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

Indiana Beach Crow

Monthly Donor
And this is someone who's an educator. Let that sink in for a minute.

God help his students

giphy.gif
 
Ya, but the crazy was really starting bleed through, plus the whole created a puppet so he could have someone agreeing with him thing.

Up until the "Wright Brothers were responsible for WWI" I thought he might have a point. When there are a ton of people trying to invent the same thing giving credit to the "First one who invented it" can be murky. It can often come down to definition such as "Is this a glider with a engine on it or a true airplane?".

In theory in borderline situations it might not be clear, even to the inventor. I could see (I don't know if this actually happened or even if it is really possible not knowing much about flight) a borderline glider/airplane might look just get enough lift to take off with a stiff wind with the engine putting it barely over the top. Is it an airplane or a glider? It can get off the ground with a stiff wind at its back but it can't without a wind. I would assume it would be considered a glider but I am not sure. But it does show that it can get murky.
 
Up until the "Wright Brothers were responsible for WWI" I thought he might have a point. When there are a ton of people trying to invent the same thing giving credit to the "First one who invented it" can be murky. It can often come down to definition such as "Is this a glider with a engine on it or a true airplane?".

In theory in borderline situations it might not be clear, even to the inventor. I could see (I don't know if this actually happened or even if it is really possible not knowing much about flight) a borderline glider/airplane might look just get enough lift to take off with a stiff wind with the engine putting it barely over the top. Is it an airplane or a glider? It can get off the ground with a stiff wind at its back but it can't without a wind. I would assume it would be considered a glider but I am not sure. But it does show that it can get murky.
That is a poor standard as by that standard the large majority of carrier-based planes wont count as airplanes if taking off from a carrier, as they cant take off from a carrier without a strong enough wind(even if said wind can be generated by simply moving).
 
Last edited:
Better:

That is a poor standard as by that standard the large majority of carrier-based planes wont count as airplanes if taking off from a carrier, as they cant take off from a carrier without a strong enough wind(even if said wind can be generated by simply moving).

OK, like I said I wasn't an expert. What would you see as the main difference then?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Better:

That is a poor standard as by that standard the large majority of carrier-based planes wont count as airplanes if taking off from a carrier, as they cant take off from a carrier without a strong enough wind(even if said wind can be generated by simply moving).
True, but they can very much get off the ground on land, wind direction be damned.
 

Kaze

Banned
Witnesses do not mean anything - in a court of law, they do not hold water. You need a photograph. The Wrights had the foresight to bring a camera to prove they did it.
 
This chap chose a strange hill to die upon!

Good job on beating him half to death with with actual facts chaps - particularly McPherson

It made the thread very entertaining
 
This was one of the most bizarre threads Ive ever participated in.

Witnesses do not mean anything - in a court of law, they do not hold water. You need a photograph. The Wrights had the foresight to bring a camera to prove they did it.

Ultimately this is the truth. Others may have gotten there first but the Wrights publicized the fact. There was a Kiwi who also claimed to have first powered flight, but again little evidence and eye witnesses.

This was truly a bizarre hill to die on. The war-mongering wright brothers conspiracy.
 

McPherson

Banned
It can get off the ground with a stiff wind at its back but it can't without a wind.

Uhm, that is not how the Bernoulli Lift Effect FOR A WING works. (There is something else to add to it so read further.) Basically, the wing moves into the wind, whether bird, glider, or aeroplane.

OK, like I said I wasn't an expert. What would you see as the main difference then?

Powered aircraft that use Bernoulli Effect generate that wind over wing lift effect by using Newton's Third Law of Motion. The plane's motive device applies thrust to the rear of the plane's forward motion. The plane then moves through a fluid medium generating a current flow along its lift device all the wing. The lift effect is caused by the shape of the lift device (the wing) moving through a fluid (air but any fluid capable of current flow such as water will do) or a fluid moving across the lift device in the opposite direction of the lift device's forward motion. Now the way lift is generated is by a difference in current flow speed determined by the shape. The "upper" surface of the wing is curved in such a fashion as to cause a longer travel path for the current flow, than the flatter underside. What this physically does is cause a current separation at the wings leading edge where the current divides and then comes together with a speed differential causing that pressure drop. For reasons still not entirely understood, this creates a "pressure drop" on the "top" surface of the wing. The result is that the whole wing moves in the direction of the pressure drop. Coanda Effect is also involved.



Hope that helps.

McP.
 
Petike wrote:
The Chrysler SERV guy from several years ago has a serious challenger now.
raw


Man, this whole thread is like some belated Christmas gift.

*runs away to make popcorn, happy to read this insanity*

THANK you! It now makes sense why people get ‘twitchy’ when I mention “SERV” around here! I must say for a site that avoid “conspiracy theories” pretty well you folks DO get some doozies :)
raw


SsgtC wrote:
And this is someone who's an educator. Let that sink in for a minute.

“As a professional teacher with a Social Sciences credential and longtime early aviation researcher,…”

So quite obviously NOT ‘teaching’ the subjects where is “hobbies” lay which is probably why they are still a “professional teacher” :)

I’ve had personal experience with people who do a “professional” job and have odd-ball beliefs that fall outside their ‘expertise’ who both acknowledged their limitations and did not ‘trade’ on their professional reputation as a crutch. Met more than a few who believed they had none of the former and felt very comfortable trading on the latter and got very upset if you didn’t “take their word as an expert”.

But in this case the fact the OP was/is a “teacher” of Social Sciences is a non-factor, the fact they are an amateur researcher is. The fact they have some rather direct connections to Whitehead and have a commercial interest in the ‘history’ (a book) is also important but not in a supportive way. It is vastly important for ANY “researcher” to recognize, understand and keep in control their own bias’s on a subject, especially one they are ‘close’ to.

The OP quite obviously HAS bias’s but does not feel they are ‘relevant’ to the subject which is a very big warning sign since with a personal “connection” and monetary incentive involved (sook) the “researcher” now has a very large stake in the ‘research’ turning out a certain way. Their “perspective” is also suspect and ignores the context and issues of the time as well as attempting to super-simplify the dynamics of the personalities involved. As others have noted/said “I” have not read the book the OP is supposed to have written but am very much put off doing so by their attitude and lack of ability to interest me to do so by the quality of their given supporting evidence and assertions posted here.

Of course that may be exactly the point as one tactic used is to post on a forum and gather ‘suppressive/negative/confrontational’ comments to show how hard the “mainstream” is working to suppress the ‘evidence’. (I’ve noted a few such threads hear even though they were quickly shut down by the Mods you can see the ‘edited’ comments on the theorists sites)

Yes there IS a vague basis for “Alternate History” in the general ‘concept’ presented since arguably having anyone OTHER than the Wrights being first and general acknowledged as such will prevent the decade long ‘delay’ in US aircraft/flight development that occurred due to the “Wright” patent feud. The National Advisory Council on Aeronautics was specifically organized to prevent just such a ‘bottle-neck’ in research and development from happening again and frankly NOT having that delay itself and the follow on need to develop a government ‘council’ to prevent it from happing again has some major implications down the line. But this is very much different from what the OP was trying to do and as CalBear noted this is NOT the place to try and re-write history itself :)

Randy
 
Johnrankins wrote:
Up until the "Wright Brothers were responsible for WWI" I thought he might have a point. When there are a ton of people trying to invent the same thing giving credit to the "First one who invented it" can be murky. It can often come down to definition such as "Is this a glider with a engine on it or a true airplane?".

In theory in borderline situations it might not be clear, even to the inventor. I could see (I don't know if this actually happened or even if it is really possible not knowing much about flight) a borderline glider/airplane might look just get enough lift to take off with a stiff wind with the engine putting it barely over the top. Is it an airplane or a glider? It can get off the ground with a stiff wind at its back but it can't without a wind. I would assume it would be considered a glider but I am not sure. But it does show that it can get murky.

The real problem is NOT “who was first to fly” because that was SPECIFICALLY never the ‘point’ they were trying to reach. Nor was it even a simple as the first person to fly in a heavier-than-air vehicle, or controlled flight or even powered flight. It was a combination of many ‘goals’ into a single vehicle and flight. Balloons had been around since the 17th century, “manned” flight since the 19th and controlled manned flight shortly thereafter. Powered flight had been accomplished along the way but the available power plants were heavy and inefficient and the means of control over the vehicle in flight were primitive and spotty at best. But there was in fact a huge international community of people where constantly experimenting and developing the knowledge and techniques to achieve a manned powered, controlled flight vehicle.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_the_first_powered_flight)

They for the most part corresponded and exchanged information extensively and openly, (pioneer Octave Chanute for example was a prolific collector and publisher of monographs and information and research who was personally very hurt when the Wrights “claimed” exclusive and proprietary“ rights” to controlled flight with good reason since he’d greatly assisted their work) and it was this knowledge base that the Wrights tapped to learn and expand upon in their research.

At which point one has to wonder if there wasn’t something in the water “back-East” because that was in fact a very real “problem” with a lot of early 20th century technological innovation in that the “pioneers” often exhibited rather pathological “needs” to protect and profit from their ‘inventions’ to the point of very counterproductive results. Edison is a good example but Robert Goddard’s work is another and very much the attitude and outcome of the Wright brothers attempts to gain a “limited time” (10 years was a minimum they proposed) monopoly on any and all “powered and controlled” flight. They seriously demanded that any and all examples of “their” work that had been published or shared, (freely, by them at the time) be withdrawn and destroyed and that ALL means of ‘control’ (“warping of aero surfaces and “other” means as obvious to knowledgeable individuals” or literally ANY means of ‘control’ whether it derived from ‘warping’ or not) were their personal and private work and ALL means of such were covered by and inclusive of their existing patents.

They actually stopped development on the ‘flyer’ design in order to pursue legal efforts to stop anyone else from either developing or researching aircraft designs unless and until they ‘paid’ the Wrights for using their patents. They went as far as to pursue European courts to grant similar patent rights, (while granted limited patents the “monopoly” and general coverage patents were denied) while they aggressively pursued sanctions and legal penalties on ANY “flights” in the US. (To the point where European aviation pioneers stopped coming to the US because they were often ‘detained’ and/or their machines seized for “legal violations” of the Wright patents) While Curtiss was their main target in fact they went after everyone in the US who was even remotely trying to develop a “flying machine” and it very much effected early aviation efforts in the US.

So very much YES having someone else be both actually and acknowledged as “first” may very well have a HUGE impact on aviation development both in the US and elsewhere.

For example; If the US had felt that they were less ‘behind’ Europe in aviation technology and research is it unlikely that NACA would have been formed with all that implies towards high-end aviation research in the US let alone the ancestry of NASA! Or what if someone with more, (better) influence/money/power (backing by the “nobility” in some nations for example) had done something similar to the legal actions of the Wrights but in Europe? (After all as the Wrights and their backers/investors argued it was “only” 10 years of sole and proprietary ownership to payback the effort. How much harm could that do and afterwards the patents would be thrown open… ONLY from 1903 to 1913 would they hold ‘exclusive’ right and be able to charge fees and duties… Only)

Randy
 
Uhm, that is not how the Bernoulli Lift Effect FOR A WING works. (There is something else to add to it so read further.) Basically, the wing moves into the wind, whether bird, glider, or aeroplane.



Powered aircraft that use Bernoulli Effect generate that wind over wing lift effect by using Newton's Third Law of Motion. The plane's motive device applies thrust to the rear of the plane's forward motion. The plane then moves through a fluid medium generating a current flow along its lift device all the wing. The lift effect is caused by the shape of the lift device (the wing) moving through a fluid (air but any fluid capable of current flow such as water will do) or a fluid moving across the lift device in the opposite direction of the lift device's forward motion. Now the way lift is generated is by a difference in current flow speed determined by the shape. The "upper" surface of the wing is curved in such a fashion as to cause a longer travel path for the current flow, than the flatter underside. What this physically does is cause a current separation at the wings leading edge where the current divides and then comes together with a speed differential causing that pressure drop. For reasons still not entirely understood, this creates a "pressure drop" on the "top" surface of the wing. The result is that the whole wing moves in the direction of the pressure drop. Coanda Effect is also involved.



Hope that helps.

McP.

That the wing shape provides lift I knew already, my question is what would differentiate a glider with an engine on it and a true airplane. I would think a glider would have the same wing shape.
 

McPherson

Banned
That the wing shape provides lift I knew already, my question is what would differentiate a glider with an engine on it and a true airplane. I would think a glider would have the same wing shape.

There is a lift coefficient cut off number in wing for vehicle size and MASS whereby a glider is lifted by wind alone. The cutoff here for an aeroplane is that you have to apply on board generated thrust to the winged object to produce enough wind over wing speed to lift a HEAVIER THAN THE AIR CAN LIFT BY WIND ALONE MACHINE. This is usually shortened to heavier than air aircraft, which is why some (a lot more of them than one would suspect) people get that confusion between [even powered] glider and powered aircraft. The camber *(thickness and curvature form of a wing) is an incredibly complex trial by error process to fit the right wing to the plane being designed. NASA's predecessor, the NACA, spent a fortune of taxpayer's dollars trying to create a "wing form bible" that very much serves a similar function for aircraft designers what standardized ballistics tables do for gun makers. America's mistake was sharing what should have been a state secret with the world.

In the above explanation, the powered glider, does not require 50% or more of its maneuver ability to be supplied by the thruster. The aeroplane does which is why powered flight with 2-D three axis control is a more complete and accurate description of the Wright accomplishment. And as has been pointed out in this thread, at least six other aviation pioneers, especially Curtiss and Bleriot, were on the right course of research to achieve controllable manned powered flight by a machine that could not be lifted and controlled by wind passing over wing alone. The proof is in the turn inside the radius of the unpowered corner speed of the first Wright Flyer. That was Orville by the way. As an aside, even unpowered gliders require thrust, which is entirely supplied by gravity.

By the way, a glider requires a much larger wing area to mass than a powered aircraft though the camber might be identical. An example is the U-2. Without its jet engine it's wing would need twice the surface area just to get off the ground, although it corresponds to what might be called a "powered glider" at altitude.
 
There is a lift coefficient cut off number in wing for vehicle size and MASS whereby a glider is lifted by wind alone. The cutoff here for an aeroplane is that you have to apply on board generated thrust to the winged object to produce enough wind over wing speed to lift a HEAVIER THAN THE AIR CAN LIFT BY WIND ALONE MACHINE. This is usually shortened to heavier than air aircraft, which is why some (a lot more of them than one would suspect) people get that confusion between [even powered] glider and powered aircraft. The camber *(thickness and curvature form of a wing) is an incredibly complex trial by error process to fit the right wing to the plane being designed. NASA's predecessor, the NACA, spent a fortune of taxpayer's dollars trying to create a "wing form bible" that very much serves a similar function for aircraft designers what standardized ballistics tables do for gun makers. America's mistake was sharing what should have been a state secret with the world.

In the above explanation, the powered glider, does not require 50% or more of its maneuver ability to be supplied by the thruster. The aeroplane does which is why powered flight with 2-D three axis control is a more complete and accurate description of the Wright accomplishment. And as has been pointed out in this thread, at least six other aviation pioneers, especially Curtiss and Bleriot, were on the right course of research to achieve controllable manned powered flight by a machine that could not be lifted and controlled by wind passing over wing alone. The proof is in the turn inside the radius of the unpowered corner speed of the first Wright Flyer. That was Orville by the way. As an aside, even unpowered gliders require thrust, which is entirely supplied by gravity.

By the way, a glider requires a much larger wing area to mass than a powered aircraft though the camber might be identical. An example is the U-2. Without its jet engine it's wing would need twice the surface area just to get off the ground, although it corresponds to what might be called a "powered glider" at altitude.

Which does show how murky it could be in theory to say who was first. I am fine with the Wright Brothers getting credit but like all credit with inventions credit could change with different definitions.
 

McPherson

Banned
Which does show how murky it could be in theory to say who was first. I am fine with the Wright Brothers getting credit but like all credit with inventions credit could change with different definitions.

Some people could argue that and Curtiss did. I am satisfied to simply say that the Wright Brothers demonstrated manned controlled flight using onboard thrust and documented it when they did it. There were many people who arrived at that same solution they did within literally months of each other and the Wrights. See @RanulfC's excellent post above.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
This was one of the most bizarre threads Ive ever participated in.
Ultimately this is the truth. Others may have gotten there first but the Wrights publicized the fact. There was a Kiwi who also claimed to have first powered flight, but again little evidence and eye witnesses.

This was truly a bizarre hill to die on. The war-mongering wright brothers conspiracy.

Richard Pearse. More that others later claimed that his flight (not usefully controlled) was before the Wrights'.
 
Top