WI the Wright Brothers...

The Wright Flyer was the first fully controllable aircraft. And within a year a variant of that design needed no catapult and flew just like any aircraft of today does. None of the other designs that others have claimed for that time period had all that. Or were frankly even all that close.

In 1908 Sam Cody made the first recorded flight in the UK and in 1910 made a flight of four and a half hours. In 1911 his was the only British machine to finish in the round England race. There were over twenty entries half British the rest mainly French, so without the Wrights aviation was still going to happen.
 

recidivist

The Wright Flyer was the first fully controllable aircraft. And within a year a variant of that design needed no catapult and flew just like any aircraft of today does. None of the other designs that others have claimed for that time period had all that. Or were frankly even all that close.
But, as I understand it, the machine built to Percy Pilger's plans (my previous post) showed that it would have met the deemed criteria. Yes, he died before he could build, test and fly it well before the Wrights ... but isn't that where a 'what if' scenario comes into its own?
 

Archibald

Banned
Of course we can imagine that the Wrights were not the first :)

You just have to apply the Wright "recipe" to another guy anywhere in the world.

The question is, why where the Wright successfull ?
To me its because

- they chose a step-by-step approach, working on the long-term

- they had a flourishing bussiness - their bicycle commerce- to withstand their experiments.

- in consequence they did not need governement funding
(Ader, Langley and Chanute had public support, and failed)
Problem with public funds = obligation of result at a precise date. That sunk Ader in 1897...

- the Wright did everything alone, including their engine (!)
At least they obtained the exact engine they wanted for their machine!

- they were very, very rationale
(not like Hiram Maxim for example. Dream and ambition doesn't help)

Maybe if we invent a guy having all the elements above, he could compete with the Wrights ?

The upper limit would be somewhere around 1885-1890 : you need viable internal combustion engines to achieve flight. In short, car engines. Can't see steam aircrafts working...

The first cars with such engines (Benz and others) apeared in the 1880's. These engines needed some years to mature.

AH challenge : have a Wright brother earlier, and not in the USA... :)
 

recidivist

The upper limit would be somewhere around 1885-1890 : you need viable internal combustion engines to achieve flight. In short, car engines. Can't see steam aircrafts working...
I'm still championing Percy Plicher :). From the BBC programme:
"The trouble was in the 1890s there were no suitable engines. The most widely available were all steam driven. They had an obvious drawback that made them utterly unsuitable for flight. They weighed too much. But Pilcher was one of the very first to grasp the significance of a new invention that was just what was needed. The internal combustion engine was promising to revolutionise transport. For the first time here was an engine that was both powerful and lightweight. Pilcher realised it was the breakthrough that could transform powered flight. He now set about building his own engine to fit on to a new version of The Hawk."
 
The question is, why where the Wright successful?
To me its because
- they chose a step-by-step approach, working on the long-term
- they had a flourishing bussiness - their bicycle commerce- to withstand their experiments.
- in consequence they did not need governement funding
(Ader, Langley and Chanute had public support, and failed)
Problem with public funds = obligation of result at a precise date. That sunk Ader in 1897...
- the Wright did everything alone, including their engine (!)
At least they obtained the exact engine they wanted for their machine!
- they were very, very rational
(not like Hiram Maxim for example. Dream and ambition doesn't help)
Maybe if we invent a guy having all the elements above, he could compete with the Wrights ?
The upper limit would be somewhere around 1885-1890 : you need viable internal combustion engines to achieve flight. In short, car engines. Can't see steam aircrafts working...
The first cars with such engines (Benz and others) apeared in the 1880's. These engines needed some years to mature.

One other point, the Wrights experimented with different wing cambers in a wind tunnel - the first such in the world. The results that they observed thus enabled them to build a wing that actually worked and build it the first time. How many pioneers had otherwise excellant designs with wings that had cambers that really didn't work too effeciantly and thus caused the primative aircraft to crash - if it indeed got off the ground?
 
Within five years of the Wrights first flight there were other aircraft all around the globe without any input from the Wrights. Just like the railways, iron ships and motor cars there had to be a first and if it wasn't one it would have been another.
 
The Wrights weren't first, they were just the first with press attention. IIRC some Frenchman back in the 1870s was first.
I'd agree someone else would do the Wright thing soon enough.
 
I'm still championing Percy Plicher :). From the BBC programme:
"The trouble was in the 1890s there were no suitable engines."

Really not. OTL, Lenoir had developed an IC engine as early as 1860. With a bit of work, it could've produced enough hp by, say, 1875 to fly a lightweight monoplane in the fashion of Deperdussin (1909 OTL). (OTL, the Wrights used a bipe 'cause it was stiffer, accepting the drag penalty.)
 
North Carolina would only be remembered for it's crappy education system.

The Wrights go back to making bicycles and their name is remembered as multimillionaires who revolutionized the bicycle industry and founded Wright Bicycles.
Many of the bikes used in the Tour de France and the Olympic events are Wrights.
There are more bike and pedestrian lanes on the US road system, and more people commute to work via bicycle than currently.
Bike racks are seen at more offices, restaurants, and metro stations. Urban and suburban sprawl is ubed to an extent.
There is more mixed mode commuting. Very few people use just the car to go to work with more avenues for public transportation.
Generally these are just "extreme commuters", those whose daily commute lasts longr than 90 minutes a day, however with urban sprawl curbed, you see less of that to begin with.
There is a lot more public transportation early on in the United States due to the lack of urban sprawl.
Robert Moses has a career in urban planning - albeit one in middle management, unable to carry out his dreams for car-friendly cities.
The Brooklyn Dodgers remain the Brooklyn Dodgers.

EDIT: The US obesity rate remains lower than it is currently at 2009
 
Top