|
Author
|
Topic: First Flight
|
Richard Jackson
Member Posts: 132
From: Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-08-2003 03:15 PM
   
I believe Orville Wright should be the person recognized as the first person to fly a heavier-than-air powered aircraft.In the Smithsonian January 2004 "Air & Space" Special Advertising Section it is stated, "Soon thereafter, Langley became an aviation pioneer. In 1896, he built the Aerodrome No. 5, which he launched from a floating catapult in the Potomac River and into history as the first heavier-than-air, powered aircraft to achieve sustained flight." In a Russian book "Travel to Distant Worlds" by Karl Gilzin page 16 "The first plane to carry man to the skies was built by Alexander Mozhaisky, the founder of modern airplane designing. That marked the beginning of a new era, the era of aviation." Any other people claim the first flight?
[This message has been edited by Richard Jackson (edited December 08, 2003).] |
Larry McGlynn
Member Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 12-08-2003 03:19 PM
Yes. There is also a gentleman from New Zealand who is being touted as the first man to fly. ------------------
Larry McGlynn
A Tribute to Apollo [This message has been edited by Larry McGlynn (edited December 08, 2003).] |
spaceuk
Member Posts: 2113
From: Staffs, UK
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 12-08-2003 05:49 PM
There were a number of aviation pioneers including Langley, Chanute, Lilienthal, Maxim, Pilcher and Cayley.Even the Wright's had a man carrying glider design in 1900 - but glider designs had been around for about 100 years prior to this. The Wrights are really recognised for their methodical technical and measured approach
to pioneering heavier than air flight. They evaluated and improved on each successive design and,of course, they even manufactured their own engine for the first flight on 17 December 1903.Although only a short hop it was Orville who was aboard for that historic
flight though one wing was supported by Wilbur. (Many earlier gliders had exceeded this distance but,of course,this was an aircraft with an engine and some controlability. They had attempted this flight some days earlier on 14 December 1903 with Wilbur at the controls but he had difficulties and the craft settled back to the ground.THe 'crash' required some more fine tuning and running repairs until they were ready again on the 17 December 1903.
|
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 12-09-2003 12:58 AM
Don't forget "Horizon" on BBC2 this Thursdayabout a British guy claiming to have flown first or could have flown first ?
Percy Pilsher is the name ? |
Frederic Janik
Member Posts: 320
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-09-2003 02:02 AM
Hi"On October 9 [1890] he flew it a distance of 50 m (160 feet) on a friend's estate near Paris. The steam engine was unsuitable for sustained and controlled flight, which required the gasoline engine; nevertheless, Ader's short hop was the first demonstration that a manned heavier-than-air machine could take off from level ground under its own power;" Lter, Clement Ader's aeroplanes were judged by experts as "flyable" - but he was lacking the proper engine for sustained flight. http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/ader.html Frederic Janik
|
Andy McCulley
Member Posts: 245
From: Lansdale, PA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 12-09-2003 08:45 AM
"History by Contract," written by William O'Dwyer and Stella Randolph, supposedly chronicles the work of Gustave Whitehead;a German immigrant living in Connecticut I believe. Their research shows that he flew as early as 1901 as I recall.They claim that, as a result of a deal between the Smithsonian and the Wright Brothers, Whitehead's work was ignored. It was interesting reading. Everyone have a great day. Andy |
Larry McGlynn
Member Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 12-09-2003 03:46 PM
I wonder about the claim that the Wright Brothers and the Smithsonian were in collusion to prevent the acknowledgment of other attempted flights. The Smithsonian was backing Langley at the time, because of his ties with the museum as a director.The Smithsonian's drive to preserve Langley's name after the disaster in the Potomac River lead to the hiring of Glenn Curtis to redesign the Aerodrome and fly it later in Long Island. Thus claiming that Langley did invent a flying machine as so stated in their annual report of (I believe, but will stand corrected on the exact date) 1909 or 1910. That event helped break the patent rights that the Wright Brothers had on the aeroplane and thus allowed other people to build aeroplanes. The Wright Brothers were so furious that they eventually sent the original Wright Flyer to the British Museum for display. Publically stating that the flyer would not return until an apology was issued. I believe it was in the 1942 Smithsonian Annual Report that the museum conceded that the Curtis redesign was misleading and apologized in a five point statement at the end of the report. At that point, the Wright Brothers had the flyer shipped back to the United States, but not before the flyer received some bomb damage caused by the Blitz bombing of World War 2. You can find all this in the Smithsonian Annual Reports of the time. It could be seen that the Smithsonian might have colluded with Langley, but not the Wright Brothers. ------------------
Larry McGlynn
A Tribute to Apollo |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-09-2003 03:58 PM
If we want to get really technical, let's face facts - - man has no more flown than he has ever stepped foot on the moon, and will never do either.
(i.e., no man's unprotected foot will ever touch the lunar surface, just as no man, without some type of craft or device, will ever achieve pure flight, ala Superman).-chet [This message has been edited by chet (edited December 09, 2003).] |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-09-2003 04:04 PM
Why couldn't someone build a dome around a patch of lunar surface, pressurize and heat the inside, and then let someone roam barefoot? Or is that considered a protected foot? Likewise, what is to say that someday, a geneticist might not cross a human embryo with that of a bird's, giving the man a set of wings and the opportunity to fly? (Much in the same vein as the designer GloFish, see http://www.glofish.com/ ). The future is full of possibilities... [This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited December 09, 2003).] |
Dirk
Member Posts: 933
From: Belgium
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 12-09-2003 04:05 PM
In Belgium on 17/12 a nocturne will be hold in the museum of the Belgium Aviation History Association (Archaeology Team),
in rememberance of all airmen who died in WWII over Belgium (4000 planes crashed, 400 crews still missing, and most of them for long time forgotten)Dirk |
072069
Member Posts: 206
From: Sayreville, NJ USA
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 12-12-2003 11:24 AM
Well, one thing is certain Larry...since I don't see your byline on this piece, the correspondent must be a lurker at CollectSPACE.com :-)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105513,00.html Bernie |
Larry McGlynn
Member Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 12-12-2003 02:51 PM
Bernie,It has been common knowledge about what happened between the Wright Brothers and the Smithsonian. Sadly, it isn't the only example of revisionist history in aviation. The Smithsonian, for all it's faults of a past life, is still the best aviation musuem in the world. Everybody has warts.  ------------------
Larry McGlynn
A Tribute to Apollo |
Richard Jackson
Member Posts: 132
From: Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-19-2003 04:50 PM
http://www.fpri.org/ FPRI Featured Bulletin: E-Notes December 17, 2003 The Ecstasy and the Agony of Our Romance
With Flight: A Meditation on the Centennial of the Wright Brothers’ Triumph |
advertisement