pretty big if, as there are no complete plans or photographs 
of Pilcher's craft, and the replica was based on descriptions. One can't 
help thinking that in building the replica in the way that they did, 
that what the produced was a modern plane in the Pilcher style.

So there you go...

Alix...

Jan Knepper wrote:

 Walter wrote:

 I thought I remembered that they had it on film...




 To celebrate the anniversary, I put it on www.digitalmars.com <g>.



 Thanks! Will take a look at it!

 An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes
 and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they
 actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed
 officer died in on of their test flights...



 Isn't it ironic that the other claimants to first flight apparently
 abandoned their quest at their moment of triumph? Another common
 characteristic of the other first flighters is that none of them 
 contributed
 a single principle to aeronautical engineering, whereas the Wrights
 contributed several still in use today.



 Exactly my point... Obviously they had some success and were not 
 discouraged by any setbacks...



-- 
            Alix Pexton
Webmaster - http://www.theDjournal.com

            Alix theDjournal.com

Dec 20 2003

↑ ↓ ← → "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Alix Pexton" <Alix thedjournal.com> wrote in message
news:bs27bi$64q$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Just for the sake of throwing more names into the ring. Last week there
 was a documentory on the BBC about a British pioneer of flight by the
 name of Percy Pilcher. He was considered to be the successor to
 Lilienthal, but met the same fate (Both died in glider accidents).
 However, Pilcher was only flying his glider, called the Hawk because the
 engine for his triplane had broken down, and he needed something to show
 the potencial investors he had invited along to the demonstration.

 For the documentory, they built a plane that was as close to Pilcher's
 design as they could get, and it flew for well over a minute on the
 third attempt.

 Pilcher Died in 1899, and therefore he could of flown before the Wright
 Brothers.

 *IF* his plane was really like the one they built for the documentary,
 and it is a pretty big if, as there are no complete plans or photographs
 of Pilcher's craft, and the replica was based on descriptions. One can't
 help thinking that in building the replica in the way that they did,
 that what the produced was a modern plane in the Pilcher style.

 So there you go...


I read the transcript. Given all the improvements they made, it's pretty
obvious that Pilcher's original plane would not have flown. To fly, 3
problems needed to be solved - lift, control, and power. Pilcher didn't
solve any of them. Of course, he might have if he'd lived. But history is
full of what might have beens if only...

Dec 20 2003

↑ ↓ ← → Arsenio <Arsenio_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <bs0glt$ho1$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jan Knepper says...
Walter wrote:
I thought I remembered that they had it on film...


 
 To celebrate the anniversary, I put it on www.digitalmars.com <g>.


Thanks! Will take a look at it!

An other issue is that the Wright brothers continued to work on planes
and and became more and more successful. If I remember correctly they
actually got involved with the army. I think a rather highly placed
officer died in on of their test flights...


 Isn't it ironic that the other claimants to first flight apparently
 abandoned their quest at their moment of triumph? Another common
 characteristic of the other first flighters is that none of them contributed
 a single principle to aeronautical engineering, whereas the Wrights
 contributed several still in use today.


Exactly my point... Obviously they had some success and were not 
discouraged by any setbacks...

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper


Santos-Dumont did not abandon building airplanes after the 14-Bis. Everyone
knows about his Demoiselles, the world's first ever production airplanes.

Oct 19 2004

↑ ↓ ← → "MikkelFJ" <mikkel dvideNOSPAMDOT.com> writes:

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:brvkii$283s$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 According to last month's Scientific American magazine (Dec 2003),
 Alberto-Santos-Dumont made the first *public* demonstration of flight in a
 field on Nov 12, 1906, and flew for 722 feet.  Because there was no proof


 the contrary at the time, he was hailed as the first man to fly.  "His


Being a dane I also think the danish inventor Ellehammer deserves some
credit :-). He got airborne a few weeks before Dumont but he lacked proper
steering control of the plane.

various claims to first flight:
http://100aviators.netfirms.com/contro.html

Mikkel

Dec 21 2003

↑ ↓ ← → Arsenio <Arsenio_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <brvkii$283s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean L. Palmer says...
According to last month's Scientific American magazine (Dec 2003),
Alberto-Santos-Dumont made the first *public* demonstration of flight in a
field on Nov 12, 1906, and flew for 722 feet.  Because there was no proof to
the contrary at the time, he was hailed as the first man to fly.  "His
countrymen today still revere Santos-Dumont as the Father of Aviation."  But
in Dec 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers had flown a powered, heavier-than-air
plane 852 feet in controlled, sustained flight... unfortunately they were
very secretive, and would not allow the press or spectators to witness their
success.  Earlier that same day, the "first" flight considered successful,
was only 120 feet.  They, however, were certainly not the first men to
fly... men had been flying since 1783, in balloons and gliders.  By 1903,
powered balloon flights and glider soaring were commonplace... what they did
not have was powered, controlled flight in a heavier-than-air machine.
Clement Ader can be credited with the first powered takeoff in 1890, but his
steam-powered aircraft reached an altitude of eight inches, sufficient to
classify it as a flight only to his French countrymen.  Even New Zealand got
into the air before us:  Richard Pearse, in March 1903, flew a
bamboo-and-canvas monoplane about 450 feet before crashing into a gorse
hedge, which doesn't really meet the definition of "controlled flight".  ;)

Seems to be an interesting story.  You may want to read it.

Sean


"Bono Vox" <bono art.com> wrote in message
news:brv5dr$1g1e$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 A little correction :-)

 The first flight was made by Santos Dummondt in Paris in 1903 before the
 brothers Wright. In this ocasion the "14bis" has landed from a field near


 by itselt cross Paris turned around the Eiffel tower and came back to the


 Yes, I know you learn in the school about the first fly being made by the


 Brothers. And yes, I know you will not believe about them "airplane" has


 after, used a catapult to land and do not turn to any side.

 -jr

Oct 19 2004

↑ ↓ ← → Arsenio <Arsenio_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <brvkii$283s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean L. Palmer says...
According to last month's Scientific American magazine (Dec 2003),
Alberto-Santos-Dumont made the first *public* demonstration of flight in a
field on Nov 12, 1906, and flew for 722 feet.  Because there was no proof to
the contrary at the time, he was hailed as the first man to fly.  "His
countrymen today still revere Santos-Dumont as the Father of Aviation."  But
in Dec 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers had flown a powered, heavier-than-air
plane 852 feet in controlled, sustained flight... unfortunately they were
very secretive, and would not allow the press or spectators to witness their
success.  Earlier that same day, the "first" flight considered successful,
was only 120 feet.  They, however, were certainly not the first men to
fly... men had been flying since 1783, in balloons and gliders.  By 1903,
powered balloon flights and glider soaring were commonplace... what they did
not have was powered, controlled flight in a heavier-than-air machine.
Clement Ader can be credited with the first powered takeoff in 1890, but his
steam-powered aircraft reached an altitude of eight inches, sufficient to
classify it as a flight only to his French countrymen.  Even New Zealand got
into the air before us:  Richard Pearse, in March 1903, flew a
bamboo-and-canvas monoplane about 450 feet before crashing into a gorse
hedge, which doesn't really meet the definition of "controlled flight".  ;)

Seems to be an interesting story.  You may want to read it.

Sean


"Bono Vox" <bono art.com> wrote in message
news:brv5dr$1g1e$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 A little correction :-)

 The first flight was made by Santos Dummondt in Paris in 1903 before the
 brothers Wright. In this ocasion the "14bis" has landed from a field near


 by itselt cross Paris turned around the Eiffel tower and came back to the


 Yes, I know you learn in the school about the first fly being made by the


 Brothers. And yes, I know you will not believe about them "airplane" has


 after, used a catapult to land and do not turn to any side.

 -jr




Funny how anyone can claim an invention after someone else
already proved it its own, in public! No one can believe the
Wrights were the inventors, since an airplane flies on its
own and can never be dependent on prevailing winds, catapult, 
or any other external aid!

Oct 19 2004

↑ ↓ ← → Simon J Mackenzie <project.d smackoz.fastmail.fm> writes:

My Grandfather built a plane in 1919 which he called "Silver Wings."

This is no claim on the Wright Brothers but it was probably the first 
all plywood constructed plane built in Australia and he did it in a 
horse and chaff shed.  The 70HP v8 Renault motor is now in the Moorabbin 
Air Museum in Melbourne and my Uncle still has the original four bladed 
hand made propella (the family still can't convince him to donate it to 
the museum).  Not bad when you consider grandpa built most of the tools 
he needed to build the airplane.

Simon

Bono Vox wrote:
 A little correction :-)
 
 The first flight was made by Santos Dummondt in Paris in 1903 before the
 brothers Wright. In this ocasion the "14bis" has landed from a field near Paris
 by itselt cross Paris turned around the Eiffel tower and came back to the
field.
 Yes, I know you learn in the school about the first fly being made by the
Wright
 Brothers. And yes, I know you will not believe about them "airplane" has flouth
 after, used a catapult to land and do not turn to any side.
 
 -jr

Dec 22 2003