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

[Truthin History]

The alternative truth about who invented the first successful airplane and made the first successful flight of mankind is controversial. Gustave Whitehead is said to be have successfully flown a powered aeroplane of his own invention - closer to the design of modern planes than the Wright Flyer 1 - successfully taking off and landing during the period 1901-1903, on multiple occasions. The testimonies and articles testifying to the flights include those of 18 witnesses, the Scientific American aviation editor in at least five of its issues of the of the era, in 12 local news articles by numerous local newspapers, and Gustave Whitehead, himself, in trade journals, regional newspapers, and at least one surviving letter. What do you think and please cite primary sources if known, as much misinformation exists on the web and in previously authored books by historians. I am the author of "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight", having been involved closely with the research conducted from 1963 forward to this current date, and in past years, met a number of Whitehead's contemporaries, including flight witnesses. Please see my profile. A related question is how did the Smithsonian-Wright Agreement of 1948 hamper investigations and credit, if credit is due? It is fitting to ask this question on Jan. 1, the birthday of Gustave Whitehead.

 

[jammci]

What?

 

[Truthin History]

What?

Rather unsettling to be told that, I imagine! We've been spoonfed the info on the Wrights for over a hundred years.

 

[gentboss]

Because Whitehead was a fabulist (though certainly a skilled mechanic and engineer) whose story was picked up decades later by Albert Zahm - once an ally of the Wrights who broke with them over issues of money and eventually became one of their bitterest and most long-lasting foes. (In fairness to Zahm the Wrights, perfectionist introverts that they were, were not easy men to like.)

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

 

[gentboss]

To get a WI out of the scenario:

What if Whitehead had been the first to fly in 1901? Whitehead seems like someone who'd be vulnerable to being bought out by a Curtiss or similar figure - so perhaps there's no patent war in the 1910s and American aviation doesn't have the bobble caused by Orville and Wilbur's rather litigious natures...

 

[Truthin History]

Because Whitehead was a fabulist (though certainly a skilled mechanic and engineer) whose story was picked up decades later by Albert Zahm - once an ally of the Wrights who broke with them over issues of money and eventually became one of their bitterest and most long-lasting foes. (In fairness to Zahm the Wrights, perfectionist introverts that they were, were not easy men to like.)

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

Was he a storyteller? Were all the witnesses also storytellers? Were the newspapers and Scientific American articles all wrong? Was the witness Anton Pruckner, who worked with him and whose home I visited and observed him giving testimony totally deluded? Really?

 

[jammci]

Ah right, could I see your sources please, any photos of the flight etc?

 

[Truthin History]

Ah right, could I see your sources please, any photos of the flight etc?

I have over 900 footnoted sources. A photo is not necessary though these did exist in his day. It is of interest that the photo we admire as proof of the "first powered flight" by Orville is a photo of what was considered a failed flight in that time period, even by the Wrights. That is memorialized in letters between the Wrights and William Hammer, who made a Chronology of Aviation, published in the World Almanac of 1911 and separately, sent to all notable members of aero clubs in 1912. Wilbur and Orville approved it. They approved the fact that both Orville's flights were failed ones and only the last flight of the day (by Wilbur) was considered successful, though it also was out of control, and crashed. My own sources are found in the FAQ on my website, www.gustavewhitehead.info. Witnesses, newspaper articles, Scientific American articles. The complete info is in a near-500 page book. It's a big topic but I will answer any questions possible.

 

[Truthin History]

This is the real-deal with alternate history - on a massive scale!

 

[Alternator]

This happens occasionally.

We're not a conspiracy theorist site, we're a bunch of loons who like to talk about what could have been, had events happened differently.

 

[wcv215]

It’s probably fruitless, but...

The primary evidence that Whitehead did not succeed is the lack of evidence he did. Had he done so there would have been fanfare, newspaper articles, patents filed, that sort of thing. There was not. There is no evidence he flew whatsoever other than a handful of claims from years later with no evidence backing them. Eyewitness testimony is not inherently proof. Given that no one has managed to get his design flying without using modern materials and a modern engine, and even then requiring wind to being the flight, these eyewitnesses should not be considered reliable.

 

[Truthin History]

It’s probably fruitless, but...

The primary evidence that Whitehead did not succeed is the lack of evidence he did. Had he done so there would have been fanfare, newspaper articles, patents filed, that sort of thing. There was not. There is no evidence he flew whatsoever other than a handful of claims from years later with no evidence backing them. Eyewitness testimony is not inherently proof. Given that no one has managed to get his design flying without using modern materials and a modern engine, and even then requiring wind to being the flight, these eyewitnesses should not be considered reliable.

Whitehead became famous from 1901 through 1904, worldwide, for his flights. He continued to receive local attention for his later inventions through 1915 - in the regional newspapers. There are hundreds of articles on him - likely around 300 from his era, to date, that have surfaced. He filed for a patent when he had the money from a sponsor, finally. He could not get the patent filed for that reason before the Wrights. The two replicas flew, using the same materials he used, with modern engines of same / similar hp. Wind was not required at all for his flights. Unfortunately there is misinformation about him on the Internet and in many modern books.

 

[Truthin History]

This happens occasionally.

We're not a conspiracy theorist site, we're a bunch of loons who like to talk about what could have been, had events happened differently.

I like this aspect - the "what if" part. My "what if" to this is, "what if" there hadn't been a Smithsonian-Wright Agreement of 1948? Would Whitehead have received any credit at all? The Smithsonian-Wright Agreement is not a conspiracy theory but a document that exists in fact. It allowed the Smithsonian to obtain the Wright Flyer for $1 and other considerations IF they promised not to recognize anyone else to have flown first besides Orville. It was signed, they got the plane and it is still in force. However, if the agreement is broken, the Flyer reverts to the heirs and they'd have to buy it back. Covers all their associated institutions as well as research facilities too. The attorneys knew what they were doing.

 

[Truthin History]

I can upload that document if need be. I am hoping that someone cares about examining these facts.

 

[Dorknought]

the Scientific American aviation editor in at least five of its issues of the of the era

and the Scientific American chooses to debunk Whiteheads claim now:

Scientific American Debunks Claim Gustave Whitehead Was "First in Flight"

It has been claimed (yet again) that Gustave Whitehead flew a powered, controlled airplane before the Wright brothers did

Link

 

[Alex1guy]

Genuine question. Can I ask why you are so invested in this topic? Also this would be a more appropriate discussion in the chat topic because theres no what if here.

 

[Gudestein]

In fairness, there is one stated what if, and one latent more interesting one.
First, no-smithsonian Wright agreement and the second which is continuous recognition of Whitehead as the first in flight. The latter is best imagined with a video recording.
That means it is out there, for all the world to see and with inspirational footage of the plane and no patents. That must send butterflies spinning around the world.
My take is a few years earlier air craft development, which translates into better aircraft in WW1, more decisive rolle for them in WW1 and hence increased R&D in the interwar years.

 

[Jellico]

There are a whole bunch of obscure inventors claiming powered flight before the Wright brothers. It is quite believable that at least one of them did succeed. It is certainly the case for many other "firsts".

But it is often more about who is in a position to exploit and publicize that first. And really it is not all that important. Inventions get exploited for a bunch of reasons beyond simply being invented. See Aeolipile and a missing industrial revolution

 

[NoMommsen]

ere the Wright brothers the first to fly a powered aircraft? And if not, what effect would this have on the history of aviation?

The answers are "no" and "none at all."
....

First two paragraphs from here.

Esp. the by me underlined might be of interest for the aims of alternatehistory.com .

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

@Jellico is right. There are other claims as well (Karl Jatho for example). All lack evidences.

In case of Weißkopf/Whitehead there are newspaper news and some witnesses named. Of the newspapers only two are reporting independently, and both were local newspapers. The others referred to these reports. That doesn't mean, they are wrong though. In how far the witnesses are credible, I can't say. But that's true for any witness in such cases. In any way, two replicas of the plane Whitehead claimed to have flown did fly indeed, albeit they were slightly modified.

But we should have a look on the Wrights as well. At first there are also witnesses named. So the problems with credibility is given as well. Then there is a photo, which is BTW dubious. And a telegram by the Wrights to their father. IMO that is not much better. Especially as the replica of the flyer could not be flown. Truth to be told the flyer had been not an easy plane and the Wrights years of training with the test machines. The Smithonian can't be regarded unbiased in this regard.

All in all there are more hints (I don't say evidences) that Weißkopf had been the first, as the Wright claim is not as good as the Smithonian says. The secret contract with the Wright family is a great concern, also the attacks of Orville Wright, who used alternative facts back in 1945. Thus the Smithonian is biased.

To determine, who indeed flew at first, one needed a new, unbiased investigation. And no, the Smithonian can't be involved in this. The claim of the Wrights is as good or as bad as the claim of Weißkopf IMO.

So to the WI: IMO there is not much to say, if Weißkopf had been recognized generally from the start. There would not have happened any other events. The plane needed years to work in an adequate manner. Therefore I can't see any great butterflies happen.