The American Civil War helicopter that lifted 600 pounds. Hundreds of people saw it.

1904-06-24, Edward Wellman Serrell, “A Flying Machine in the Army”, Science, New York, N. Y., June 24, 1904, vol. XIX, no. 495, pp. 952-955.

A Flying Machine in the Army
—————
The first thing done was to make a fan eighteen inches in diameter, rotate it at different speeds and see how much it would lift. The fan was made of very thin brass, and upon a wire frame, very much the same shape as those now used for ventilating and blowing, driven by electricity. It was found that a hollow blade with a blunt shoulder seemed to be best.

It was found that very considerable weight could be lifted, and to try what could be done on a large scale, a fan about thirty-two feet in diameter was made, the blades of the thinnest sheet iron that could be procured, and rotation by belt was provided. Contrary to expectation, when the fan was first rotated at great speed in a foundry that had a high roof, the weight that could be lifted was much more than the wheel itself, some six hundred pounds or more, and then within forty seconds of time the wheel and the weights would drop back to where they started from, it mattered not how fast the fan was driven.

This was a puzzle, indeed. Why did it act so? When spun at a given speed, starting from at rest in still air, a certain velocity would make the wheel jump up the vertical shaft very quickly, lifting its own weight, and then suddenly, and as the velocity was increased, it would, after an interval never longer than forty seconds, slide down the vertical shaft, not sustaining its own weight. Hundreds saw it. The test was repeated again and again. No one understood why it did as it did.

Resort was then had again to the eighteen-inch brass wheel and it was found that after a certain period it went through the same manoeuvers as the large fan, but the period of ability to lift was many times longer in the small than in the large. It was found after a long investigation that the fan wheel of any size, when rotated in one place, set up a downward current of air that soon became nearly or quite as fast as the pitch of the fan, hence it would lift nothing. When, however, the fan was mounted at the outer end of a long boom, which revolved around a mast, so as to constantly bring the fan into new air, its lifting capacity never deserted it and bore a certain ratio to the velocity, and data were accumulated for proportioning the machine.
...
Nothing is known by the writer of the details of the machinery recently tried by the brothers Wright in North Carolina, except that obtained from imperfect newspaper accounts, but from what has been published it would seem that their machine is very much like, if not identical, with the army machine here described; but whether this is so or not, they are to be most heartily congratulated upon the measure of success that has crowned their efforts, and this kind thought extends to my friend of years gone by — Chanute — who is reported to have helped them.

EDWARD WELLMAN SERRELL.
WEST NEW BRIGHTON,
STATEN ISLAND, N. Y.
———————————

It looks like, the Wright brothers, when they flew for the first time in 1908, were more than 40 years late. The man carrying capable, heavier than air, flying machine had already been built and tested in front of hundreds of people.

It is self evident that the retired colonel EDWARD WELLMAN SERRELL wrote the text believing the Wright brothers' apparatus, allegedly flown on December 17, 1903, was based on the principle of that Civil War time helicopter. Why? Because numerous pictures showing the Wright Flyer with a lifting propeller placed under the wings had appeared in the newspapers, in December 1903 and the beginning of 1904.

The big question would be: Is there solid evidence that the above mentioned helicopter, with a propeller 32 feet in diameter that lifted more than 600 pounds, was really tested and flew or it was just a hoax like the 160 flights the two inventors from Dayton claimed they had performed between December 17, 1903 and October 5, 1905? ( see: The Wright Brothers and Their Claims - The Timeline of a Fraud)

The machine is not really described in enough detail, it talks only about the propeller without clearly mentioning an engine (only a belt) and if that engine would be part of the machine. Anyway from the description you get the feeling they had some kind of basic helicopter, but with only enough power to "fly" on ground effect.

The wright flyer wasn't exactly a great airplane and a few years later airplanes looked nothing like it, but at least you could control it somewhat and it was somewhat stable.

That "wheel" however would be far from a useable helicopter, and not much improvement from Da Vinci's drawings.

The big problem with the Wright planes is that there is no trace about them in the publications of the time (before 1908), as can be seen from these two articles dated December 12, 1905. Nobody, Americans or Europeans knew how those flying machines looked like.

1905-12-12, “Fakes Pure and Simple Are the Alleged Pictures of the Wright Brothers’ Flying Machine”, The Dayton Daily News, Ohio, US, December 12, 1905.

FAKES
———
Pure and Simple Are the Alleged Pictures of the Wright Brothers’ Flying Machine.
———
INVENTORS ARE CAREFULLY GUARDING THEIR SECRETS
———
Of Aerial Navigation and Have Placed a Ban on the Photographer and Snapshot Artist — Machine is Now Locked Up for the Winter.
——
Fake pictures of the Wright Brothers’ flying machine, which have been sent out by a syndicate to newspapers over the country, were presented in a local paper Monday.

The Daily News staff photographer has on a number of occasions endeavored to secure a photograph of the ingenious device which, it is believed, comes nearer to the solution of aerial navigation than any of the numerous inventions now in existence. The photographer was not only flatly refused, but ascertained that every possible precaution has been taken by the Wright boys to prevent any photographer or snap-shot artist from securing a picture. The inventors are firmly convinced that they have practically solved the problem, and while continuing their experiments with a view to perfecting their machine, are zealously guarding the secrets which by years of unceasing energy, the application of unusual mechanical skill and the expenditure of large sums of money, they have fathomed. They do not intend to let anyone step in and rob them of their glory, if at all possible to prevent it.
The pictures alleged to be those of the present flying machine are pictures of an aeroplane, or box kite arrangement, called a riding machine, taken five years ago. It had no power, and had to be started from the side of a hill, and then only floated a short distance away. Their present machine is the nearest to perfection they have been able to construct, and has been in the air nearly an hour at one stretch. It does not have to be started from the side of a hill and carries its own propelling machinery, as well as apparatus for floating in the air.

The Wright brothers have, as is generally known, been conducting experiments for a long time in a field near Simms station along the D., S. & U. traction line, east of the city. When the cooler weather came on the machine was taken apart, sent back to Dayton and locked up for the winter.
Concerning a statement to the effect that an offer of $300,000 for the invention has been received from the French government, the Wright boys decline to talk, refusing flatly to commit themselves, pro or con.
————————————

1905-12-12, “Not Even a Glimpse of Wright Brothers’ Flying Machine Could be Secured by French Newspaper Man”, The Dayton Daily News, Ohio, US, December 12, 1905.

Not Even A Glimpse
———
Of Wright Brothers’ Flying Machine Could be Secured by French Newspaper Man.
———
HE TRAVELED TO DAYTON TO GET A PICTURE
———
And Facts for an Article, But Returns Empty-Handed — The Inventors Are Jealously Guarding Their Secret From All Curious Eyes.
——

Robert Coquelle, a distinguished Frenchman, arrived in the city Tuesday in quest of information concerning the Wright brothers’ flying machine. Coquelle represents L’Auto, a Paris automobile journal, devoted to sports, of which automobile and flying machine news is given the preference. Bicycle racing is also treated largely, and, in spite of the fact that L’Auto is not a newspaper in the general sense of the term, it is published daily, and has an immense circulation. A number of French bicycle riders were sent to America to compete in the six-day race at Madison Square Garden last week. Among the number were Gougolz, Vanoni, Vanderstuyft, Stol, Trowscher, Decaup, Dorlinger, Dussot and Hall, and Mr. Coquelle was sent along with them as manager of the tour, besides as the representative of L’Auto, with which he is identified. Near the end of the race, a cablegram was sent to the management to be delivered to Coquelle. It read as follows:

Paris, France, Dec. 9, 1905.
Six-Day Committee, Racing, New York:
Tell Coquelle go, after six-days race, to Dayton. Interview Wright. Writing instructions via Savolc.
L’AUTO.

Upon the receipt of this cablegram, Coquelle came on to Dayton, and at once hunted up Earl Kiser and John S. Johnson, whom he met in Paris in 1896, when Kiser and Johnson were there under the management of Tom Eck, the old time rider and trainer. Coquelle became well acquainted with them, and his partner, Victor Breyer, acted as their interpreter. Locating Kiser and Johnson, Coquelle made known his purpose in this city, and was at once taken by Johnson to the residence of the Wright brothers on Hawthorne street, West Side. There he made known the object of his visit, but the inventors of the machine were reticent, and refused to give him a story about their machine. He had a copy of L’Auto, which contained a cut of the old riding machine the Wrights invented some years ago, but which is not a picture of their present machine, although it is being faked by newspaper syndicates as the picture of the present flying machine.

Mr. Coquelle will return to New York empty handed, being unable to wrest the precious secret from the Wrights. It is understood that they have not as yet patented their machine, and hence are cautious as to allowing anything like a description of it to get out.

Coquelle was not given even a glimpse of the flying wonder which is attracting so much attention.
————————————

simplex1 wrote:

The big problem with the Wright planes is that there is no trace about them in the publications of the time (before 1908), as can be seen from these two articles dated December 12, 1905. Nobody, Americans or Europeans knew how those flying machines looked like.
He had a copy of L’Auto, which contained a cut of the old riding machine the Wrights invented some years ago, but which is not a picture of their present machine, although it is being faked by newspaper syndicates as the picture of the present flying machine.
————————————

They are discussing the Wright III, Not the original wright flyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_III

"He had a copy of L’Auto, which contained a cut of the old riding machine the Wrights invented some years ago, but which is not a picture of their present machine"

By the "old machine" or "old riding machine" the newspapers and magazines meant one of the Wright gliders. This is what that french reporter had then in 1905.

The first pictures with the alleged flight capable 1903, 1904 and 1905 planes were published in September 1908 in The Century Magazine.

The only "contribution!!!" to powered flight, the Wright brothers made before 1908, is this statement:

"we do not feel ready at present to give out any pictures or detailed description of the machine" (January 6, 1904 - the article appeared in numerous newspapers across the United States)

If you read the text carefully you will notice that the two inventors did not even give a vague description of their apparatus.

1904-01-06, “Wright Flyer. A Report of Late Tests Is Given by Messrs. Wright, Inventors of the Machine.”, Dayton Press, Ohio, US, January 6, 1904.

Wright Flyer
———
A Report Of Late Tests
———
Is Given by Messrs. Wright, Inventors of the Machine.
———
Interesting Description of the Trials Made at Kitty Hawk.
———

It had not been our intention to make any detailed public statement concerning the private trails of our power “Flyer” on the 17th of December last; but since the contents of a private telegram, announcing to our folks at home the success of our trials, was dishonestly communicated to newspaper men at the Norfolk office, and led to the imposition upon the public by persons who never saw the “Flyer” or its flights, of a fictitious story incorrect in almost every detail; and since this story, together with several pretended interviews or statements, which were fakes pure and simple, have been very widely disseminated, we feel impelled to make some corrections. The real facts were as follows:

On the morning of December 17, between the hours of 10:30 o’clock and noon, four flights were made, two by Orville Wright and two by Wilbur Wright. The starts were all made from a point on the level sand about 200 feet west of our camp, which is located a quarter of a mile north of the Kill Devil sand hill, in Dare county, North Carolina. The wind at the time of the flights had a velocity of 27 miles an hour at 10 o’clock, and 24 miles an hour at noon, as recorded by the anemometer at the Kitty Hawk weather bureau station. This anemometer is 30 feet from the ground. Our own measurements, made with a hand anemometer at a height of four feet from the ground, showed a velocity of about 22 miles when the first flight was made, and 20½ miles at the time of the last one. The flights were directly against the wind. Each time the machine started from the level ground by its own power alone with no assistance from gravity, or any other sources whatever. After a run of about 40 feet along a mono-rail track, which held the machine eight inches from the ground, it rose from the track and under the direction of the operator climbed upward on an inclined course till a height of eight or ten feet from the ground was reached, after which the course was kept as near horizontal as the wind gusts and the limited skill of the operator would permit. Into the teeth of a December gale the “Flyer” made its way forward with a speed of ten miles an hour over the ground and 30 to 35 miles an hour through the air. It had previously been decided that for reasons of personal safety these first trials should be made as close to the ground as possible. The height chosen was scarcely sufficient for maneuvering in so gusty a wind and with no previous acquaintance with the conduct of the machine and its controlling mechanisms. Consequently the first flight was short. The succeeding flights rapidly increased in length and at the fourth trial a flight of 59 seconds was made, in which time the machine flew a little more than a half mile through the air, and a distance of 852 feet over the ground. The landing was due to a slight error of judgment on the part of the operator. After passing over a little hummock of sand, in attempting to bring the machine down to the desired height, the operator turned the rudder too far, and the machine turned downward more quickly than had been expected. The reverse movement of the rudder was a fraction of a second too late to prevent the machine from touching the ground and thus ending the flight. The whole occurrence occupied little, if any more, than one second of time.

Only those who are acquainted with practical aeronautics can appreciate the difficulties of attempting the first trials of a flying machine in a 25 mile gale. As winter was already well set in, we should have postponed our trails to a more favorable season, but for the fact that we were determined, before returning home, to know whether the machine possessed sufficient power to fly, sufficient strength to withstand the shock of landings, and sufficient capacity of control to make flight safe in boisterous winds, as well as in calm air. When these points had been definitely established, we at once packed our goods and returned home, knowing that the age of the flying machine had come at last.

From the beginning we have employed entirely new principles of control; and as all the experiments have been conducted at our own expense, without assistance from any individual or institution, we do not feel ready at present to give out any pictures or detailed description of the machine.
—————————

simplex1 wrote:

"He had a copy of L’Auto, which contained a cut of the old riding machine the Wrights invented some years ago, but which is not a picture of their present machine"

By the "old machine" or "old riding machine" the newspapers and magazines meant one of the Wright gliders. This is what that french reporter had then in 1905.

The first pictures with the alleged flight capable 1903, 1904 and 1905 planes were published in September 1908 in The Century Magazine.

So you don't believe the 1903 newspaper articles, the 1904 January press release from the Wright brothers or the copy of the telegraph sent back to Dayton? And on top of that you don't believe the 1903 photo itself?

1) The December 1903 picture appeared for the first time in September 1908. I believe it was taken before the autumn of 1908, most likely in May 1908.

More, this detail of that photo comes in conflict with one statement in the January, 1904, press release. The slope in front of the plane is clearly visible while in the press release the brothers wrote: "The starts were all made from a point on the level sand". The press release and the picture can not be both true in the same time. The December 17, 1903, telegram to their father is a short form of the press release and so it also comes in conflict with the picture.

2) Regarding the 1903 articles, none of them is assumed by the two brothers and the majority talk about a plane with a propeller turning under the wings in the horizontal plane. These texts are simply ridiculous. How can I believe them?

Octave Chanute, their mentor, did not believe the two inventors who wrote him a few letters, in the summer and autumn of 1904, reporting their progress. This lack of confidence can be seen from his ironic answers:

- “I am glad to see that the newspapers have not yet found you out.” (1904-05-26, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I hope that your immunity from premature publicity may continue.” (1904-06-08, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I hope that you will use great caution in your experiments, and will not run into a cow.” (1904-06-25, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I hope you will have good luck, and keep out of the newspapers.” (1904-07-04, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I expect … to receive a letter from you advising me of your final success.” (1904-07-31, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I feel confident that once you get a good start you will make a phenomenal flight.” (1904-08-14, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I … congratulate you on the good progress you have made.” (1904-09-05, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I also enclose a French clipping which lays down the rules for the $10.000 prize for a power flying machine. This prize you can win if you choose to go to France to do so.” (1904-11-19, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago);
- “I have been thinking it not unlikely that you should be called upon to go to Japan. It could well afford to give you and your brother $100.000 for a few months work in reconnoitring. Santos-Dumont would preferably be called upon by Russia, as that country follows the French lead.” (1904-12-26, O. Chanute, “Letter to W. Wright”, Chicago).

It is evident that O. Chanute highly doubted the two brothers could fly their plane so often without being remarked by the entire press in the United States. The letters are too long to be quoted in full here but, excepting those excerpts which have been already listed a few lines above, O. Chanute appears to simply ignore the impressive progress reports coming from Wilbur, preferring to talk about other things in his replies and looking like somebody who politely answers the letters of a storyteller.

Possibly, the most visible piece of evidence, regarding the lack of faith that Chanute had concerning the, out of the 1904 world, accomplishments claimed by W. Wright, is the fragment of his December 26, 1904, reply where he expressed his thoughts that Wilbur and Orville might be paid $100,000 to do aerial reconnaissance work for Japan, that time in war with Russia which could also benefit of a similar help coming from Santos-Dumont. Honestly, such an ironic answer was absolutely normal after the December 20, 1904, letter of the two brothers which stated they had circled their field 2 1/4 and almost 4 times on November 16 and December 1, 1904, respectively.

Forget all that; it was Jacob Brodbeck, near Fredericksburg, Texas.

September 20, 1865. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fbr63

Forget all that; it was Jacob Brodbeck, near Fredericksburg, Texas.

September 20, 1865. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fbr63

The first man carrying, heavier than air, flying machine, powered by a steam engine, that left the ground beyond any doubt, was Vuia - 1906.

Traian Vuia used a Serpolet steam engine adapted to work with liquid carbonic acid instead of water.

References:

(1), (2), (4) - Feb., March and Aug., 1906 - Technical descriptions of Vuia's plane, pictures included. A witnessed ground test (Feb. 5 1906) with the chassis of the plane, without wings, running at 20 km/h, is mentioned.

(3) - Apr. 1906 - An article about a short 12 m flight that took place on March 18, 1906. No witness is mentioned.

(5) - Sep. 1906 - An article about a few takeoffs, the longest being 24 m. An officer is mention as a witness but his name is not given.

(6) - Oct. 1906 - An article about two public and controlled flights performed by Vuia on 7 and 14 October 1906. The first lasted 0.4 sec covering 4 m at a height of 20 cm, the second lasted 0.6 sec. Santos Dumont was one of the witnesses.

(7) - Dec. 1906 - An article with some pictures, one of them showing Vuia's plane running on the ground. A 5-6 m flight is mentioned.

1) "L'AÉROPLANE SUR ROUES DE M. VUIA ", L'Aérophile, pag. 53-54, Feb. 1906, L'Aérophile (Paris)

2) "L'aéroplane Vuia", L'Automobile en Seine-et-Oise. Revue mensuelle. Organe du Club automobile, pag. 7-11, March 5, 1906, L'Automobile en Seine-et-Oise. Revue mensuelle. Organe du Club automobile ["puis" de l'Automobile-club] de Seine-et-Oise

3) "Nouveaux essais de l'Aéroplane Vuia", L'Aérophile, pag. 105-106, April 1906, L'Aérophile (Paris)

4) "L'Aéroplane Vuia", La Nature, No. 1733 - Aug. 11, 1906, pag. 164-166, CNUM - 4KY28.70 : p.165 - ima.169

5) "L'Aéroplane à moteur de M. Vuia", L'Aérophile, pag. 195-196, Sep. 1906, L'Aérophile (Paris)

6) "L'aéroplane Vuia", L'Aérophile, pag. 242-243, Oct. 1906, L'Aérophile (Paris)

7) "Dirigeables et Aéroplanes", LE SPORT UNIVERSEL ILLUSTRÉ, No. 542, pag. 799-800, Dec. 30, 1906, Le Sport universel illustré

Can we close this stupid thread.

https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of- ... st-290750/

Oh this is nothing!

6000 years back our great Aryan civilization in India had this technology!

Judeo-Christian missionaries colonized Indians and stole the technology in the 18th century.

Check this link for more. #sharemax

Air Travel in Ancient India






***** SARCASM *****

casinterest wrote:

Can we close this stupid thread.

https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of- ... st-290750/

The thread starter is not talking about that guy. He says that the Wrights claim is dubious, with no proof or witnesses for several years (during which others flew, without a doubt).

Aesma wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Can we close this stupid thread.

https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of- ... st-290750/

The thread starter is not talking about that guy. He says that the Wrights claim is dubious, with no proof or witnesses for several years (during which others flew, without a doubt).

Which is flat out wrong. They had witnesses. They had patents, and they had documentation.

The thread starter just chooses to push it away.

The main witness of the Wright brothers is Amos Root who in January, 1905, published an article claiming he had seen Wilbur Wright performing a flight in a circuit on September 20, 1904.

There are over 100 letters and articles written by A. I. Root to the Wrights or in connection with the two inventors. All these documents show that Root did not see W. Wright in the air. He really witnessed a Wright plane flying in August 1910. The apparatus was piloted by somebody else not by one of the two brothers.



All the letters and articles of Amos Root can be read in full in the free book:
Amos Root a false witness of the Wright brothers.

see: http://wright1903dec17.altervista.org/

simplex1 wrote:

The main witness of the Wright brothers is Amos Root who in January, 1905, published an article claiming he had seen Wilbur Wright performing a flight in a circuit on September 20, 1904.

There are over 100 letters and articles written by A. I. Root to the Wrights or in connection with the two inventors. All these documents show that Root did not see W. Wright in the air. He really witnessed a Wright plane flying in August 1910. The apparatus was piloted by somebody else not by one of the two brothers.



All the letters and articles of Amos Root can be read in full in the free book:
Amos Root a false witness of the Wright brothers.

see: http://wright1903dec17.altervista.org/

WTF

The main witness to the wright brothers is documentation from multiple sources, patents, and research. Not A.I. Root. He wasn't at Kitty Hawk and never claimed to be. If you are going to be kind enough to use a fake site, at least use one that doesn't have a homepage based on devaluing one person that wasn't even involved with the date you have posted.

casinterest wrote:

WTF

Cas... you're problem is that you are trying to put well researched and respected accounts and investigations up against unverifiable,unestablished, internet sources to disprove conspiracies that those former sources are intimately involved in while the latter sources are pure as the driven snow.

How can you be that silly and not understand the hopelessness of your argument?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

WTF

Cas... you're problem is that you are trying to put well researched and respected accounts and investigations up against unverifiable,unestablished, internet sources to disprove conspiracies that those former sources are intimately involved in while the latter sources are pure as the driven snow.

How can you be that silly and not understand the hopelessness of your argument?

Tugg

It may be hopeless, but whoever looks at the archived thread will know we tried. Knowledge dies in a vacuum

Amos Root is the main witness the Wrights have. There is a letter written by Orville Wright to Arthur R. Coelho of New York. Root is the only one explicitly mentioned by name as a witness. As this man did not see a Wright plane flying before 1910, the entire credibility of O. Wright is blown out by his letter to Coelho.

1933-04-28, Orville Wright, “Letter to Arthur R. Coelho”

April 28, 1933.
Mr. Arthur R. Coelho,
603 West 138th Street,
New York City, New York.

Dear sir:

I have your letter of April 14th asking for authentic information
concerning our early flights. …

As a disinterested public would and should hesitate to take, unless
otherwise corroborated, the statements of the inventors who may have a
monetary or other private interest, I am sending you a list of publications
containing statements of disinterested witnesses of the flights of 1903, 1904
and 1905.

“Gleanings in Bee Culture”, January 1, 1905, published by the A.I. Root
Company, Medina, Ohio, containing an article by A.I. Root, an
eyewitness, describing the first complete circular flight made on the
20th of September, 1904. …

Definitely on November 18, 1907, the flying machine you can see in the attached picture was nearly a practical plane. Orville Wright witnessed it flying. Pictures and technical drawings of the Wright planes became available starting with August 8, 1908.

The November 19, 1907, Paris edition of the New York Herald dedicated an extensive article to the attempts of H. Farman to perform a 1-kilometre flight in a circuit. The trials were witnessed by many known personalities of the aeronautic world like Santos Dumont and Louis Bleriot. Orville Wright was also there and even gave an interview to a Herald reporter. Here are some relevant extracts from this text illustrated with a few pictures, one of them showing the Farman plane flying and another Orville Wright standing:

"Mr. Orville Wright Sees Mr. Henry Farman Compete for Deutsch-Archdeacon Prize.


THE AEROPLANE TAKING THE VIRAGE

… Mr. Henry Farman came within an ace of winning the Deutsch-Archdeacon prize of 50,000fr. with his aeroplane at Issy-les-Moulineaux yesterday afternoon. Had his motor worked with a trifle more regularity the money was his. He made at least ten excellent flights, but each time at the critical moment, when the apparatus with perfect balance was describing the curve the motor appeared to lack the necessary force, and the apparatus touched the ground.
The first flight, which took place about half past two, was one of some 600 mètres, finishing with a semi-circular movement, during which the wheels touched the ground. This was followed by half a dozen similar flights, all with the same result. …

The Prize Nearly Won.
Just before dusk a final effort was decided upon. This time the machine left the ground easily and traveled down the field to the turning point at a good rate of speed. In the turning the wheels touched for an instant and again a few seconds later, but after this the rest of the circle was completed with ease. For a moment the spectators appeared to think that the prize had been won, but this was not so. To win this Grand Prix de l’Aviation it is essential to complete the kilomètre in a closed circle without touching the ground in any way. …

Among those present were: … Mr. Orville Wright, of Dayton, Ohio; M. Santos-Dumont, M. Esnault-Pelterie, M. Deutsch (de La Meurthe), M. Archdeacon, M. Decugis, M. Delagrange, Mr. Maurice Farman, Captain Ferber, …, Mr. O. Berg, …, M. Blériot, …


MR. HART BERG, MR ORVILLE WRIGHT, MR SAVAGE LANDOR

Mr. Orville Wright’s Opinion.
Asked by a HERALD correspondent to give his impression upon Mr. Farman’s flights, Mr. Orville Wright said he did not care under the circumstances to say much on the subject. In his opinion the flights accomplished by Mr. Farman were excellent, though he was surprised that the Deutsch-Archdeacon prize had not been won some months ago.

He thought that so far as flying in France was concerned, Mr. Farman easily took the lead over everyone else. He considered Mr. Farman an ideal aeronaut, and one who would probably help to develop the art of flying in a very great degree. …"

(Source: “Mr. Orville Wright Sees Mr. Henry Farman Compete for Deutsch-Archdeacon
Prize”, New York Herald, Paris, November 19, 1907)

The Wright brothers contributed nothing to the development of powered flight before August 8, 1908. The aviation appeared in 1906 without their help. They are just relatively late aviation pioneers.

Of course there is this letter to Mr Octave Chanute regarding congratulations for their first flight the weeks prior:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.06 ... right+1903

Tugg

Octave Chanute did not see the Dec. 17, 1903, alleged flights. It is true, for a while he was mislead by the Wright brothers and tended to believe them. However, his attitude changed in the summer and autumn of 1904 when O. Chanute wrote ironic answers to the letters of W. Wright in which the older of the two brothers claimed spectacular flights done by him and O. Wright near Dayton. (I have already posted above the answers of O. Chanute).

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/wright ... apers.html
This page contains the copy of the Dec 17, 1903 telegram dictating powered flight .. It has 16,000 pages of corroborating evidence End of story.

simplex1 wrote:

O. Chanute wrote ironic answers to the letters of W. Wright

Links to those letters? (I realize that will be easy, it is not that easy to dig them up in the letters not knowing where you found them).

Tugg

For the links to the letters of Octave Chanute to Wilbur Wright, download the book:
A. I. Root, the liar number four after the Wright brothers and their mentor, Octave Chanute.. Go to page 38, col. 1 and click the date that appears after each quotation from O. Chanute.
All the references in this book are clickable and they send you directly to the original documents in the archives.

Another interesting thing, at page 39 there are pictures made in 1904 of Avery (a man who worked for Octave Chanute) performing far more spectacular and public flights than the Wrights had done with their gliders.

simplex1 wrote:

For the links to the letters of Octave Chanute to Wilbur Wright, download the book:
A. I. Root, the liar number four after the Wright brothers and their mentor, Octave Chanute.. Go to page 38, col. 1 and click the date that appears after each quotation from O. Chanute.
All the references in this book are clickable and they send you directly to the original documents in the archives.

Another interesting thing, at page 39 there are pictures made in 1904 of Avery (a man who worked for Octave Chanute) performing far more spectacular and public flights than the Wrights had done with their gliders.

Funny how the topic Author finds all these other articles, but never posts the Wright brothers information.

simplex1 wrote:

For the links to the letters of Octave Chanute to Wilbur Wright, download the book:
A. I. Root, the liar number four after the Wright brothers and their mentor, Octave Chanute.. Go to page 38, col. 1 and click the date that appears after each quotation from O. Chanute.
All the references in this book are clickable and they send you directly to the original documents in the archives.

Another interesting thing, at page 39 there are pictures made in 1904 of Avery (a man who worked for Octave Chanute) performing far more spectacular and public flights than the Wrights had done with their gliders.

Sorry but "Altervista" does not appear to be a reputable source (also I do not download from any site I do not know well and have full confidence in - i think only a fool would nowadays). The docs you are quoting must be in the LOC archive as well, do you have a link there? There must be open sources that you can find sources for your claims.

I looked a bit more and Altervista is just a private website hosting company and not an open researched source:
"AlterVista is an Italian web platform where you can freely open a website, a blog and earn with your own web traffic . Founded in 2000 by a student of the Politecnico di Torino , it has been part of the Banzai SpA group since 2006 and has been part of the Mondadori group since 2016"

Tugg

Like Amos Root, Octave Chanute also lied he had seen one of the brothers flying. After sending a few letters to W. Wright expressing his wish to publish an article about the Wright planes and their flights, in a magazine called "The Car", Wilbur Wright clearly answered O. Chanute that he had not seen the performances of their planes. He only had knowledge about their construction but Wilbur did not want details about their machines be made public.

This is the letter:

Letter of Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute, January 31, 1906

"You have not exactly grasped our idea in regard to the article for the Car. The fact is that all or nearly all that you know from personal knowledge relates to the construction of our machine. The performances you have not seen. We have not felt at liberty to impose upon you the task of vouching for things you have not seen, while forbidding you to talk of the things you really do know."

However, Chanute had already claimed and continued to claim he had seen Orville Wright flying, on October 15, 1904, (less than one month after Amos Root). His attitude throws his credibility to the trash bin.

Octave Chanute, “Chanute on the Wright Brothers’ Achievement in Aerial
Navigation”, Scientific American, April 14, 1906, col. 1, p. 307)

… On the 15th of October, 1904, I witnessed a flight of 1,377 feet
performed in 23 4-5 seconds, starting from level ground and sweeping over
about one-quarter of a circle, at a speed of 39 miles per hour. The wind blew
at some six miles per hour, but in a diagonal direction to the initial course.
After the machine had gone some 500 feet and risen some 15 feet, a gust of
wind struck under the right-hand side and raised the apparatus to an oblique
inclination of 15 to 20 degrees. The operator, who was Orville Wright,
endeavored to recover an even transverse keel, was unable to do so while
turning to the left, and concluded to alight. This was done in flying before
the wind instead of square against it as usual, and the landing was made at a
speed of 45 to 50 miles an hour. One side of the machine struck the ground
first; it slewed around and was broken, requiring about one week for repairs.
The operator was in no wise hurt. This was flight No. 71 of that year (1904),
and on the preceding day Wright brothers had made three flights — one of
4,001 feet for less than a full circuit of the field, one of 4,903 feet covering a
full circle, and one of 4,936 feet over rather more than a full circuit,
alighting safely. …
In addition to the great feat of inventing a practical flying machine the
Wright brothers have, in my judgment, performed another improbable feat
by keeping knowledge of the construction of a machine, which can only be
operated in the open, from the incredulous but Argus-eyed American
press. …
O. CHANUTE.
Chicago, Ill., March 31, 1906.

-----------------
Use online antiviruses and scan the links I post if you do not trust them.
I also do this often using the online scanner from here: https://www.virustotal.com/en/

simplex1 wrote:

Like Amos Root, Octave Chanute also lied he had seen one of the brothers flying. After sending a few letters to W. Wright expressing his wish to publish an article about the Wright planes and their flights, in a magazine called "The Car", Wilbur Wright clearly answered O. Chanute that he had not seen the performances of their planes. He only had knowledge about their construction but Wilbur did not want details about their machines be made public.

This is the letter:

Letter of Wilbur Wright to Octave Chanute, January 31, 1906

"You have not exactly grasped our idea in regard to the article for the Car. The fact is that all or nearly all that you know from personal knowledge relates to the construction of our machine. The performances you have not seen. We have not felt at liberty to impose upon you the task of vouching for things you have not seen, while forbidding you to talk of the things you really do know."

However, Chanute had already claimed and continued to claim he had seen Orville Wright flying, on October 15, 1904, (less than one month after Amos Root). His attitude throws his credibility to the trash bin.

Octave Chanute, “Chanute on the Wright Brothers’ Achievement in Aerial
Navigation”, Scientific American, April 14, 1906, col. 1, p. 307)

… On the 15th of October, 1904, I witnessed a flight of 1,377 feet
performed in 23 4-5 seconds, starting from level ground and sweeping over
about one-quarter of a circle, at a speed of 39 miles per hour. The wind blew
at some six miles per hour, but in a diagonal direction to the initial course.
After the machine had gone some 500 feet and risen some 15 feet, a gust of
wind struck under the right-hand side and raised the apparatus to an oblique
inclination of 15 to 20 degrees. The operator, who was Orville Wright,
endeavored to recover an even transverse keel, was unable to do so while
turning to the left, and concluded to alight. This was done in flying before
the wind instead of square against it as usual, and the landing was made at a
speed of 45 to 50 miles an hour. One side of the machine struck the ground
first; it slewed around and was broken, requiring about one week for repairs.
The operator was in no wise hurt. This was flight No. 71 of that year (1904),
and on the preceding day Wright brothers had made three flights — one of
4,001 feet for less than a full circuit of the field, one of 4,903 feet covering a
full circle, and one of 4,936 feet over rather more than a full circuit,
alighting safely. …
In addition to the great feat of inventing a practical flying machine the
Wright brothers have, in my judgment, performed another improbable feat
by keeping knowledge of the construction of a machine, which can only be
operated in the open, from the incredulous but Argus-eyed American
press. …
O. CHANUTE.
Chicago, Ill., March 31, 1906.

-----------------
Use online antiviruses and scan the links I post if you do not trust them.
I also do this often using the online scanner from here: https://www.virustotal.com/en/

ACtually you are conflating two separate things, the things that Orville talks Chanute having "not seen" may be, and apparently in this situation are, different from the things Chanute is writing of having seen. He may very well have seen the Wright Flyer fly but not seen other elements of it like control systems or the engine etc. So I cannot agree that credibility is at issue with what you show (unless there is something where Orville specifies that Chanute has not "seen" them flying?).

Tugg

A replica of the 1902 Wright glider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eigdBanBW8w


The Wright brothers gliders just badly built poor unstable kites.

I had already been aware since long ago that the 1903-1905 powered flights of the Wright brothers were frauds but I was convinced, before seeing the video above, that their 1902 machine was a true glider that could be flown in a stable manner for 600 feet.

I know now that the so called stable and perfectly controllable, in yaw, pitch and roll, glider of the two Daytonians was in fact a poorly built kite, unable to fly without being towed and constantly kept balanced with the help of strings maneuvered by men on the ground.

simplex1 wrote:

A replica of the 1902 Wright glider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eigdBanBW8w


The Wright brothers gliders just badly built poor unstable kites.

I had already been aware since long ago that the 1903-1905 powered flights of the Wright brothers were frauds but I was convinced, before seeing the video above, that their 1902 machine was a true glider that could be flown in a stable manner for 600 feet.

I know now that the so called stable and perfectly controllable, in yaw, pitch and roll, glider of the two Daytonians was in fact a poorly built kite, unable to fly without being towed and constantly kept balanced with the help of strings maneuvered by men on the ground.

You may be convinced of your convictions, but I am convinced you have no clue what you are talking about.

casinterest wrote:

You may be convinced of your convictions, but I am convinced you have no clue what you are talking about.

You can't make claims like that without convincing proof or some form of documented research. Source of conviction?

This is a great thread and I think it's worth a few more circles before it dies.

simplex1 wrote:

A replica of the 1902 Wright glider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eigdBanBW8w


The Wright brothers gliders just badly built poor unstable kites.

I had already been aware since long ago that the 1903-1905 powered flights of the Wright brothers were frauds but I was convinced, before seeing the video above, that their 1902 machine was a true glider that could be flown in a stable manner for 600 feet.

I know now that the so called stable and perfectly controllable, in yaw, pitch and roll, glider of the two Daytonians was in fact a poorly built kite, unable to fly without being towed and constantly kept balanced with the help of strings maneuvered by men on the ground.

Wow, that is ridiculously weak. Seriously do you have any real data on what they were doing that day with that test they were doing? One thing in particular is that nowadays there are safety considerations (the "strings") and the video provides no data on the winds etc. One key thing the video shows is that it flew.

You might want to just google around a bit more. Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU

or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNViTAQm18s

or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2J4FQToGeg

Tugg

wingman wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You may be convinced of your convictions, but I am convinced you have no clue what you are talking about.

You can't make claims like that without convincing proof or some form of documented research. Source of conviction?

This is a great thread and I think it's worth a few more circles before it dies.

It is out there on Altvista

"the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908", Alpheus W. Drinkwater, telegraph operator

"Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with making their first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine on Dec. 17, 1903. But Alpheus W. Drinkwater, 76 years old, who sent the telegraph message ushering in the air age, said the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908, he said."
Source: New York Times, Dec. 17, 1951.



The Wright brothers just tried to fool the World.

Regarding Altervista, I take it as a joke the reason invoked by a user for not reading what is written in a book on that site also none of the 60+ Antiviruses (https://www.virustotal.com/en/) used for scanning the site detects any threat.

Airliners.net (see: http://whois.domaintools.com/airliners.net ) is also hosted by a privately owned server ( http://www.verticalscope.com/about-us/our-history.html. ) as well or less known as Altervista. Most pages you find on the net are stored on various private computers. Government owned servers are rare.

simplex1 wrote:

"the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908", Alpheus W. Drinkwater, telegraph operator

"Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with making their first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine on Dec. 17, 1903. But Alpheus W. Drinkwater, 76 years old, who sent the telegraph message ushering in the air age, said the brothers only “glided” off Kill Devil Hill that day. Their first real flight came on May 6, 1908, he said."
Source: New York Times, Dec. 17, 1951.



The Wright brothers just tried to fool the World.

Where is the verification or validation of the man's story? It literally is a "he said" statement that is just being dutifully reported.

simplex1 wrote:

Regarding Altervista, I take it as a joke the reason invoked by a user for not reading what is written in a book on that site also none of the 60+ Antiviruses (https://www.virustotal.com/en/) used for scanning the site detects any threat.

Airliners.net (see: http://whois.domaintools.com/airliners.net ) is also hosted by a privately owned server ( http://www.verticalscope.com/about-us/our-history.html. ) as well or less known as Altervista. Most pages you find on the net are stored on various private computers. Government owned servers are rare.

I don't download off this website/server. The Altervista link you provided wanted me to download. I won't do that unless I know a site. It is just my computer habits and it seems to have served well enough whether you find it a joke or not.

Tugg

"They carried the machine up on the Hill", John T. Daniels, eye witness

The fact that Flyer I 1903 just glided, aided partly by the engine, was confirmed apparently unwillingly by John T. Daniels, an eye witness, in a letter addressed to a friend:

"Manteo NC, June 30 —- 1933,

Dear friend,

I Don’t know very much to write about the flight. I was there, and it was on Dec the 17, — 1903 about 10 o’clock. They carried the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track, and started the engine … and he went about 100 feet or more, and then Mr. Wilbur taken the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track and he went off across the Beach about a half a mile …
Sincerely,
John T. Daniels, Manteo NC, Box 1W"

This is the first eye witness who claimed (in 1933 when he woke up!) he had seen flights on December 17, 1903.
His description is somehow in accordance with the detail of the Dec. 17, 1903, picture which I have already posted above, because John T. Daniels' letter talks about two flights started from a hill and the photo shows a slope in front of the plane. However, what J. T. Daniels affirmed is in flagrant contradiction with the January 6, 1904, press release issued by the Wright brothers (the text is posted above) in which they explicitly stated:

"Each time the machine started from the level ground by its own power alone with no assistance from gravity, or any other sources whatever."

simplex1 wrote:

"They carried the machine up on the Hill", John T. Daniels, eye witness

The fact that Flyer I 1903 just glided, aided partly by the engine, was confirmed apparently unwillingly by John T. Daniels, an eye witness, in a letter addressed to a friend:

"Manteo NC, June 30 —- 1933,

Dear friend,

I Don’t know very much to write about the flight. I was there, and it was on Dec the 17, — 1903 about 10 o’clock. They carried the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track, and started the engine … and he went about 100 feet or more, and then Mr. Wilbur taken the machine up on the Hill and Put her on the track and he went off across the Beach about a half a mile …
Sincerely,
John T. Daniels, Manteo NC, Box 1W"

This is the first eye witness who claimed (in 1933 when he woke up!) he had seen flights on December 17, 1903.
His description is somehow in accordance with the detail of the Dec. 17, 1903, picture which I have already posted above, because John T. Daniels' letter talks about two flights started from a hill and the photo shows a slope in front of the plane. However, what J. T. Daniels affirmed is in flagrant contradiction with the January 6, 1904, press release issued by the Wright brothers (the text is posted above) in which they explicitly stated:

"Each time the machine started from the level ground by its own power alone with no assistance from gravity, or any other sources whatever."

This all confirms that the Wright brothers had the first flight with a plane under power. Thank you for ending this charade. Your assertion that it was a glide with aid of an engine is not the whole truth. That engine got them off of that track and into the air. That was the key to the first flight.

Hope you put as much effort into your other endeavors as you have in putting forth your charade.

A power assisted glide is not a true powered flight because the engine is not able to lift the plane in the air. A power assisted glide can be done with a 1 HP engine while the same plane needs 30 HP to rise from the ground.

Secondly, what the alleged witness J. T. Daniel wrote in 1933 is inconsistent with the January 6, 1904, press release (as I explained in a previous post) of the Wright brothers so one of them lied for sure.

There is also Augustus Moore Herring who built in 1898 the plane you can admire in the picture and claimed that his machine flew, same as the Wright brothers but before them. There is also Prof. Langley who build a plane that crashed twice in 1903 after a "power assisted glide!".


Strong evidence against the Wright brothers December 17, 1903, ridiculous claim is the 2003 replica of their plane which instead of a 852-foot stable flight flew just 115 feet in an uncontrolled manner. This was its best performance despite all efforts made to fly it. Anyway, with the 12 HP engine, the Wrights claimed they had used, the replica was unable to lift from the surface of the earth so a 19-20 HP motor was used.

"December 3, 2003 test flight of the Wright Experience 1903 Wright Flyer Replica. Dr. Kevin Kochersberger was at the controls and piloted the Flyer for a distance of 115 feet. Slight cross wind after initial rotation which is compensated with slight wing warp."

The Wright 1903 plane was fundamentally flawed if they really built it in 1903 (pictures with it were published for the first time in September 1908). The apparatus was unstable and unflyable even using a stronger motor.

The Wright brothers were LIARS before 1908, they became FLYERS on August 8, 1908 in France using a french made engine built by Bariquand et Marre.

simplex1 wrote:

A power assisted glide is not a true powered flight because the engine is not able to lift the plane in the air. A power assisted glide can be done with a 1 HP engine while the same plane needs 30 HP to rise from the ground.

Secondly, what the alleged witness J. T. Daniel wrote in 1933 is inconsistent with the January 6, 1904, press release (as I explained in a previous post) of the Wright brothers so one of them lied for sure.

There is also Augustus Moore Herring who built in 1898 the plane you can admire in the picture and claimed that his machine flew, same as the Wright brothers but before them. There is also Prof. Langley who build a plane that crashed twice in 1903 after a "power assisted glide!".


Strong evidence against the Wright brothers December 17, 1903, ridiculous claim is the 2003 replica of their plane which instead of a 852 feet stable flight flew just 115 feet in an uncontrolled manner. This was its best performance despite all efforts made to fly it. Anyway, with the 12 HP engine, the Wrights claimed they had used, the replica was unable to lift from the surface of the earth so a 19-20 HP motor was used.

"December 3, 2003 test flight of the Wright Experience 1903 Wright Flyer Replica. Dr. Kevin Kochersberger was at the controls and piloted the Flyer for a distance of 115 feet. Slight cross wind after initial rotation which is compensated with slight wing warp."

The Wright 1903 plane was fundamentally flawed if they really built it in 1903 (pictures with it were published for the first time in September 1908). The apparatus was unstable and unflyable even using a stronger motor.

The Wright brothers were LIARS before 1908, they became FLYERS on August 8, 1908 in France using a french made engine built by Bariquand et Marre.

Keep moving the goal posts. When you are the first at something, you show me how perfect it was. Other than being perfectly dense.

simplex1 wrote:

The American Civil War helicopter that lifted 600 pounds. Hundreds of people saw it.

The big question would be: Is there solid evidence that the above mentioned helicopter, with a propeller 32 feet in diameter that lifted more than 600 pounds, was really tested and flew or it was just a hoax

Based on the write up I would say it was a hoax. The author seems to fall into the same category as most people and not understand propellers and the necessary dynamics to get them to function as intended.

Tugg