WI: Wright brothers die at kittly hawk?

[Dustin]

how would wilbur and orville wright fying at kitty hawk and discouraging aeroautical development for ten years affect the first world war and the great depression? this is for my TL so please be specific and detailed inyour responses.

 

[Lord Grattan]

how would wilbur and orville wright fying at kitty hawk and discouraging aeroautical development for ten years affect the first world war and the great depression? this is for my TL so please be specific and detailed inyour responses.

Given the number of people building "flying machines" and doing aviation research during the late 18th & early 19th centuries, I don't see that Orville & Wilber's failure and demise at Kitty Hawk would put much of a damper at all on aeronautical development. Controlled, powered flight was on the brink of being achieved and most probably would have been by '04 or certainly by '05. What happens going forward in the alt-TL depends on whether the 1st successful controlled, powered flight is made in the US, UK, France or Germany.

 

[hairysamarian]

how would wilbur and orville wright fying at kitty hawk and discouraging aeroautical development for ten years affect the first world war and the great depression? this is for my TL so please be specific and detailed inyour responses.

Both die? Their craft carried only one person; it would take quite a freak accident to kill both.

Supposing, though, that the machine ground-loops into the ground-side brother and kills both: My first thought was that people had been dying in various accidents with gliders (Otto Lilienthal, for example) without dampening the enthusiasm with which flight was being sought. Why the big impression this time? They weren't exactly famous pioneers until AFTER they succeeded, indeed they had difficulty getting their famous result published, at first. How many people would have noticed if they had failed?

 

[Dustin]

Given the number of people building "flying machines" and doing aviation research during the late 18th & early 19th centuries, I don't see that Orville & Wilber's failure and demise at Kitty Hawk would put much of a damper at all on aeronautical development. Controlled, powered flight was on the brink of being achieved and most probably would have been by '04 or certainly by '05. What happens going forward in the alt-TL depends on whether the 1st successful controlled, powered flight is made in the US, UK, France or Germany.

i would probably have someone important come out saying that this is proof that flight will never be possible and then world leaders would agree with the important american. so that even if flight is achieved by someone else the major powers wouldn't want to adopt this new and unproven technology leading to people believing that flight will not be practical, so they stop trying for the time being. during ww1 the major powers realize that flight could be usefulin a warfare scenario

 

[Polish Eagle]

i would probably have someone important come out saying that this is proof that flight will never be possible and then world leaders would agree with the important american. so that even if flight is achieved by someone else the major powers wouldn't want to adopt this new and unproven technology leading to people believing that flight will not be practical, so they stop trying for the time being. during ww1 the major powers realize that flight could be usefulin a warfare scenario

Kind of impossible to say that when heavier-than-air powered flight had already been demonstrated by Samuel Langley and the steam-driven Aerodrome #5 in 1896. Heck, if Langley's catapult-launcher had worked properly, his design would have beaten those upstarts' kite into the air. Hopefully, he wouldn't have been such a prick as to try to patent the idea of control surfaces.

 

[Cook]

If the Wrights were out of the race, Samuel Langley would probably win the race for the first successful powered heavier than air flight. He’d had an unsuccessful test flight of an ‘aerodrome’ ten days before the Wright brothers first flight. The Wright brothers success halted his experiments.

 

[Dustin]

Kind of impossible to say that when heavier-than-air powered flight had already been demonstrated by Samuel Langley and the steam-driven Aerodrome #5 in 1896. Heck, if Langley's catapult-launcher had worked properly, his design would have beaten those upstarts' kite into the air. Hopefully, he wouldn't have been such a prick as to try to patent the idea of control surfaces.

the aerodrome #5 was unmanned and launched froma catapult, i just don't see people getting on board one of those to got to La or off to fight the nazis.

 

[Dustin]

If the Wrights were out of the race, Samuel Langley would probably win the race for the first successful powered heavier than air flight. He’d had an unsuccessful test flight of an ‘aerodrome’ ten days before the Wright brothers first flight. The Wright brothers success halted his experiments.

well in 10 days his own attempt was unsuccessful and then the wright brothers die. whats to say his next attempt would be successful or that even if it works that government s will accept it

 

[Polish Eagle]

the aerodrome #5 was unmanned and launched froma catapult, i just don't see people getting on board one of those to got to La or off to fight the nazis.

The Wrights modified their flyer into a military vehicle within a few years. I hardly think a bloated aerodrome of the kind flown by Glenn Curtiss is any less likely. Besides, airplanes were originally used for reconnaissance--and if people were willing to climb into balloons for that, I think something with proper wings and control ability is attractive.

Langley's failures were of the catapult, not the wings--the design had already been proven through Aerodrome #5. Now only remained to build a functional catapult.

People were crashing in gliders and kites for decades before the Wrights--you cannot stop aviation when the mathematical principles governing powered flight were public knowledge, printed in the Smithsonian's journals nationwide.

 

[Cook]

Langley's failures were of the catapult, not the wings--the design had already been proven through Aerodrome #5. Now only remained to build a functional catapult.

What it required was for him to realize that he didn’t need the catapult.

 

[Lord Grattan]

In addition to Langley, there's:
Karl Jatho (Germany) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Jatho
Horatio Phillips (United Kingdom) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Phillips
Richard_Pearse (New Zealand) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse
John Montgomery (United States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Joseph_Montgomery

 

[hairysamarian]

If the Wrights were out of the race, Samuel Langley would probably win the race for the first successful powered heavier than air flight. He’d had an unsuccessful test flight of an ‘aerodrome’ ten days before the Wright brothers first flight. The Wright brothers success halted his experiments.

It appears that his failures in October 1903 brought the halt themselves, according to what I've read. He was discouraged by the failure of his design (apparently it was too nose-heavy). That was just over two months before the Wright Brothers' flight, so there doesn't seem to be a direct link.

 

[Dustin]

just so we are clear i'm only trying to delay sustauned manned flight for a couple years so these people cans till "invent" flight but a little delayed. because the wright brothers was the first time a flight was manned and had controls for the pilot

 

[Polish Eagle]

just so we are clear i'm only trying to delay sustauned manned flight for a couple years so these people cans till "invent" flight but a little delayed. because the wright brothers was the first time a flight was manned and had controls for the pilot

Then your POD is too late. By the time of the Kitty Hawk flight, the mathematical equations governing powered flight were common knowledge, a dozen different flight development programs were ongoing in the Western world, and powered flight had already been demonstrated. If you want to delay powered flight another few years, you'd have to eliminate people like Otto Lilienthal, or slow the development of the internal combustion engine.

 

[hairysamarian]

Here's a thought: Suppose the pod is pushed to AFTER the first flight, when the Wrights are beginning to get some notice (including claims that they were faking). Suppose a spectacular accident or two while demonstrating their technology for the US government, perhaps a dead brother and a passenger. That might give the necessary negative publicity to delay development for just a few years. Even with that, however, there are the European developers to contend with, who were showing results by 1906.

 

[Dustin]

Here's a thought: Suppose the pod is pushed to AFTER the first flight, when the Wrights are beginning to get some notice (including claims that they were faking). Suppose a spectacular accident or two while demonstrating their technology for the US government, perhaps a dead brother and a passenger. That might give the necessary negative publicity to delay development for just a few years. Even with that, however, there are the European developers to contend with, who were showing results by 1906.

did the president ever attend a demonstration of their technology?

 

[Dustin]

Then your POD is too late. By the time of the Kitty Hawk flight, the mathematical equations governing powered flight were common knowledge, a dozen different flight development programs were ongoing in the Western world, and powered flight had already been demonstrated. If you want to delay powered flight another few years, you'd have to eliminate people like Otto Lilienthal, or slow the development of the internal combustion engine.

how could i do this?

 

[Polish Eagle]

how could i do this?

There are any number of ways--for example, Karl Benz instead invents a diesel engine (obviously, that would be named differently ITTL), motorcars focus on the compression ignition cycle, and early engines are too heavy to power airplanes until gasoline and sparked ignition are 'rediscovered' or diesel engines get smaller. It wasn't until the 1920s that anyone mounted a diesel engine in an airplane IOTL.

 

[e of pi]

There are any number of ways--for example, Karl Benz instead invents a diesel engine (obviously, that would be named differently ITTL), motorcars focus on the compression ignition cycle, and early engines are too heavy to power airplanes until gasoline and sparked ignition are 'rediscovered' or diesel engines get smaller. It wasn't until the 1920s that anyone mounted a diesel engine in an airplane IOTL.

Yeah, but steam-powered aircraft flew sustained unmanned flights OTL even before the Wrights, so if diesel's were what they had, I think they'd make it work. You might start with George Cayley, but there were literally dozens of people working on the problem over decade making the various progress that meant that by the turn of the century, controlled, sustained, manned powered flight was almost inevitable within the decade.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Yeah, but steam-powered aircraft flew sustained unmanned flights OTL even before the Wrights, so if diesel's were what they had, I think they'd make it work. You might start with George Cayley, but there were literally dozens of people working on the problem over decade making the various progress that meant that by the turn of the century, controlled, sustained, manned powered flight was almost inevitable within the decade.

Good point. Besides, Benz developing a diesel early on may well result in diesels getting a higher power-to-weight-ratio by 1903 anyway.

I suppose one can reduce their military utility, but that's even harder--it would require preventing the Maxim Gun for decades.

Really, there's no way around it--barring surgical removal of important figures in aeronautics throughout the nineteenth century, dozens of separate events on three continents, aeroplanes were inevitable.