Why wasn't Gustave Whitehead credited with "first flight" ahead of the Wrights?

Reader mode

Rufus Shinra

Jozon said:
You obviously have an axe to grind with the Wright Brothers. Even then, the idea that they caused WWI by inciting the Germans to use Wright aircraft to overwhelm their enemies in combat is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, and I must at least commend you on originality and sheer batshit insanity. Any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt would certainly never let facts get in the way of the lunacy they're peddling, but even then, the ignorance your 'theory' (and I use the word theory in its broadest possible definition) demands is astounding, and if this is the manner in which you conduct your research, you are certainly not enticing me to read your book anytime soon.
Click to expand...
This. The only "source" is a dubious website using retracted articles...
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
Bizzy Chris said:
I have read the book on Whitehead and found overwhelming evidence that he flew before the Wrights. Had he not been an immigrant and poor, he would have gotten the credit for his work. Whitehead being German would not have realized the importance of patents until too late which appears to be the case. From a typical German perspective, if there wasn't an invention that had immediate practical applications it would not have been important to protect the work. That being said, many people saw Whitehead fly. If the reports were in error, the papers would have been taken to task and they were not. The Wrights understood the US system and took advantage of a poor immigrant. It is sad that a wonderful immigrant wasn't given the credit he deserved.
Click to expand...
Since when does two equal "many people"? Two people are listed as having seen him fly. And one of those swears he never saw him fly and never met the other witness. That's hardly overwhelming evidence.
 

nbcman

Donor
It starts to make sense. The OP includes their name on their profile (Susan O'Dwyer Brinchman, M. Ed,). Apparently they are a relative of an gentleman who contributed to or wrote books about the Whitehead claims back in the 1960s and 1970s. Carrying on the family tradition.

History by contract
Following a chance discovery in 1963, reserve U.S. Air Force major William O'Dwyer was asked to research into Whitehead. He became convinced that Whitehead did fly and contributed research material to a second book by Stella Randolph, The Story of Gustave Whitehead, Before the Wrights Flew, published in 1966.[19][20]

O'Dwyer and Randolph co-authored another book, History by Contract, published in 1978. The book criticised the Smithsonian Institution for its contracted obligation to credit only the 1903 Wright Flyer for the first powered controlled flight, claiming that it created a conflict of interest and had been kept secret. The Smithsonian defended itself vigorously.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Daughter to be precise.

EDIT2: And the OP's book was probably written to capitalize on a mistake by CT Gov Dannel Malloy and the CT Government as a whole in approving a Substitute House Bill 'recognizing' Whitehead in 2013. They also acknowledged the 'Ballroom Polka' as the official State Polka and multiple official months for Irish, Native Americans, and others in the same SHB 6671.
 
Last edited:
McPherson

McPherson

Banned
Truthin History said:
What is poorly understood (unless someone has read my book, apparently) is that Whitehead was a prolific inventor. The goal of the era was to fly and be able to make it into a commercial venture such that people and loads could be transported. This is what the public wanted, and what Whitehead also wished. He considered the flights of the No. 21 successful as a step, but experimented with placing motors on other common glider designs, as well. First he'd build the glider and experiment with it, then build the powered version and experiment with that. He had a series of short-lived sponsors or wanna-be sponsors, who wanted to make a fast buck off him, or even steal his ideas. The Wrights are named amongst these. Those who don't understand his history and methods think Whitehead was a linear inventor like the Wrights, who never really developed their invention fully, as it failed to perform safely for years, and then became obsolete as the secret of flying was "out" by 1908/1909 and they were left in the dust, to try to profit on all world aviation in the courtroom. Whitehead should get credit for his successes, which were the first of their type, and for the elements of design still used today. He did not need to solve all the problems of commercial flight in order to gain recognition. He'd have that recognition, it is my assertion, and that of many others, if it were not for the Smithsonian-Wright Agreement of 1948 (aka "The Contract"). Due to that, Smithsonian continually asserts he never left the ground, which is preposterous, considering all the local news articles (and world articles), witnesses, and the replicas, designed by engineers with help from photos and the record of earlier advisement from Whitehead's engineer, Anton Pruckner. Here is the German replica which eventually flew to an elevation of 50 feet and for 1/2 mile, just as Whitehead did with the same No. 21. Orville claimed (with no reason save being upset about the claim as it interfered with his grandiose ideas of being credited with first flight for all time) that the design of the No. 21 plane was enough to convince anyone it could not fly. Both replicas were built as closely to Whitehead's plane as possible, and both flew easily. Even using materials from the same companies, when available.
.
Click to expand...

a.

b.

In the second example notice POSITIVE 2-D three axis control and a significant as in several hundred pound payload in two human beings and a movie camera which shows a passenger's eye view of pitch and yaw forces tamped (horizon) and a turn executed (building)?

In the (German? 1998?) recreated example of the Type 21 provided as a proof I noticed immediately ballast modification and certain immediate tail control issues that prevented any deviation from a powered straight line glide. That was not an airplane. It was not even an approximation of an airplane. I also noticed that the engines in the replica are modern ultralights providing far more watts (about 140) than even the Wrights were able to coax out of their Model A's engine. Comparable to a WWI Neuport in engine performance. You can get a barn door to glide if you use a modern airscrew and camber the "wing" properly, but that does not mean positive control of a heavier than air machine at all.

Here be the third piece of evidence.

Wilbur-Wright.png


That is the Wright Flyer A as seen with a photo from the ground. That is a banking turn under positive flight input control.

Ah, the Wright Contract.

Whitehead had nothing to do with it. He was not even noticed or mentioned.

Basically (and it holds for the Wright heirs down to the present) it was an extremely bitter fight over intellectual property rights as to the fundamentals of positive 2-D three axis flight control. The Smithsonian as Langley's putative sponsor, might have profited greatly both in reputation and monetarily if their hired agent, the super genius Glenn Curtiss, had been able to foist his con-job on the reviewing patent agencies that were in the middle of judging the engineering and theoretical work that underlies powered controlled manned heavier than air craft. All Curtiss had to do was convince the various patent agencies of several nations that the Langley Aerodrome was a controllable machine that was first in the air to handle yaw, pitch and roll. He tried mightily. His demonstrator was a good surface facsimile of the Aerodrome. Then in a series of technical papers Orville tore that heavily modified machine and Glenn Curtiss apart. You, see, Curtiss was a super-genius, but Orville knew the secret of flight down to his socks. He'd done the math, ran the wind-tunnel tests, did the glider work and finally flew along with Wilbur. Not even a super genius (Bleriot was another one, who I greatly honor for his contemporary feats along with Curtiss.) knew what Orville knew about how to handle such pilot killer things like flat spin and Dutch roll or STALL.

When Orville mathematically described the appalling flight characteristics EXACTLY of the Curtiss copy of the Aerodrome from just having seen a picture of it, even Curtiss conceded the argument.

The Smithsonian, to its immense discredit, kept the fight up until after WW II, until even they threw in the towel.

In early 1914, the Smithsonian Institution lent Glenn Curtiss the remains of the 1903 Langley Aerodrome. This was the manned aircraft that Samuel P. Langley, then the Secretary of the Smithsonian, had tried to fly right before the Wright brothers made their first successful powered flights at Kitty Hawk in 1903. Actually, Langley had tried to fly the Aerodrome twice on 7 October and 8 December 1903 and failed both times. Curtiss rebuilt the Aerodrome, making significant changes to the airframe, wings, drive train, and controls. He then managed to make a few hop-flights off the surface of a lake near Hammondsport, NY. None of these lasted more than a few seconds nor could they be sustained for longer than a few hundred feet. Nonetheless, both Glenn Curtiss and the Smithsonian crowed that these flights proved that the Langley Aerodrome had been "capable" of flight in 1903. It was, they insisted, the first true aircraft.

Griffith Brewer, an English patent attorney and a friend of Orville's, was visiting the United States at the time. At Orville's request, he traveled to Hammondsport to see what was going on. He shot photos that documented the changes made to Langley's aircraft, then fired off a letter to the New York Times charging that the flights did not prove that the Langley Aerodrome was airworthy in its original configuration. This letter touched off a controversy that raged for almost thirty years, pitting Orville Wright against the Smithsonian Institution.

The reasons that Glenn Curtiss had made these test flights were purely commercial. He had lost the patent suit that the Wrights had filed against him; the courts had ruled not just that the control systems of Curtiss aircraft were derivative of the Wright's patented system, but also the Wright system was necessary for aerial navigation, period. It was the "pioneer patent" of the aircraft industry. By flying the Langley Aerodrome, Curtiss was attempting to show that another airplane could have successfully navigated the air before the Wrights. Therefore their patent was not entitled to the pioneer status the courts had given it.

The Smithsonian's interest in these flights was political. The reputation of the Smithsonian had suffered greatly in 1903 when Langley's Aerodrome failed to fly. This made it more difficult to obtain funding, which limited its growth and effectiveness as a scientific organization. The current Secretary, Charles Walcott, felt that the best way to repair this reputation was the show the Aerodrome could have flown; the time and money spent on it had not been wasted.

Walcott also had a vested interest in the Aerodrome; it's failure had affected his reputation as well. He had been involved with the project from its inception in 1898; it was Walcott that had found the backing Langley needed to build the aircraft. When he took over the Smithsonian from Langley in 1906, both the institution and its Secretary were tarnished in the eyes of many. Walcott immediately began to rebuild his political effectiveness and that of the Smithsonian by rehabilitating the memory of Samuel Langley. He created a Langley Medal for outstanding contributions to aeronautics, erected a Langley memorial tablet to immortalize Langley's own contribution, even decreed a "Langley Day" to remember his many scientific triumphs.

In 1914, there was talk of creating a national aeronautics laboratory with an advisory council to direct research and encourage the growth of this new industry. Walcott wanted to re-open Langley's aeronautical workshop at the Smithsonian to serve this function, but the Smithsonian was just one of several organizations that were vying for this honor – and its attendant funding. When the opportunity came to rebuild and fly the Aerodrome, Walcott moved quickly to make it happen. A successful flight, properly presented in the press, would go a long way toward restoring the Smithsonian's reputation. This in turn might convince Congress that the Smithsonian would be a good place to conduct aeronautics research. Within days of concluding an agreement with Curtiss, he shipped the remains of the Aerodrome to Hammondsport.

Once Curtiss got his hands on the old aircraft, he discovered problems and weaknesses that affected its airworthiness. He chose not to launch it in its original condition and instead made changes that would enhance its performance, controllability, and structural integrity. The aircraft that flew in Hammondsport was, as Brewer had claimed, not the same that Langley had tried to launch in 1903. Curtiss and the Smithsonian, however, insisted it was close enough. No matter, the flights did not achieve their objectives – events marched past the Hammondsport trials. Congress created the National Advisory Council for Aeronautics (NACA) independent of the Smithsonian, and NACA created a patent pool, the Manufacturers Aircraft Association (MAA), that resolved Curtiss' patent dilemma.

The Smithsonian, however, could not back away from its conclusion that the Langley Aerodrome was the first man-carrying powered aircraft "capable of sustained flight." It published reports that repeated these claims in the Smithsonian Annual Reports beginning in 1914 through 1918. And in 1918, it displayed a newly-restored Langley Aerodrome in the Arts and Industries Building with a label that claimed it was the first aircraft "capable" of flight. As evidenced by books and magazines that were published during that time, the public began to believe that Langley was the "father of flight."

To counter the Smithsonian, Orville restored the 1903 Wright Flyer I and began to show it at special venues. Several friends came to his defense, including Griffith Brewer who rallied all of England to Orville's cause. In 1921, Brewer gave a speech to the Royal Academy of Science in England that listed the changes to the Aerodrome that were necessary to make it fly and exposed the deception. It was simultaneously published in America, and caused a great uproar in the aviation community. The uproar spread to the general public in 1925 when Orville announced that he would send the 1903 Wright Flyer to the Kensington Science Museum in England unless the Smithsonian recanted. He finally sent the Flyer in 1928 and published his reasons. “I believe my course in sending our Kitty Hawk machine to a foreign museum is the only way of correcting the history of the flying machine, which by false and misleading statements has been perverted by the Smithsonian Institution.”

By this time, the Smithsonian had changed Secretaries again. Charles Abbot had taken over for Charles Walcott when the latter died. Abbot was a close personal friend of Langley and was every bit as mindful of Washington politics as Walcott. He tried to negotiate a truce with Orville in 1929, but balked when Orville demanded he publish a list of changes that had been made to the Aerodrome and to retract the statement that it was capable of flight in its 1903 configuration. Abbot told Orville that he could not do anything that would embarrass the Smithsonian or the late Walcott.

He balked again in 1934 when Charles Lindbergh tried to mediate the disagreement. But Abbot finally acceded in 1942 when Fred C. Kelly informed him that he was writing an "authorized" autobiography of the Wright brothers and had promised Orville that he would mend fences if he could. Kelly warned Abbot that this biography would have a section on the Wright/Smithsonian controversy. If the book went to press with the controversy unresolved, it would be a source of embarrassment for decades. Furthermore, Orville was an old man. If he died before amends could be made, the embarrassment would be permanent. It would be better to end the standoff, even if the Smithsonian had to admit it was wrong. In a Smithsonian Miscellaneous Report, issued in 1942, Abbot published the list of changes that Orville had asked for, admitted the 1914 test flights did not prove the Aerodrome was capable of flight in 1903, and apologized for the affair.

When Abbot next saw Orville, all seemed forgiven. At a special dinner honoring the Wright brothers in Washington DC on 17 December 1943, and with the approval of both Orville Wright and Charles Abbot, Secretary of Commerce Jesse Jones read an announcement from President Franklin D. Roosevelt that the Flyer would be returning to America and "the nation will welcome it back as the outstanding example of American genius.”

More Information

For a detailed account of the Wright/Smithsonian Controversy, follow the pages listed in the navigation column (left), beginning with The Flight of the Langley Aerodrome. We have also collected these pages, along with much additional information and resources, in a printer-friendly file, Politically Incorrect: The Flights and Fights Surrounding the 1914 Tests of the Langley Aerodrome.


http://www.wright-brothers.org/TBR/Adventure Images/Vin Fiz Images/Cal Rodgers drawing.jpg
The U.S. Army had funded Langley's "Aerodrome A," paying the Smithsonian $50,000 to develop a manned aircraft. Like Langley's smaller aerodromes, this was launched by a catapult atop a houseboat.

On both launch attempts in 1903, the Aerodrome had failed to fly. Langley blamed the catapult, claiming that the airplane was airworthy but the launching mechanism had failed.
http://www.wright-brothers.org/TBR/Adventure Images/Vin Fiz Images/Huntington Crash.jpg
When Curtiss rebuilt the Aerodrome in 1914, he discarded the catapult and attached pontoons so the aircraft could take off from the water. He also made changes to strengthen the structure and improve lift.

The Curtiss controls that were installed in the Aerodrome in 1914. At the extreme left, the sharp leading edges of the wings have been removed, altering the camber, angle of attack, and aspect ratio. These were two of the many changes that Glenn Curtiss made to the Aerodrome to make it modestly airworthy.

The improvements were just enough to get the Aerodrome off the water for few seconds. It was not able to make sustained flights until Curtiss made more changes, including a new engine and propeller.

In front of the Aerodrome, from left to right, Charles Walcott, Glenn Curtiss, Walcott's daughter Helen, Albert Zahm and C.C. Wittmer, a Curtiss pilot.

After the test flights, the Aerodrome was restored to its 1903 configuration and displayed in the Smithsonian with a placard claiming it to be "the first man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free flight."

The 1903 Wright Flyer in the Kensington Science Museum in London, 1928.

Paul Garber (right) of the Smithsonian Institution welcomes the Flyer back to America in 1948.
A Virtual Walk-Around

  • Comparing the 1903 and 1914 Aerodromes – Explore 3D models of the Langley Aerodrome -- the original 1903 Aerodrome, the 1914 reconstruction, and a composite of both the 1903 and 1914 machines, showing what parts were discarded or added in the reconstruction. Adobe 3D-PDF software allows you to zoom, pan, slide, and turn the models to see them from any angle, close up or far away.
Click to expand...


Provided (^^^) directly from the citation.
 
McPherson

McPherson

Banned
Truthin History said:
Notice the use of wheels, a cockpit with controls, wings, rudder, fuselage and much more. The following are listed as GW's main accomplishments and firsts (GW = Whitehead):

WHITEHEAD’S MAIN ACCOMPLISHMENTS
“First-in-Flight”: first manned, powered and controlled flight in a “heavier-than-air craft” in the world, with his August 14, 1901 No. 21 “Condor” aeroplane [iv]
Developed first successful flying boat, the precursor to hydroaeroplane and hydroplane
World record for speed, duration, and altitude (1901-1902)
Development of forms of wing warping, use of a rudder, and three-axis control before the Wright patent was taken out
Developed and flew first successful aerocar
Developed and flew first successful aeroplane that used wheels
Developed and flew first successful aeroplane that used opposing propellers in front (later referred to as tractors)
Developed gyroscope to stabilize precursor to autopilot mechanism
Developed one of the earliest helicopters
Provided a vision and example to others that flight was possible
Developed multiple aircraft, with early successful design that demonstrated flight possible
Designed and built at least 200 lightweight engines, some of which powered aircraft that flew successfully
Sharing his findings with contemporary inventors in person, during press conferences, in trade journals through letters, and in press interviews
...
THE “FIRSTS”
Whitehead accomplishments that may be considered ” firsts*”:
First known manned, powered and controlled flight in a “heavier-than-air craft”, worldwide in an aircraft he designed and built
First to fly in a complete circle
First successful “aeronaut”
First to fly at night with powered aircraft
First use of wing-warping in successfully flown aircraft
First to design and fly a roadable “aero-car-boat” aircraft
First powered successful seaplane
First rubber-tired wheels used on successful airplane
First to design and build first lightweight engine for successful powered flight
First to master launching plane using speed of wheels and lift of propellers
First to design and build first powerful, lightweight gasoline engines for powered flight (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, & 8 cylinder engines)
First to sell powerful, lightweight gasoline engines for powered flight to others
First air-cooled engine in powered flight
First airplane propelled on ground by engine
First airplane with folding wings
First use of aluminum propellers
First to design individually controllable propellers
First to design two-place aircraft
First to experiment with aircraft in Pennsylvania and Connecticut
First to publicly advertise multiple passenger aircraft
First to build a concrete runway for aircraft in USA
First to design and use a concrete-laying machine in Connecticut
*Biographer and researcher Stella Randolph notes that most of these firsts were accomplished prior to December 17, 1903, in her book “Before the Wrights Flew”.

Gustave Whitehead first to fly, inventor of the powered airplane, shared his discoveries immediately with the world, paving the way for all others working on the development of a practical airplane.
http://gustavewhitehead.info/gustave-whitehead-first-to-fly/
Click to expand...

Great claims require great proof.

And frankly based on the evidence accumulated and presented? What do you think I think?
 

TRH

SsgtC said:
Since when does two equal "many people"? Two people are listed as having seen him fly. And one of those swears he never saw him fly and never met the other witness. That's hardly overwhelming evidence.
Click to expand...

Considering this is their first post and they registered yesterday, I strongly suspect they’re a sock for the OP.
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
TRH said:
Considering this is their first post and they registered yesterday, I strongly suspect they’re a sock for the OP.
Click to expand...
I actually suspect that as well. I only replied on the very slim chance that they're not.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Truthin History said:
My thought is that the Wrights were provoking the Germans and the Russians into thinking that with the airplanes they could vanquish their enemies. Gustave Whitehead said later that he'd never have invented the airplane (sic) if he'd known what it would be used for. He was a very staunch pacifist and religious man. I don't think Curtiss was a war monger either. Both of them less greedy than the Wrights - or not greedy at all, as it seems from studying them.
Click to expand...
Well, I tried, I really did.

Once the Wright Brothers getting credit for 1st powered flight ---> WW I the line has well and truly been crossed

We divorce you.

upload_2019-1-3_12-38-3.png
 

Admiral Halsey

Banned
CalBear said:
Ya, but the crazy was really starting bleed through, plus the whole created a puppet so he could have someone agreeing with him thing.
Click to expand...
Fair enough I guess. Didn't realize the sock though TBH.*



*Yes I am dense when it comes to noticing that stuff before ya ask.
 
McPherson

McPherson

Banned
Before this shuts down, just how good were Orville and Wilbur and their fabulous mechanic, Charlie Taylor?



This is the result (^^^) after we went to the moon and learned so much about aviation that we can fill a library the size of the Louvre with books published on what we have learned since that 17 December 1903. Orville and Wilbur made 3 flights combined, each at least as good or better than what Dr. Kevin Kochersberger accomplished as a pilot in 2003.

And then we have the explosion of talent that culminates in this...


and this...


You have to love those pioneers.

McP.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top