"Tsiolkovsky was not supported on the airship project, and the author was refused a grant to build the model. An appeal to the General Aviation Staff of the Russian army also had no success. In 1892, he turned to the new and unexplored field of heavier-than-air aircraft. Tsiolkovsky's idea was to build an airplane with a metal frame. In the article "An Airplane or a Birdlike (Aircraft) Flying Machine" (1894) are descriptions and drawings of a monoplane, which in its appearance and aerodynamics anticipated the design of aircraft that would be constructed 15 to 18 years later. In an Aviation Airplane, the wings have a thick profile with a rounded front edge and the fuselage is faired. But work on the airplane, as well as on the airship, did not receive recognition from the official representatives of Russian science, and Tsiolkovsky's further research had neither monetary nor moral support. In 1914, he displayed his models of all-metal dirigibles at the Aeronautics Congress in St. Petersburg but met with a lukewarm response. " You can find in the internet the drawing of his metal monoplane from 1895, the wings have a bird like shape and angle of attack but the tail have clearly horizontal and vertical stabilizer(even if clearly too small to work well... heh ) "Starting in 1896, Tsiolkovsky systematically studied the theory of motion of rocket apparatus. Thoughts on the use of the rocket principle in the cosmos were expressed by him as early as 1883, and a rigorous theory of rocket propulsion was developed in 1896. Tsiolkovsky derived the formula, which he called the "formula of aviation", now known as Tsiolkovsky rocket equation," The guy was self educated son of a Polish noble that ended up in Siberia as a punishment for taking part in upraising against Russian Empire -> so preaty much got zero to no chance to get any real support for his ideas(living in the middle of forest in his father home that was forced to work as a forester)... And my attempt to google any Polish or Russian sources about"adverse yaw" failed, i was not even able to find via google proper Polish or Russian name for it in wikipedia... so if its a problem to prove that people know about it now, then good luck finding 100 years old prove about it -> and in the end even the Wright patent is not using that name.
Greg- You ever think about what the Wright’s had to go through to learn how to pilot an airplane without killing themselves. Especially the landing part. The part I think is the hardest to learn- even with an instructor: and the only mandatory part.
@@michaelgarrow3239 Yes, I have talked about that before. They tethered them to the ground with very little slack and flew them as kites just a few feet off the ground.
I read the Wright's story a few years ago - after spending most of my life as a software engineer. I was struck by the iterative design, develop and testing process, the orderly trial and error and the rest of it. An R&D process that anyone in any engineering discipline would recognize as such. I was struck that - it wasn't IF the wrights were going to fly - it was when.
that's what separates them from the other claimants imo - they were real scientists, not hobbyists poking around in the dark hoping to luck out. powered flight is way too difficult an engineering problem for anyone to ever just luck into. there is a massive subset of problems that all have to be solved before controllable, powered flight can be achieved. even with all their meticulous work their first few attempts were dangerously shoddy examples by today's standards. it's not hard to imagine how unsafe the competitors' attempts were with their comparative lack of engineering skills.
@@oldfrend I'd go further tbh Nobody had the aero engineering skills, they hadn't been invented yet... the Wrights taught themselves the fundamentals through R&D.. All the others were floundering around.
No quibbles about the Wright's genius and rigor in method. Might add, however, that these guys were going into the air - and a bug in their software could have caused something worse than a Windows 8 crash. Brave guys. Amazing how fast aviation advanced - 25 years after the Wrights Lindbergh flew the Atlantic; 40 years all of the great WWII aircraft were in action; 50 years and you were well into the age of the jet. (Orville lived until 1948 so he would have known about the Bell X1 breaking the sound barrier.) So planes were obsolete more or less the day they first flew. Now? A prototype takes years to get into the air - but once in service is expected to stay there for a lifetime or two (or four with the B-52 - could one be in the air for a 100th anniversary flight?)
Yes that's one of the amazing parts of the history, their innate understanding of the scientific method and research... their engineering experience of prototyping, design, and testing they may have developed during their years in the bicycle business... but both of these areas were without formal training in either...
It’s when you get into the diaries and letters, especially to their dad , that it becomes clear they knew what they were doing . It was in one of these letters to their father that they explained they solved the problem of control. They didn’t have an engine yet. They knew they did it and were ecstatic. All they needed to do was to go home and build the engine during the winter and come back the next year and fly it.
Whitehead was not able to repeat his feat with a 100 mph airplane because he was using a cold fusion engine and everyone knows that those engines are pesky, they work only once and when no one looks.
Alright, I'm one of your Patreon subscribers who was skeptical that this was a good idea, but you've convinced me. This was well worthwhile. My tailwheel instructor had me do endless dutch rolls in a Cub to get me better at using the rudder. For a real eye-opening demonstration of the phenomenon, get some stick time in a glider. The Wright brothers were truly giants. Thanks, Greg.
Schweitzer 233 (?) taught me the importance of the rudder. The guy who was instructing me (Jack Lambie, incidentally) sat in the back reading a Playboy (I'm not kidding) and always knew if I were slipping or skidding, without ever looking up from his magazine. Jack wasn't certified as an instructor at that time, which was the late 1980's. We were flying out of Elsinore. So I never got to officially log that time. But damn did I learn from him! RIP Jack and Bill
did I get this detail right? that the Wrights had their rudder equivalent mechanically operate in unison with the wing warping action that induced directional banking? Why is the rudder an independently actuated control surface apart from actuating ailerons on subsequent aircraft designs? Is it not viable to have the rudder deflection mechanically link cooridinated (appropriately) to aileron actuation? Even prior to fly by wire it would have been possible to devise non linear coupling of these two control surfaces...
@@TheSulross A few later designs did link the ailerons with the rudder(s) like the Ercoupe. I think that the main reason they are not on most aircraft is that there are times that you want to cross the controls and intentional slip the aircraft to either lose speed and altitude quickly or land in a crosswind situation.
@@TheSulross There are times during flight, most especially during landing, where much different control inputs are required. For instance, if one is approaching a runway to land to the north and there is a crosswind coming from the west, one would use left aileron to bank into the crosswind and keep the flight path aligned with the runway while simultaneously using right rudder to keep the airplane’s longitudinal axis aligned with the runway. This is called cross-controlled or uncoordinated flight. Another term is slipping. The same maneuver is used to increase drag and steepen one’s descent in airplanes without flaps. There have been airplanes over the years that incorporated exactly the system you describe. Most famously, the Ercoupe. It had a connection between the rudder and ailerons to help coordinate turns as well as limits on elevator travel to help avoid aerodynamic stalls. I’m simplifying here, of course. These features were to help pilots avoid stall/spin accidents, which were almost uniformly fatal close to the ground. For a recent horrifying accident, see the crash in Nepal last week. You can look up crosswind approaches on YT for clear examples. Hope that helps.
You hit the nail on the head. The Wright brothers were not engineers by education but used statistical analysis to work through their ideas. Remember, these guys designed their own wind tunnel to test out new airfoils because the one's that Otto lilienthal designed were flawed, The propeller they made was around 66% efficient. They new that because they tested it in a wind tunnel. They also built their own engine. The Wright brothers both engineered and methodically designed their aircraft. Not only were they the first to fly, they were the first aeronautical engineers and they documented everything.
They were self taught and were good enough to get their articles published in peer reviewed engineering journals. They published their outline for their planned sequence of experiments in 1901. I am not sure that the Wrights correctly interpreted Lilienthal's cambered wing data. The Wrights' did not use a wind tunnel to test their propeller designs. They could only test air small airfoils and angles of attack. They did test the thrust produced by the engine, transmission, and props with an simple string gauge. @wkelly3053 @alan-sk7ky @
Em 12 de novembro de 1906, Santos-Dumont recebeu um prêmio do Aero Club de France por ter voado mais de 220 metros com seu novo invento.Dumont ficou conhecido em todo o mundo e ganhou vários prêmios pela construção de seus dirigíveis. Sua fama fez dele uma espécie de celebridade, e os parisienses o chamavam de “le petit Santos”,que pode ser traduzido como "pequeno Santos"
"You're ignorant! That's the Wright Brothers' plane! At Kitty Hawk in 1903, Charles Lindbergh flew it 15 miles on a thimble full of corn oil. Single-handedly won us the civil war, it did!"
Greg, your Magnum Opus of historical record setting with respect to first flight was your first Wright video. I became a Patreon after watching that video because I know how important your work to debunk charlatans is. It is sad, but necessary, that yet another video was needed to answer the fairy tails. This one does not duplicate your first video, which made it a must watch as soon as I could. No complaints from ME for producing content like this. I have already checked my bucket list item Re: First Flight. I landed my Piper Arrow on runway 3, KFFA, on April 17, 2021. It was a beautiful Saturday to fly to the Outer Banks of North Carolina. There were so many pilot tourists arriving that as I watched the ramp fill with airplanes, a perplexed non-pilot tourist standing next to me asked "why are there so many planes landing here?" I turned to her and replied "My dear lady, THIS is where it began. Every one of those pilots and their passengers are coming here to pay their respects to those two brilliant gentlemen from Ohio." "Oh, that explains it!" she said.😀
As you point out in your great video, solving the adverse yaw issue was the last step to a fully controllable airplane. Well Done! First was pitch control, 2nd roll control, and third the moveable rudder for taming adverse yaw. Wright brothers for the win here! Found the patent wording very interesting. Wilbur latched on to the movable rudder idea very quickly.
One of your best videos. My first flying lesson (1982) demonstrated adverse yaw and the use of the rudder. I teach this on the first lesson I teach with a new primary student. What a great breakthrough in the understanding of flight.
Thank you for the uncompromising approach of delivering the honest unbiased facts. It has been a great benefit to my understanding and knowledge of aviation.
Hi Greg. I just wanted to say thanks for producing your videos. I have watched some with my dad - who used to be a commercial pilot doing livestock mustering - and it has become a common interest for us. I’ve got my first lesson at the local airport next month and it wouldn’t have happened but for your work. Cheers, good sir!
Excellent lecture, and your points are well-made. My reference book on this period has always been "The Bishop's Boys" by Tom Crouch (of NASM fame). Of course, there were huge questions in Europe. Once the Wrights showed up at the first Paris Air Meet of 1909, bolted together there craft, and flew a few circuits, the questioning stopped. They clearly had such effortless control of their craft, far beyond what anyone else could accomplish at the same time.
Thanks exactly right, even their biggest doubters and critics were silenced when the went to France and flew in public. At what was though to be the center of aviation, nobody had ever seen a plane truly fly until the Wrights showed up.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles And yet, the number one flyer was here in the London Science museum rather than the Smithsonian (where it is now ;-)) for many years as the science establishment that be couldn't quite accept that pushbike mechanics from Dayton did what they had claimed to do. Method, development and research be damned, if Langley said impossible...
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesIt's not true, there were already planes in Europe that flew like the flyer, mainly the Demoiselle and the Blériot! This argument does not convince anyone who really thinks!
It is content like this that makes it worth being a Patreon. I admire your depth of research and simple way to call out those who are wrong. I enjoy drinking out of my P-47 cup as I enjoy each new video. Please, keep doing these in-depth and quality videos.
I always knew the Wright brothers were the first to fly, but your videos make clear just how much discovery and development was thanks to them and just how far ahead of everyone else they were. If anything, they're still under appreciated! It makes you wonder: how much longer would it have taken for powered flight to be invented if not for the Wright brothers?
Very high quality content - you cover the essential items that others gloss over Your deep understanding of the essential issues results in very compelling arguments
I LOVE that photo of Orville and Wilbur at the end of the video. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but that photo has so much to unpack. Brothers, coworkers, hardship, intelligence, humility, sacrifice, teamwork, innovation, opportunity, freedom, entrepreneurship....America. Given the current trends in our society today, I don't think it's an accident that today, more than ever, their achievement is being minimized or even denied by people with an agenda of greed, popularity, or outright destruction. I can think of few people worthy of a statue, but these two certainly measure up to my standard. Of course, the statues of many people I like seem to be falling over at an alarmingly high rate these days.
....America. A great place if you have abilities, health and money. Otherwise not so much. (Given the current trends in our society today... we all need to put our rose tinted specs down and see reality sometimes)
@@stevep4131Steve, That is an interesting comment because I would argue that in America today we tend to tear down those with health, money and ability with overreaching public policies out of reasons of envy, jealousy, and vindictiveness. My comment reflects that I don't have rose colored glasses on because I recognize that America clearly isn't the same America during the time of the Wrights. America clearly isn't exactly the bastion of freedom and opportunity that it once was. The country that so many immigrants struggled just to make it here....long before there was a welfare handout and free airline ticket waiting for them on their arrival. This country has never been perfect and, in my opinion, it has become less so in the last 90+ years since ideas regarding wealth redistribution, socialized medicine, and the general undermining of the family unit and education have become public policy. Ability and money? Today there are millions of job openings that are left unfilled NOT because people don't have "abilities". It's because people don't have work ethic. I know because at my place of business when we hire someone I'm usually the one that trains them. I just want someone that is motivated. That's all. Yet, no one is interested. Why should they be? Many people prefer to stay at home and receive a check in the mail funded by the tax payer....that's people with some money being forced to give to those that don't. As for health? How about we promote people eating right and getting some exercise? Instead, during the recent pandemic we closed down gyms, put on face diapers, and told people to stay inside out of the sun....just brilliant. We promote obese people popping pills rather than inculcating the basics of diet and exercise. As a matter of public policy we now also tell a female that she can be a man and a male that he can be a woman....clearly great concern for the health of people. Our culture and society is a mess. Again look what happened during the viral panic. People, mostly thin skinned, pasty white, college girls took to the streets under the banner of BLM and AntiFa and destroyed towns with their looting and burning. They tore down statues of people they didn't know anything about. All under the guise of social justice or something like that. I don't have rose colored glasses on and I am very aware of reality. Thank you, Clarke Noble
It's spelled 'merica in this context :P Jokes aside bear in mind that while this era has plenty of problems and issues, the era the Wrights lived in was called the gilded era for a reason. Charlatans abounded. We don't have the Kul Klux Klan, Anarchist pipe bombers, immigrant child workers losing arms to industrial equipment or the shooting wars over coal and copper fields these days thank goodness. It might fell hopeless with all the bad news coming sometimes but try to remember the progress that has been made.
@@clarkenoble Well said, sir. But a careful study of history will show that all societies have problems like these, at all times. The point is to push the good to the forefront and let it serve as an example to all. But sometimes evil has its time as well. We can only weather the storm and hope.
Those videos appeal to various emotional themes; like, non-canon answers must be more truthful, or somehow smarter, because they contradict established academic narrative, and therefore appeal to anti-establishment sentiment. Or, rooting for some underdog... it gets curious people to click, but unfortunately it's a disservice to reason. Thanks for these videos, Greg.
People love to feel special or in-the-know. The idea that they hold some deeper truth that even the greatest academics are ignorant of makes them feel smart. And now that their self-worth is intricately linked to these deeper truths, trying to set them straight becomes a personal attack. It truly is a terrifying phenomena.
@@rapter229 Exactly! They feel they have a level of knowledge that's superior not only to academics but also to their fellow "common people." That many poor fools have swallowed the conventional wisdom "lie" but they themselves are not among the gullible. Ironic because they are the most gullible of all. The link to self-worth: There is research that shows if a person encounters a fact or argument that's counter to self-worth they are almost physically unable to process it.
@@donjones4719 Be careful not to fall into absolutes, though. It's good to challenge, and we have to let people grow, explore, and mature in knowledge. Folks can be on an ever-changing intellectual journey.
Brilliant. Thanks. I have walked the ground at Kitty Hawk in tears over thoughts of what they accomplished. The great sadness of our time is the rise of organized lying for profit. You're a true force for good on this subject.
This is really good! I think the main point of who flew first, is what you say towards the end. The first powered and controllable flight by the Wrights back in December 17th 1903 might not have looked much more impressive than other short hops by others. But it is the fact that the Wrights knew how to improve their design, until it was a proper airplane. That is what makes that first short hop so impressive. The first step towards bigger things to come.
In technology there exists Agile which has at it's core the concept of iterative progression. This is clearly demonstrated by the early Wright brothers aeroplanes. First plane to fly flew a bit, it was their Minimal Viable Product. They then iteratively progressed this to the point where others were able to take up the baton and progress us to where we are now
Yes, this. It's the distinction between inventing AN aeroplane and THE aeroplane. All modern aircraft can trace their lineage to the Wright brothers work.
Just to complete the story of 17 December 1903, the 4th and last flight of the day covered 852 feet and took 59 seconds. If it seems like that makes for a very slow groundspeed (about 9.7 mph), remember that they were flying into a 27-mph headwind. Notice from the famous photograph of the first flight on 17 December that the Flyer's wings have anhedral (negative dihedral). This made the Flyer very unstable in the roll axis. In addition, the forward-mounted elevator was very sensitive to control inputs, making it very difficult for the pilot to maintain a steady pitch angle. All in all, it was a very difficult airplane to fly. They developed much better flight controls for the 1904 version of their airplane.
If you want to gain a sense for how long a 59 second flight is, go to a school and learn to fly either a hang glider or a paraglider on a training hill, essentially the same thing the Wrights did. It is likely that by the end of the first day you will get good enough that the glider will support your weight for a few feet/seconds. It will likely take you the rest of the season (maybe more) of practice and training to get good enough that you can make a flight that lasts 59 seconds or more, and this is on modern, well design training gear. Being towed up by a winch, or tug, or learning in a powered aircraft don't count, the aircraft does most of the work. Flying a foot launch glider for 59 seconds or more is no accident, it shows you've learned how to pilot your craft.
They weren’t the first. Pleasant Point New Zealand. It’s in my Galilee’s diaries. The pilot was scaring the sheep on the local farms by accident and pissing everyone off.
Even if Gustave Whitehead never flew; he still deserves a place in history for building a failed flying machine that was so good, that an entire state recognizes him as the first man to fly.
'I'm willing to debate you and I'm not hard to find.' awesome Greg, I don't think you'll get any takers, since you seem to have a good grasp of the issues involved and knowledge of the aeronautical pioneers.
I think it's very interesting the challenge you've laid out, specifically because it illustrates some of the mechanical problems in the way many pseudohistorians go about making their fringe claims. I think a lot of people get into pseudohistory for the right reasons. They are excited about history, they want to not just learn more but uncover new things. They want to make contributions. This is the same reason academics like me spend decades going to school and devote our lives to research. But the difference between a pseudohistorian and a normal historian is method. You don't have to be a PhD academic to do history the right way, and regrettably there have certainly been plenty of PhD academics who did things the wrong way - after all, we live and learn. But at a fundamental level, if you want to do useful history, you have to distinguish between what you know and what is speculation. It's fun to ponder "What ifs" but they aren't as useful methodologically as one might think. I get it. It is hard to come up with research topics. So if you get a cool what if, sometimes it feels like you are really on to something. But the problem with what ifs is that it is virtually impossible to turn them into substantiated history. The reason is simple: evidence doesn't work that way. Most pseudohistorians put forward claims that are based on "What ifs" like "What if Whitehead was the first to fly?" or "What if Elvis faked his death?" or "What if Atlantis was real?" or "What if aliens built the pyramids?" and they support those things using a combination of three approaches: 1. Problematizing existing knowledge, 2. Using circumstantial knowledge and speculative inference to establish their "what if" is plausible, 3. Challenging others to find evidence that they are wrong. This approach is fundamentally never going to yield the same kind of well documented history that we are expected to produce in the academy, or that is in contained on this video. The reason is because it is premised on negative presumptions rather than positive ones. You can't prove or disprove a negative statement. There is, by nature, not evidence at all of things that don't exist. The pseudohistorians dismiss the copious evidence that the Wright Brothers flew by raising hypothetical questions, but they never acknowledge that those same questions could be raised against their own claims and any evidence they propose. For example, they insist that there were no credible witnesses to the Wrights' flights, but they then do not apply that same skepticism to witnesses of Whitehead's. They assert that Whitehead's designs were "plausible" without ever looking critically at their flaws, meanwhile they look critically at the Wright's designs and make critiques that they could not defend their own hypothesis against. They challenge us to prove that the Wrights weren't faking it, but none of us can ever do that because evidence won't exist of something that didn't happen. The burden of proof would be on them to find positive evidence that the Wrights did fake it. But then, they might challenge us to say "well if it is not possible for you to prove the Wrights didn't fake it, how can you prove Whitehead did?" And the answer is it doesn't matter. It's possible to prove that the Wrights flew, and it isn't possible to do the same for Whitehead. But this video is so useful to anyone interested in how to do history because it also proposes a useful test that we can easily apply to differentiate between claims that are able to be substantiated and claims that can never be substantiated. Unlike "was it fake?" or "maybe it happened?" the question of how to control adverse yaw is one that we can apply as a test to falsify claims. We know that adverse yaw is a nonnegotiable fact of aerodynamics. It is not possible to have what we would consider a controllable fixed wing airplane without in some way accounting for that. We can look at any design and understand whether it would sufficiently account for adverse yaw. From this we can easily conclude a positive, verifiable, nonspeculative historical statement: that any aircraft design that includes a mechanism to control adverse yaw has the potential to be a fully controllable fixed wing airplane. That doesn't prove that it was, but it does rule out any and all designs that lack such a mechanism. If someone wants to prove some airplane was first in controllable flight, they need to meet the challenge of this video and show how it solved for adverse yaw. It is plainly clear that Whitehead, along with other pre-wright designs like Adler etc, didn't have anything to perform this function. Therefore we can know that their designs would not have been controllable even before we get to questions like lift to weight ratios and the power of engines or propellers. We prove this not by speculating or asserting what ifs, but by specifying the type of evidence that would be necessary to make a reasonable claims, based on the known physical conditions that are required for controlled flight. What is more, this simple criteria does not favor the Wrights except for that they are in fact the first with a well documented solution to this problem. I'm eager to see if anyone takes you up on your wager, but I doubt they will. Pseudohistorians shirk the hard work of real research because it is easier to speculate, imagine, beg rhetorical questions, and challenge other people to prove negative statements. I hope everyone with a sincere interest in how to do history the right way gets a chance to really think about this video and the research that went into it, and the critical thinking and applied knowledge that it took to come up with a robust test for falsifiability of claims. And they might want to reconsider making claims if they themselves aren't ready to do the same.
That's a great post. I never heard the term "pseudohistorian" but it's a perfect description of what I see going on in the area of early aviation. Unfortunately I think there are quite a few academics acting in this manner. Not all of course but some. I usually see this when they drift out of their lane. For example when a PhD in Astrophysics starts talking about historical ships and voyages.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles honestly talking out of field is embarrassingly common and unfortunately a good way to sell a bunch of books to people who are impressed by credentials. But even within fields it is quite common for academics to fail to distinguish between when they are substantiating a claim with evidence, or simply trying to make speculation sound persuasive using argumentation.
It's true! Whitehead developed a super advanced engine for the day. Big Auto came in, shut it down and covered it up. Planned obsolescence and all. I'm pretty sure it had one of those 100 mpg, water fed carbs too.
I'm sure somewhere in a run-down Detroit warehouse they'll one day find all the technologically advanced concepts the industrial giants had to buy in and hide, so the could keep their hundreds of engineers busy, developing utterly pointless 2nd rate concepts for decades. The fact they haven't admitted doing so absolutely proves: this engine is still more advanced than anything on the road today.
Gotta remember, we live in a world where some people seriously believe the earth is a flat disk surrounded on its edge by an ice wall which no one has ever seen, because "they" won't let you get close to it.😄
Excellent use of analogy. And I love it when a reasonable thinker finds a way to call out some nonsense. OR, maybe someone can actually meet your challenge and we all learn something together. It’s a win-win!
I agree, win win either way. So far all I have seen from the Whitehead side is a bunch of false accusations and whining. No evidence for their case, and certainly no proof.
“This couldn’t be clearer.” I had to laugh because it was just like the cleric’s response to the explanation of Salic Law in the beginning of Shakespeare’s Henry V.
I agree with you. If Gustav Whitehead's description of his engine can be believed, selling it would have made him more famous than flying a powered glider. And if it can't be believed, well, that just calls all of his claims into question.
Saw one of those docs yesterday. Absurd. You are quite correct. RC modelers have "flown" almost anything including old shoes. Enough power will get anything into the air. To a degree Curtiss did this during his aileron patent war with the Wrights.
I built a rc something (I'm not good at naming my stupid inventions) that was little more than engine servos and receiver, battery and three control vanes. Went straight up never to be seen again. Didn't think about landing though, as it turned out a moot point. Too expensive to repeat.
Good video. It's simple, explains one of the lesser known issues in airplane development, and shows a strong case for the Wrights being the inventor of the airplane. I doubt anyone will be able to claim that reward, but it'd be darn interesting if someone managed the feat.
Greg offered the reward, but he has done his research, and I am quite confident that no one other than the Wright Brothers has any valid, verifiable claim to the title of inventor(s) of the first practical airplane capable of sustained, controlled flight, having solved the specific problem of what is now known as adverse yaw. Greg's $1,000.00 stake in this challenge will be eternally unclaimed.
Beautifully presented. Those who diminish the work of the Wrights without understanding what they did or how they worked raise my blood pressure. Their "headline" is "inventors of the aeroplane", their primary invention was Aeronautical Engineering. Their approach is exactly "Analysis supported by test" and we still work that way today. Their free and easy acceptance of debate and disagreement is why aviation is so safe: There is no shame in being wrong, only in not accepting it.
Now this is greatly appreciated. The desire to rewrite history seems to be a pandemic of more than just academia. Thank you Greg for taking time to look into this debacle of Whitehead.
History is easy to rewrite when all the principles are long dead, and real research is needed to learn what really happened. We're starting to see that happen in events that happened in the forties and fifties, now that that generation is dying off in droves.
@@thomashowlett8295 I was thinking more along the lines of the political elite and wizards of smart in the halls of higher indoctrination but yes, what you say has merit.
It's pretty cool how they built in the rudder compensation with the wing warping. You can see in those patent drawings, when the wing tip warped up, a cable was attached to the tip, that lead down and back to the opposite side of the rudder that pulled and turned the rudder into the direction of the turn.
Greg, the Dukes were so close to inventing the flying car, if they'd used the 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona they would have done it! BTW, looking forward to another Muscle Cars vid. Maybe 1968?
I would absolutely subscribe to a second channel where you just debunk aviation myths that get repeated on UA-cam. I really do think we need this kind of content more than your regular content, as much as I adore every video you've put out. People always talk about Wehraboos claiming absurd things about tanks and small arms, but nobody seems to focus on calling out their absurd claims about 109s and 190s, let alone the 262.
I’ll be honest, as a person who’s I guess more open minded than some, I simply just thought. “maybe. Who knows!” About the whole whitehead thing. Glad I finally had the time to watch this video. Thanks Greg.
Greg, Thanks for referencing the patent documents and letters etc from the Library of Congress. I haven't had access to that direct information. This video has finished answering a question I asked on a forum in 2005 regarding the Wright Brothers and all the me too types. A chap called Ron answered on the forum leading to a great friendship that lasted until he died in 2014 soon after we visited Oshkosh with him. The documents he provided convinced me that the brothers were well researched and advanced the state of knowledge to enable controlled powered flight for the first time. The zero day definitions in the patent of what we now know to be Drag, Yaw and Adverse Yaw are concise, accurate and have stood the test of time. The document is too early to separate induced drag from parasitic drag. Now I'm looking forward to finding when and how these elements were deduced.
While it may not show nearly as advanced understanding as the Wrights I do feel that early glider projects found the usefulness of a rudder. In 1852 SR. George Cayley in the Mechanics Magazine wrote - The small irregularity of resistance made by one side of the parachute over the other, which it is impracticable to avoid, has then to be corrected by a slight side movement of the rudder, bringing its vertical surface to act in the contrary direction, and thus to bring the steerage into a straight course. In the Nicholson's journal of natural philosophy 1810 he compared it to a boat.
rob, that's exactly right. Cayley though of the rudder on an aircraft as functionally the same as a rudder in a boat. However it's not the same at all. The rudder in a plane is there primarily to correct for adverse yaw, NOT to steer the craft. That's the reason you can't win the 1000 bucks just by pointing out that someone had a rudder before the Wrights. It was actually the lack of understanding about why a rudder was needed that held Cayley and others back. Understanding Adverse Yaw was the key here and it was missing from Cayley's understanding.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Cayley was not using ailerons so the adverse yaw was probably not as apparent. There would be a difference in drag between the wings due to the bank, that would be corrected by rudder. Just like in a boat. Like he stated about correcting for the difference in drag by using rudder. In the 1810 writings he talked about the difference in boat drag due to heel. I still think he was on to it but using a difference in wording. In the 1810 writings he did state what held him back was structural issues (glider was damaged) and a lack of suitable power for powered flight. He did claim it to be stable and steerable.
As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) but George Cayley was the first person to fly someone in an airplane way back around 1805. It was in a glider that he had built and the pilot was a 10 year old boy (he needed someone lightweight). The sad thing is nobody remembers the name of the boy.
Greg, Once again thank you for telling me what I need to hear,not what I want to hear. Good stories seldom let facts get in the way! Thanks for getting both to make a Great Video.
Absolutely excellent. Thank you! My favorite book on the subject is"The Bishop's Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright" by Tom D. Crouch. It's a terrific book. In it, Crouch argued that the Wrights succeeded like no others in four different aspects: 1. Correct data on airfoils. They developed it themselves and debunked all of the then current books on the subject. 2. Understanding a propellor is a rotating airfoil. 3. Wing-warping to control flight direction. 4. A legitimate powerplant. They did it all, and they were amazing. They were in fact the first to fly ion a heavier-than-air craft. Zero question. Also, as far as I am concerned, McCullough's book "The Wright Brothers" is a basically a rip-off of Crouch's work.
McCullough's book is extremely underwhelming. He might be a good writer, but his understanding of the technical aspects was so off the mark as to be misleading on a number of occasions.
Excellent, thanks to you for being a truthful and honest content creator, and not just a money grabber or attention seeker. Although if you were, I would not spend a second on your videos. As it were I keep watching them over and over again - and keep promoting your channel to my friends.
Grew up just outside Dayton, with a great grandmother who has the maiden name of Wright. Don’t mess with my homies. SO many people don’t understand the fundamentals of engineering. Did it fly miles and miles the first day? No. Did it prove the concept? Yes. Did Google index the entire Internet the first day? We POC for a reason. Evolution is a series of incremental changes that result in forward progress.
Yes! Love when Greg gets fired up about the Wrights. I have watched his excellent "Yes the Wrights did invent powered flight" content many times. It's always time well spent.
When I was in Air Force Maintenance Officers Course (Chanute AFB) we discussed the Wrights propeller. Hand turned efficiency close enough to modern day.
I have it on good authority that my Great-Great-Great-Great-GrandCousin achieved powered, sustained, controlled flight in 1901 by spinning in-place really fast with his arms outstretched. He was airborne for 35 hours straight before fatefully being shot down somewhere over Albania.
Your previous video on prop design was the best Wright Bro video on YT and it was not even supposed to be about them. Greg's digressions are better than primary videos !! Waiting for whitehead fan to say his plane could have delivered Hiroshima device
@@DouglasJenkins No, it was a dolphin and a whale (unless the dolphin was named George and the whale was named Santos), and the whitehead glider was painted to look like an F-16 that wouldn't exist for another 30 years. This was all possible because the flat Earth allowed Tesla long range radio reception to break JN25 in 1917 exposing the Russian naval order of battle at Tsushima in 1905. Because, you know, the internet makes you special because you can become the keeper of secret knowledge. 🤣🤣🤣
@muskepticsometimes9133: "Waiting for Whitehead fan to say his plane could have delivered an A-bomb." SB: You are going to have a long wait. Whitehead fans are not that creative. They rarely engage in a discussion with a critic. SB: If his 20 HP engine or 70 hp engines could achieve 100+ mph, it should be able to carry a 6000+ lb bomb. I am sure that Whitehead could come up with the appropriate tall tale to fit a critique or question. Did you notice that the power attributed to his engines declined each time he built a better engine. The pre 1903 engines are much more powerful than his post 1906 engines. Invited to comment: @muskepticsometimes9133 gregsairplanesandautomobiles @XSpamDragonX @KantiDono @richardlewis4288 @usaerospace6707 @mikereyns5176 @jamesmason2228 @mikereyns5176 @stug41 @Niinsa62 @michaelmazzola3694 @andrewlaas911 @clarkenoble @shoersa @otosere2857 @jimsleestak8012 @peterstickney7608 @kyle857 @ecoriskprojects9783 @Nipplator99999999999 @radioguy1620 @timgallagher1041 @muskepticsometimes9133 @randyhavard6084
What a beautiful story. Two brothers working together. They needed to prove to each other their idea was sound before they would invest time and effort. The natural, relatively benign, conflict and competition of two brothers put to excellent use while problem solving. I am in awe of our ancestors. And I've always heard and appreciated the term "powered flight". It separates what the Wrights did from gliders, kites and General Lees!
I just got in an argument with a coworker who claimed that somebody invented the airplane before the Wright Brothers. I completely stole all of your arguments about an airplane must be controllable
Is the real lesson from this excellent work that it is pointless to argue about who "invented" the airplane? The Wrights were unequalled in their application of scientific method and engineering thoroughness, but even they would not have claimed to have started from scratch. They stood on the shoulders of earlier pioneers, filling in the gaps, correcting errors, and making new discoveries.The patent's description of the necessity of control in what we call the yaw axis is an outstanding intellectual insight. To describe a phenomenon before the language we now use to explain it came into use is the mark of exceptional minds and a lot of hard work. It really trivialises it to talk about "invention", as if it were an exercise of stumbling around in the dark until something works. What the Wrights did was far more than an accidental discovery. I think your grand is safe, Greg.
Almost all of the doubters are inspired by some kind of nationalism. Whether it be Germany with Whitehead, New Zealand with Pearse, or Brazil with Dumont, it’s all about claiming the invention for their own country.
It doesn’t matter if anyone flew before the Wright brothers. The Wright brothers’ flyer made history and within a few years people were reproducing and improving on their work. This was an excellent video.
Yup, these scams just keep on coming. The earliest one I know of was for the Aerial Steam Carriage by Stringfellow and his accomplices. I covered that one in my first Wright video.
Not only are you defending the amazing accomplishments of the Wrights (very good), you're defending the idea that truth requires objective quality evidence (FAR more important). Outstanding work (AGAIN), Greg. You're doing your part to serve the idea that facts are more important than clicks.
Conspiracy trolls will never be able to claim Greg's $1000.00 stake for proving that anyone proceeded the Wright Brothers in solving the problems associated with sustained, controlled flight - and specifically the problem of adverse yaw, leading to the first demonstrations of a practical airplane.
Thanks so much for this Greg. Unfortunately, in today's world, knowledge is not a valued commodity; if it were there would be no need for you to point out its prerequisites. (So I say hurray and keep on fighting the good fight!)
That Whitehead craft looks a mixture of Cayley's fuselage under a Lilienthal Glider. Somewhere in the UK, is a steam powered craft which is supposed to have flown in the 1870's, which also looks similar. Potentially the Whitehead could have glided, he had been paid to recreate a Lilienthal inspired glider some time before but you are right, nobody have produced conclusive evidence that they understood how to control in three dimensions, certainly not Langley and probably not even Glen Curtiss until much later. Great work Greg, expertly argued. ps Still waiting for a video on my hero Charley Taylor
At about 150 mph and up, the low pressure caused by the design of the rear window of 68-70 Chargers and Roadrunners, lifts the rear end off the ground. This is why the Charger SE, Daytona, Superbird have a contoured rear window.
As an occasional glider pilot, I like that you propose the understanding of adverse yaw as a critical prerequisite to controlled flight. On the other hand, maybe in a different timeline, if the issue was due to adverse roll, we would then see the invention of alerions instead... I also enjoyed your narrative. It was relevant, explanatory, and delivered at a nice pace. Fly safe. :)
Thanks Pompey. The Wright patent actually covered ailerons. Few people fail to realize it didn't mention "wing warping" specifically at all. Either way, adverse yaw is a factor. There are some planes that get around it, most end up with proverse yaw, which then still requires some method to control it.
There's another key that puts the Wrights in the lead - the propellers. When you look at photographs of Whitehead's or Langley's propellers, the blades are not airfoils, but rather flat (or slightly twisted) vanes - intended to screw their way though the air like a wood screw. This will work O.K. on a small model, but it doesn't scale well. The Wrights, through their wind tunnel testing, realized that the propeller was a lifting surface, and designed theirs as high aspect ratio airfoils, twisted to maintain a relatively constant coefficient of lift across the diameter. These are far more efficient. Just as an add-on, Whitehead, in his letter, states that his engine does not use an electrical ignition system, but uses "heat and compression" - so he not only built an impossibly light and powerful engine, but it appears that he claims to have built an impossibly light and powerful Diesel engine - at a time when industrial diesels (All 77 of them) were the size of a small house, and they still hadn't managed to fit one into a ship's hull.
The Wright Brothers were the first to build a manned airplane with effective control, and they patented their control system. Given the evidence and the points you mentioned, there should be no debate about their achievement. As an inventor and electrical engineer, I wanted to share a parallel from my work. I hold two patents for the first ion-propelled aircraft capable of lifting their power supplies onboard. The primary challenge in ion propulsion technology was the immense weight of the power supplies required to generate ionic thrust. Previous models, either tethered to heavy external power sources or operating in space, faced limitations because their power supplies were approximately 1,000 times too heavy to achieve lift against Earth's gravity. This challenge was fundamentally different from what the Wright Brothers faced with propeller-driven aircraft. For the Wrights, only a somewhat lighter power supply was needed, and this was made possible by advances in aluminum refining-developed here in Oberlin, Ohio-that made aluminum more affordable and accessible. Their greatest challenge, however, was solving the problem of control, which they accomplished in 1903 with their groundbreaking patent. You’d think these matters would all be straightforward, especially with the internet making information so readily available. However, several other groups now incorrectly claim to be the first to achieve flight with ionic thrusters, even a group at a major university. While I’ve shared solid, verified evidence on my UA-cam channel and website, most of the funding seems to go to those who aren’t focused on the truth or creating efficient, legitimate products. It can be somewhat challenging because this should be just an exciting adventure. But it’s a reminder that history often repeats itself. I am grateful that in this age of the internet that the question of who invents what might be easier to clarify.
You will be sad to learn that the Gustav Weisskopf Museum in Leutershausen, Germany, which I went past on a bicycle tour years ago, is closed for renovations until 2023, when a new exhibition devoted to Herr Weisskopf/Whitehead will open! The museum claims, of course, that this native son built the first powered airplane. As a student of aviation history, I have always thought that the claims of well-known people to have flown prior to the Wrights (Santos-Dumont, Ader, Cody, Langley, et al) fail from their lack of successful consideration of the problem of control, let alone the people whom nobody had ever heard of (Pearce, Whitehead, some guy in Kansas who flew a chicken coop in 1899). The Wrights' thoroughness in documenting their efforts was remarkable. I think that $1000 is safe.
the Deutsches Museum in Munich also seems to be preparing a new exhibition on early flight, they have a very good video debunking whitehead on their website, unfortunately only in German: ua-cam.com/video/62aKIWhOZx8/v-deo.html
The proof is in the pudding. If Whitehead flew, he should have had pictures taken. The triplane glider is no more than a box kite. The Wright brothers actually built a plane that would do fly on it's own. They understood the problems of control and found fixes. They built their own wind tunnel which is still used to test new designs.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Pursuant to my long Comment on Darwin: He knew of pterodactyls, they were a recent discovery. There's an interesting note in which he considers the wing of a bat and a bird and a pterodactyl. They're a great example of how natural selection solved the same problem by different routes, i.e. lengthening different bones of the basic quadruped forelimb. At different times in his notes this was seen as a support or a possible objection to be addressed. In his publications he referred to this but used only the bird and bat examples. The pterodactyl was too little known.
Way to go Greg! I'm not sure why folks ever, never mind still, dispute the Wright brother's achievement here. You could end up with a lot of work/time dealing with idiots trying to claim the $1,000, because many people have a contrary type of thought process. Keep the good work flowing.
I fear he will have to deal with fools like the guy who followed Buzz Aldrin around because he thought the Moon landings were a hoax. Buzz, then in his 80s, finally punched the guy in the face when the idiot crowded in on him and called him a liar.
I just saw the documentary on Gustav Whitehead about a day before watching this video. I thought it was stupid but seeing Greg's video... I am happy to see a video that so methodically debunks all the stupid conspiracy crap. Greg is doing god's work )) Also, I am not from the USA and I live not far from where another "first before the Wright brothers" had his supposed first flight. I simply wish that people be skeptical of the other claims and be fair to the Wright's legacy of methodical research, wind tunnels, engines and propeller pioneering. It never ceases to amaze me that people don't realise that every second country has a first to ever fly. I also find it strange that the other people that were "first" had few witnesses, didn't reliably or ever replicate their achievements or decide to tell the world what they did. An achievement that would make someone rich, a world celebrity and remembered in perpetuity. Of course, someone who spends many years to achieve the goal will decide to say nothing, not do it again and not share their success story with others. The Wrights had skepticism from the French. So they went to France and proved themselves. Rant over and thanks Greg for all the great content.
Agree 100% with almost everything you said here. The closer one looks at the Wright's earliest efforts, the more there is to be impressed by. Even if they weren't the first to achieve controllable flight, and I do believe that they were, the 1903 machine was an achievement above and beyond what it accomplished in that it advanced proper engineering. Most other machines of the period were hit and miss guesses. The Wrights deserve their place in history.
Interesting stuff, as usual. In Germany, or among Germans, there seems to be a growing movement claiming that Karl Jatho flew before the Wrights. But looking at the "Kites" he made, with huge wooden stiffeners sticking out of the top of the uncambered wings, perpendicular to the airflow, it is clear that his contraptions could not have flown in any meaningful sense of the word. As late as 1909 he brought a self-made machine to the German Air Show ILA, but didn't demonstrate any flights. The first proven flight that Jatho performed was in 1910, in a Blériot replica.
Like Greg, I get so sick and tired of people who know nothing about the physics of flight and the stupendous achievement of these brilliant and hard working engineers argue they did not invent the airplane. Thank you Greg.
A recent governor of Connecticut helped perpetuate the Whitehead story by issuing a proclamation declaring Whitehead invented the airplane not the Wright brothers. So it must be true, because an "ELECTED" politician is the BEST interpreter of scientific and historical FACTS!🤣🤣
The Governor is merely recognizing the fact that Whitehead beat the Wright Brothers. There is overwhelming proof including photos, Bridgeport Police records, Newspaper eyewitness accounts and the family themselves who still live in Connecticut that Whitehead was first. Oh, and the photos of Whitehead having flown his plane into the 2nd story of a building (how did he get it up there?)
I would like to know if this is known: Because the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, they knew how to true bicycle wheels. They used this knowledge to warp the wings. It is also because of their experience that they used this method. I also guess that the inventor of the wheel with crossed spokes. had experience of weaving.
Many features of the Whitehead machine went on to become standard. The tractor propellers. The counter-rotating propellers. The horizontal stabilizer in the back. The pilot behind the engine. The fuselage and canvas covering. The center mast supporting the wings. All features of the 1901 Whitehead machine that continued forward into aviation design.
the invention of multi-strand steel wire allowed airplanes to be invented... The rest is not required for stable flight. Those items are a study in how to look sharp while hunting a ticket for reckless driving
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles And there are numerous examples of airships inspired by ocean-going steamers. The Wrights solved the problem of flight, and Whitehead is disserved by those who pit him against Oroville and Wilbur. Whitehead's 1901 counter-rotating, torque-cancelling propellers predate the 1903 Wright Flyer.
@@crimony3054 if only the idea is needed for an innovation to work, then airplanes would have been aloft well before 1900. To address your point directly, the 'props' are in the only place they can be put on that 'airframe.' The counter rotation idea is from ships and that was done well before 1900. That idea was considered sound mechanical thinking at that time.
I just learned that there is a monument for Whitehead in Connecticut; a fountain with a model of the 21, and a plaque that says "First in flight"! I have no idea if this is paid for by the state, or someone else, but it shows how persistent bad history can be.
Your $1,000 is safe. I live within easy walking distance of Orville Wright’s home Hawthorn Hill in Oakwood, Ohio. I routinely take visitors to see the Wright Flyer III, which the Wrights themselves regarded as the craft in which they really learned piloting. I have looked over copies of some of the same notes and documents you describe. The Wrights solved the problems of stability and control and kept great records with a view to patenting their inventions. The claims about Whitehead are nonsense, as you point out so much better than I ever could. Keep up the good work. It’s the best aviation content anywhere.
As German native speaker, I had to listen three times to "Lilienthal" before I understood it. The "th" in this case is old German orthography, and is just a "t", as it is in "Neanderthal". "Tal" means Valley, so Otto's name was "Lilly-Valley".
What doesn't make sense is a man who supposedly achieved such a revolutionary achievement almost immediately abandons powered flight in favor of gliders and stuff that could only fly when towed.
Terrific video and one that should be a model for the better and smarter UA-camrs. You didn't spend inordinate amounts of time arguing with the false claims. (This only digs them in deeper. I've shown students the Myth Busters video that refutes every single point made by the 'moon landings were faked' crowd and there are always a few students afterwards who think they've just seen proof that the moon landings were faked.) Instead you quickly move on to the critical problems controlled and powered flight had to solve and the Wrights' extensive writing, problem solving, solutions, patents on these. This makes a far more interesting video about the history and engineering. What is amazing, and instructive, about the Wright brothers is that they set out to solve the problem of flight and over 7 years they identified and solved one problem after another. You could probably annoy a barroom full of half drunk people for years endlessly repeating some boast or claim and accomplish nothing. But just reading the David McCullough book on the Wrights you could use what you learn to solve problems around the house -- or understand a bit better what Tesla is up to. (I spent hours trying to figure out how their wind tunnel worked, It offered me insight into how you create a tool for quantifying something you haven't yet broken down. Comparisons. There's a lot that I understand that had I lived 100 years ago not only would I not understand, but would probably be incapable of understanding. After all it took months for me to understand the Wright's wind tunnel, but it only took a couple of weeks (well before that) to DIY one that produced measurements. All of us could be 'smarter' than the Wrights because we're standing on their shoulders.)
Well presented Greg. I doubt you will prevent other sites from making bogus claims because they want controversy and content not facts but you will forever have the high ground if they failed to take your challenge.
Outstanding proof that the Wrights understood adverse yaw first and therefore understood that it had to be countered with rudder into the direction of the turn. In case anyone is wondering, adverse yaw affects helicopters too.
It has been clearly documented for at least 2800 years that Daedalus solved all of the problems involved in flight long before the Wright brothers. Get thee to your nearest museum of antiquities and they will point you to the source material. I will take my payment in Athenian owls if you please. 😁
As usual Greg, you absolutely nailed it with your previous video on the Wright Brothers, their engineering and scientific methods leading to a practical aircraft capable of sustained, controlled flight, and why all of the previous (and in some cases semi-concurrent) efforts of others were failures, incapable of doing what the 1903 Wright Flyer (and their later updated models) could actually demonstrate. All of the others who failed in their pursuit of creating the airplane were not failures like Edison's categorization of his experimentation on the way to the lightbulb. Those others kept repeating the same mistakes without really learning from them and they did not solve all of the problems associated with sustained, controlled flight. That was not so with the Wright Brothers, they truly learned from their experiments, and refined what worked, and discarded what did not. This is another awesome video which continues to expose the intellectual vacancy related to those who try to claim that the Wright Brothers are undeserving of the title of the designers, engineers, mechanics and scientists responsible for the birth of the practical airplane.
@@martinsaunders2942 Feel free to disagree, but you are wrong. Lilienthal did a lot of experimentation and gained experience, but failed to solve any of the aerodynamic issues that the Wrights later solved. They analyzed his data and conducted their own experiments and gathered data, and in doing so, found Lilienthal's data either lacking or his conclusions to be incorrect. Ultimately Otto Lilienthal's inability to address the aerodynamic problems of control led to his death. Yes he was a pioneer, and a very brave man, but he only succeeded in accomplishing the feat of repeatedly falling somewhat gracefully from a prominitory - with his final attempt resulting in a fatal crash when the glider deviated and he was unable to correct the deviation, a far cry from the unpowered gliders and wing suits of today, and nowhere near to the science and engineering that was confirmed by the Wright Brothers.
@@libertycosworth8675 There is a claim that Lilienthal's data is correct for his wing. The wing airfoil used by the Wrights was quite different. Can you clarify the issue? @richardlewis4288 @martinsaunders2942
@@stevebett4947 As far as any claims regarding Lilienthal's data, contact Greg. He is the expert. At the same time what the Wright Brothers found was one solution to a workable, truly functional airfoil design, not the only workable solution. Since their successful flights, there are now thousands of documented variations of aeronautically functional airfoils in NASA's (formerly NACA) records. Regardless, Lilienthal never successfully put all of the essential elements for controlled flight together, so the sufficiency (or lack thereof) of his wing is ultimately irrelevant, and his inability to maintain control over his glider is what actually contributed to his death. Greg goes into all of this videos covering the Wright brothers, starting with this one, and I suggest you watch that if you are curious regarding the ultimate fact that the Wright Brothers can legitimately claim the title of the inventors of the airplane, and the first to achieve the first sustainable, controlled, powered heavier than air flight. ua-cam.com/video/EkpQAGQiv4Q/v-deo.html
I can't keep up with the comments here so please excuse me if I miss on in the next few days.
okay I'll save my silliest comments for later
"Tsiolkovsky was not supported on the airship project, and the author was refused a grant to build the model. An appeal to the General Aviation Staff of the Russian army also had no success. In 1892, he turned to the new and unexplored field of heavier-than-air aircraft. Tsiolkovsky's idea was to build an airplane with a metal frame. In the article "An Airplane or a Birdlike (Aircraft) Flying Machine" (1894) are descriptions and drawings of a monoplane, which in its appearance and aerodynamics anticipated the design of aircraft that would be constructed 15 to 18 years later. In an Aviation Airplane, the wings have a thick profile with a rounded front edge and the fuselage is faired. But work on the airplane, as well as on the airship, did not receive recognition from the official representatives of Russian science, and Tsiolkovsky's further research had neither monetary nor moral support. In 1914, he displayed his models of all-metal dirigibles at the Aeronautics Congress in St. Petersburg but met with a lukewarm response. "
You can find in the internet the drawing of his metal monoplane from 1895, the wings have a bird like shape and angle of attack but the tail have clearly horizontal and vertical stabilizer(even if clearly too small to work well... heh )
"Starting in 1896, Tsiolkovsky systematically studied the theory of motion of rocket apparatus. Thoughts on the use of the rocket principle in the cosmos were expressed by him as early as 1883, and a rigorous theory of rocket propulsion was developed in 1896. Tsiolkovsky derived the formula, which he called the "formula of aviation", now known as Tsiolkovsky rocket equation,"
The guy was self educated son of a Polish noble that ended up in Siberia as a punishment for taking part in upraising against Russian Empire -> so preaty much got zero to no chance to get any real support for his ideas(living in the middle of forest in his father home that was forced to work as a forester)...
And my attempt to google any Polish or Russian sources about"adverse yaw" failed, i was not even able to find via google proper Polish or Russian name for it in wikipedia... so if its a problem to prove that people know about it now, then good luck finding 100 years old prove about it -> and in the end even the Wright patent is not using that name.
The rWright Brothers invented flying. The made and used controls to repeatable effect
Greg- You ever think about what the Wright’s had to go through to learn how to pilot an airplane without killing themselves.
Especially the landing part. The part I think is the hardest to learn- even with an instructor: and the only mandatory part.
@@michaelgarrow3239 Yes, I have talked about that before. They tethered them to the ground with very little slack and flew them as kites just a few feet off the ground.
I’m an aircraft mechanic and your Wright Brothers series has increased my appreciation and awe of the brothers and their accomplishments. Thanks Greg
They were incredible.
I thought what they did was the incremental change that got things off the ground. Now I realize that they made an order of magnitude leap.
I think it's also relevant to point out they started out as bicycle mechanics :)
@@sssxxxttt Bicycle BUILDERS!
Same, studying for my A&P and love Greg's more civil aviation content
I read the Wright's story a few years ago - after spending most of my life as a software engineer. I was struck by the iterative design, develop and testing process, the orderly trial and error and the rest of it. An R&D process that anyone in any engineering discipline would recognize as such. I was struck that - it wasn't IF the wrights were going to fly - it was when.
that's what separates them from the other claimants imo - they were real scientists, not hobbyists poking around in the dark hoping to luck out. powered flight is way too difficult an engineering problem for anyone to ever just luck into. there is a massive subset of problems that all have to be solved before controllable, powered flight can be achieved. even with all their meticulous work their first few attempts were dangerously shoddy examples by today's standards. it's not hard to imagine how unsafe the competitors' attempts were with their comparative lack of engineering skills.
@@oldfrend I'd go further tbh Nobody had the aero engineering skills, they hadn't been invented yet... the Wrights taught themselves the fundamentals through R&D.. All the others were floundering around.
No quibbles about the Wright's genius and rigor in method. Might add, however, that these guys were going into the air - and a bug in their software could have caused something worse than a Windows 8 crash. Brave guys. Amazing how fast aviation advanced - 25 years after the Wrights Lindbergh flew the Atlantic; 40 years all of the great WWII aircraft were in action; 50 years and you were well into the age of the jet. (Orville lived until 1948 so he would have known about the Bell X1 breaking the sound barrier.) So planes were obsolete more or less the day they first flew. Now? A prototype takes years to get into the air - but once in service is expected to stay there for a lifetime or two (or four with the B-52 - could one be in the air for a 100th anniversary flight?)
Yes that's one of the amazing parts of the history, their innate understanding of the scientific method and research... their engineering experience of prototyping, design, and testing they may have developed during their years in the bicycle business... but both of these areas were without formal training in either...
It’s when you get into the diaries and letters, especially to their dad , that it becomes clear they knew what they were doing . It was in one of these letters to their father that they explained they solved the problem of control. They didn’t have an engine yet. They knew they did it and were ecstatic. All they needed to do was to go home and build the engine during the winter and come back the next year and fly it.
Whitehead was not able to repeat his feat with a 100 mph airplane because he was using a cold fusion engine and everyone knows that those engines are pesky, they work only once and when no one looks.
Nah, can’t be cold fusion, it was a decade away then. Still. Again.
Maybe fusion reactors really are 'perpetual motion machines'. They are perpetually a decade away no matter how much time passes.
🤣🤣
That's because Doc traveled back before it happened and fixed it.
'I'm not hard to find' classy yet authoritative final statement. I love the channel Greg! Keep it up!
Alright, I'm one of your Patreon subscribers who was skeptical that this was a good idea, but you've convinced me. This was well worthwhile.
My tailwheel instructor had me do endless dutch rolls in a Cub to get me better at using the rudder. For a real eye-opening demonstration of the phenomenon, get some stick time in a glider.
The Wright brothers were truly giants.
Thanks, Greg.
Thanks Jay, I'm glad you liked it.
Schweitzer 233 (?) taught me the importance of the rudder. The guy who was instructing me (Jack Lambie, incidentally) sat in the back reading a Playboy (I'm not kidding) and always knew if I were slipping or skidding, without ever looking up from his magazine.
Jack wasn't certified as an instructor at that time, which was the late 1980's. We were flying out of Elsinore. So I never got to officially log that time. But damn did I learn from him!
RIP Jack and Bill
did I get this detail right? that the Wrights had their rudder equivalent mechanically operate in unison with the wing warping action that induced directional banking?
Why is the rudder an independently actuated control surface apart from actuating ailerons on subsequent aircraft designs? Is it not viable to have the rudder deflection mechanically link cooridinated (appropriately) to aileron actuation?
Even prior to fly by wire it would have been possible to devise non linear coupling of these two control surfaces...
@@TheSulross A few later designs did link the ailerons with the rudder(s) like the Ercoupe. I think that the main reason they are not on most aircraft is that there are times that you want to cross the controls and intentional slip the aircraft to either lose speed and altitude quickly or land in a crosswind situation.
@@TheSulross There are times during flight, most especially during landing, where much different control inputs are required.
For instance, if one is approaching a runway to land to the north and there is a crosswind coming from the west, one would use left aileron to bank into the crosswind and keep the flight path aligned with the runway while simultaneously using right rudder to keep the airplane’s longitudinal axis aligned with the runway.
This is called cross-controlled or uncoordinated flight. Another term is slipping.
The same maneuver is used to increase drag and steepen one’s descent in airplanes without flaps.
There have been airplanes over the years that incorporated exactly the system you describe. Most famously, the Ercoupe. It had a connection between the rudder and ailerons to help coordinate turns as well as limits on elevator travel to help avoid aerodynamic stalls. I’m simplifying here, of course.
These features were to help pilots avoid stall/spin accidents, which were almost uniformly fatal close to the ground. For a recent horrifying accident, see the crash in Nepal last week.
You can look up crosswind approaches on YT for clear examples. Hope that helps.
You hit the nail on the head. The Wright brothers were not engineers by education but used statistical analysis to work through their ideas. Remember, these guys designed their own
wind tunnel to test out new airfoils because the one's that Otto lilienthal designed were flawed, The propeller they made was around 66% efficient. They new that because they tested it in a wind tunnel. They also built their own engine. The Wright brothers both engineered and methodically designed their aircraft. Not only were they the first to fly, they were the first aeronautical engineers and they documented everything.
No, he hit the nail on the Whitehead!😁
Absolutely ;-)
They were self taught and were good enough to get their articles published in peer reviewed engineering journals.
They published their outline for their planned sequence of experiments in 1901.
I am not sure that the Wrights correctly interpreted Lilienthal's cambered wing data.
The Wrights' did not use a wind tunnel to test their propeller designs. They could only test air small airfoils and angles of attack.
They did test the thrust produced by the engine, transmission, and props with an simple string gauge.
@wkelly3053
@alan-sk7ky
@
Em 12 de novembro de 1906, Santos-Dumont recebeu um prêmio do Aero Club de France por ter voado mais de 220 metros com seu novo invento.Dumont ficou conhecido em todo o mundo e ganhou vários prêmios pela construção de seus dirigíveis. Sua fama fez dele uma espécie de celebridade, e os parisienses o chamavam de “le petit Santos”,que pode ser traduzido como "pequeno Santos"
Actually, the original Wright propellers were 80% efficient.
Worthy gauntlet you've put up Greg. Excellent description of the Wright's achievement.
Bring popcorn, I've got the lawn chairs.
Worthy gauntlet? What are you talking about. The pro-Whitehead people are ignorant at best, malevolent at worst.
"You're ignorant! That's the Wright Brothers' plane! At Kitty Hawk in 1903, Charles Lindbergh flew it 15 miles on a thimble full of corn oil. Single-handedly won us the civil war, it did!"
That's easier to believe than Whiteheads claims 😊
Greg, your Magnum Opus of historical record setting with respect to first flight was your first Wright video. I became a Patreon after watching that video because I know how important your work to debunk charlatans is. It is sad, but necessary, that yet another video was needed to answer the fairy tails. This one does not duplicate your first video, which made it a must watch as soon as I could. No complaints from ME for producing content like this.
I have already checked my bucket list item Re: First Flight. I landed my Piper Arrow on runway 3, KFFA, on April 17, 2021. It was a beautiful Saturday to fly to the Outer Banks of North Carolina. There were so many pilot tourists arriving that as I watched the ramp fill with airplanes, a perplexed non-pilot tourist standing next to me asked "why are there so many planes landing here?"
I turned to her and replied "My dear lady, THIS is where it began. Every one of those pilots and their passengers are coming here to pay their respects to those two brilliant gentlemen from Ohio."
"Oh, that explains it!" she said.😀
Greg coming out with the big guns, lovin' it.
Yeah, a Pop Gun. !!
As you point out in your great video, solving the adverse yaw issue was the last step to a fully controllable airplane. Well Done! First was pitch control, 2nd roll control, and third the moveable rudder for taming adverse yaw. Wright brothers for the win here!
Found the patent wording very interesting. Wilbur latched on to the movable rudder idea very quickly.
One of your best videos. My first flying lesson (1982) demonstrated adverse yaw and the use of the rudder. I teach this on the first lesson I teach with a new primary student. What a great breakthrough in the understanding of flight.
Thank you for the uncompromising approach of delivering the honest unbiased facts. It has been a great benefit to my understanding and knowledge of aviation.
Hi Greg. I just wanted to say thanks for producing your videos. I have watched some with my dad - who used to be a commercial pilot doing livestock mustering - and it has become a common interest for us. I’ve got my first lesson at the local airport next month and it wouldn’t have happened but for your work. Cheers, good sir!
Thanks Tom, and best of luck next month.
Excellent lecture, and your points are well-made. My reference book on this period has always been "The Bishop's Boys" by Tom Crouch (of NASM fame). Of course, there were huge questions in Europe. Once the Wrights showed up at the first Paris Air Meet of 1909, bolted together there craft, and flew a few circuits, the questioning stopped. They clearly had such effortless control of their craft, far beyond what anyone else could accomplish at the same time.
Thanks exactly right, even their biggest doubters and critics were silenced when the went to France and flew in public. At what was though to be the center of aviation, nobody had ever seen a plane truly fly until the Wrights showed up.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles And yet, the number one flyer was here in the London Science museum rather than the Smithsonian (where it is now ;-)) for many years as the science establishment that be couldn't quite accept that pushbike mechanics from Dayton did what they had claimed to do. Method, development and research be damned, if Langley said impossible...
It was 1908
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesIt's not true, there were already planes in Europe that flew like the flyer, mainly the Demoiselle and the Blériot! This argument does not convince anyone who really thinks!
It is content like this that makes it worth being a Patreon. I admire your depth of research and simple way to call out those who are wrong. I enjoy drinking out of my P-47 cup as I enjoy each new video. Please, keep doing these in-depth and quality videos.
Thanks Richard, I do appreciate your support. It really helps as my wife now appreciates my hobby.
I always knew the Wright brothers were the first to fly, but your videos make clear just how much discovery and development was thanks to them and just how far ahead of everyone else they were. If anything, they're still under appreciated!
It makes you wonder: how much longer would it have taken for powered flight to be invented if not for the Wright brothers?
Very high quality content - you cover the essential items that others gloss over
Your deep understanding of the essential issues results in very compelling arguments
I LOVE that photo of Orville and Wilbur at the end of the video. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but that photo has so much to unpack. Brothers, coworkers, hardship, intelligence, humility, sacrifice, teamwork, innovation, opportunity, freedom, entrepreneurship....America.
Given the current trends in our society today, I don't think it's an accident that today, more than ever, their achievement is being minimized or even denied by people with an agenda of greed, popularity, or outright destruction. I can think of few people worthy of a statue, but these two certainly measure up to my standard. Of course, the statues of many people I like seem to be falling over at an alarmingly high rate these days.
Clarke I agree with you about the photo. In regards to the societal trends, I'm afraid you might be right.
....America. A great place if you have abilities, health and money. Otherwise not so much.
(Given the current trends in our society today... we all need to put our rose tinted specs down and see reality sometimes)
@@stevep4131Steve,
That is an interesting comment because I would argue that in America today we tend to tear down those with health, money and ability with overreaching public policies out of reasons of envy, jealousy, and vindictiveness.
My comment reflects that I don't have rose colored glasses on because I recognize that America clearly isn't the same America during the time of the Wrights. America clearly isn't exactly the bastion of freedom and opportunity that it once was. The country that so many immigrants struggled just to make it here....long before there was a welfare handout and free airline ticket waiting for them on their arrival.
This country has never been perfect and, in my opinion, it has become less so in the last 90+ years since ideas regarding wealth redistribution, socialized medicine, and the general undermining of the family unit and education have become public policy.
Ability and money? Today there are millions of job openings that are left unfilled NOT because people don't have "abilities". It's because people don't have work ethic. I know because at my place of business when we hire someone I'm usually the one that trains them. I just want someone that is motivated. That's all. Yet, no one is interested. Why should they be? Many people prefer to stay at home and receive a check in the mail funded by the tax payer....that's people with some money being forced to give to those that don't.
As for health? How about we promote people eating right and getting some exercise? Instead, during the recent pandemic we closed down gyms, put on face diapers, and told people to stay inside out of the sun....just brilliant. We promote obese people popping pills rather than inculcating the basics of diet and exercise. As a matter of public policy we now also tell a female that she can be a man and a male that he can be a woman....clearly great concern for the health of people.
Our culture and society is a mess. Again look what happened during the viral panic. People, mostly thin skinned, pasty white, college girls took to the streets under the banner of BLM and AntiFa and destroyed towns with their looting and burning. They tore down statues of people they didn't know anything about. All under the guise of social justice or something like that.
I don't have rose colored glasses on and I am very aware of reality.
Thank you,
Clarke Noble
It's spelled 'merica in this context :P
Jokes aside bear in mind that while this era has plenty of problems and issues, the era the Wrights lived in was called the gilded era for a reason. Charlatans abounded. We don't have the Kul Klux Klan, Anarchist pipe bombers, immigrant child workers losing arms to industrial equipment or the shooting wars over coal and copper fields these days thank goodness. It might fell hopeless with all the bad news coming sometimes but try to remember the progress that has been made.
@@clarkenoble Well said, sir. But a careful study of history will show that all societies have problems like these, at all times. The point is to push the good to the forefront and let it serve as an example to all. But sometimes evil has its time as well. We can only weather the storm and hope.
Those videos appeal to various emotional themes; like, non-canon answers must be more truthful, or somehow smarter, because they contradict established academic narrative, and therefore appeal to anti-establishment sentiment. Or, rooting for some underdog... it gets curious people to click, but unfortunately it's a disservice to reason. Thanks for these videos, Greg.
Eric, that's a great point.
People love to feel special or in-the-know. The idea that they hold some deeper truth that even the greatest academics are ignorant of makes them feel smart. And now that their self-worth is intricately linked to these deeper truths, trying to set them straight becomes a personal attack.
It truly is a terrifying phenomena.
@@rapter229 Exactly! They feel they have a level of knowledge that's superior not only to academics but also to their fellow "common people." That many poor fools have swallowed the conventional wisdom "lie" but they themselves are not among the gullible. Ironic because they are the most gullible of all.
The link to self-worth: There is research that shows if a person encounters a fact or argument that's counter to self-worth they are almost physically unable to process it.
@@donjones4719 Be careful not to fall into absolutes, though. It's good to challenge, and we have to let people grow, explore, and mature in knowledge. Folks can be on an ever-changing intellectual journey.
@@rapter229 yes and thrice yes. Spot on ;-)
Brilliant. Thanks. I have walked the ground at Kitty Hawk in tears over thoughts of what they accomplished. The great sadness of our time is the rise of organized lying for profit. You're a true force for good on this subject.
This is really good! I think the main point of who flew first, is what you say towards the end. The first powered and controllable flight by the Wrights back in December 17th 1903 might not have looked much more impressive than other short hops by others. But it is the fact that the Wrights knew how to improve their design, until it was a proper airplane. That is what makes that first short hop so impressive. The first step towards bigger things to come.
In technology there exists Agile which has at it's core the concept of iterative progression. This is clearly demonstrated by the early Wright brothers aeroplanes. First plane to fly flew a bit, it was their Minimal Viable Product. They then iteratively progressed this to the point where others were able to take up the baton and progress us to where we are now
Yes, this. It's the distinction between inventing AN aeroplane and THE aeroplane. All modern aircraft can trace their lineage to the Wright brothers work.
Just to complete the story of 17 December 1903, the 4th and last flight of the day covered 852 feet and took 59 seconds. If it seems like that makes for a very slow groundspeed (about 9.7 mph), remember that they were flying into a 27-mph headwind.
Notice from the famous photograph of the first flight on 17 December that the Flyer's wings have anhedral (negative dihedral). This made the Flyer very unstable in the roll axis. In addition, the forward-mounted elevator was very sensitive to control inputs, making it very difficult for the pilot to maintain a steady pitch angle. All in all, it was a very difficult airplane to fly. They developed much better flight controls for the 1904 version of their airplane.
If you want to gain a sense for how long a 59 second flight is, go to a school and learn to fly either a hang glider or a paraglider on a training hill, essentially the same thing the Wrights did. It is likely that by the end of the first day you will get good enough that the glider will support your weight for a few feet/seconds. It will likely take you the rest of the season (maybe more) of practice and training to get good enough that you can make a flight that lasts 59 seconds or more, and this is on modern, well design training gear. Being towed up by a winch, or tug, or learning in a powered aircraft don't count, the aircraft does most of the work. Flying a foot launch glider for 59 seconds or more is no accident, it shows you've learned how to pilot your craft.
They weren’t the first. Pleasant Point New Zealand. It’s in my Galilee’s diaries. The pilot was scaring the sheep on the local farms by accident and pissing everyone off.
I appreciate your commitment to a reasonable and honest discussion on this, and aviation in general.
This is severely lacking in modern society.
Greg should have millions of followers. His content is top tier. Thank you, Greg for the hard work. You're a Jedi.
Likes and comment help the almighty Algo.
As another brilliant youtuber once said, "I prefer quality over quantity."
Appreciate the great videos you take the time to make and upload here on UA-cam. Thanks Greg.
You da Man, Greg. Huge respect for your level of primary source research. Few cite manuscript sources. Few cite NACA. Your standards are without peer.
Even if Gustave Whitehead never flew; he still deserves a place in history for building a failed flying machine that was so good, that an entire state recognizes him as the first man to fly.
Yes, he fooled a lot of people and should be rewarded. He is the Uri Geller of aviation.
'I'm willing to debate you and I'm not hard to find.' awesome Greg, I don't think you'll get any takers, since you seem to have a good grasp of the issues involved and knowledge of the aeronautical pioneers.
I think it's very interesting the challenge you've laid out, specifically because it illustrates some of the mechanical problems in the way many pseudohistorians go about making their fringe claims.
I think a lot of people get into pseudohistory for the right reasons. They are excited about history, they want to not just learn more but uncover new things. They want to make contributions. This is the same reason academics like me spend decades going to school and devote our lives to research. But the difference between a pseudohistorian and a normal historian is method.
You don't have to be a PhD academic to do history the right way, and regrettably there have certainly been plenty of PhD academics who did things the wrong way - after all, we live and learn. But at a fundamental level, if you want to do useful history, you have to distinguish between what you know and what is speculation. It's fun to ponder "What ifs" but they aren't as useful methodologically as one might think. I get it. It is hard to come up with research topics. So if you get a cool what if, sometimes it feels like you are really on to something. But the problem with what ifs is that it is virtually impossible to turn them into substantiated history.
The reason is simple: evidence doesn't work that way. Most pseudohistorians put forward claims that are based on "What ifs" like "What if Whitehead was the first to fly?" or "What if Elvis faked his death?" or "What if Atlantis was real?" or "What if aliens built the pyramids?" and they support those things using a combination of three approaches: 1. Problematizing existing knowledge, 2. Using circumstantial knowledge and speculative inference to establish their "what if" is plausible, 3. Challenging others to find evidence that they are wrong.
This approach is fundamentally never going to yield the same kind of well documented history that we are expected to produce in the academy, or that is in contained on this video. The reason is because it is premised on negative presumptions rather than positive ones. You can't prove or disprove a negative statement. There is, by nature, not evidence at all of things that don't exist. The pseudohistorians dismiss the copious evidence that the Wright Brothers flew by raising hypothetical questions, but they never acknowledge that those same questions could be raised against their own claims and any evidence they propose. For example, they insist that there were no credible witnesses to the Wrights' flights, but they then do not apply that same skepticism to witnesses of Whitehead's. They assert that Whitehead's designs were "plausible" without ever looking critically at their flaws, meanwhile they look critically at the Wright's designs and make critiques that they could not defend their own hypothesis against. They challenge us to prove that the Wrights weren't faking it, but none of us can ever do that because evidence won't exist of something that didn't happen. The burden of proof would be on them to find positive evidence that the Wrights did fake it.
But then, they might challenge us to say "well if it is not possible for you to prove the Wrights didn't fake it, how can you prove Whitehead did?" And the answer is it doesn't matter. It's possible to prove that the Wrights flew, and it isn't possible to do the same for Whitehead. But this video is so useful to anyone interested in how to do history because it also proposes a useful test that we can easily apply to differentiate between claims that are able to be substantiated and claims that can never be substantiated. Unlike "was it fake?" or "maybe it happened?" the question of how to control adverse yaw is one that we can apply as a test to falsify claims.
We know that adverse yaw is a nonnegotiable fact of aerodynamics. It is not possible to have what we would consider a controllable fixed wing airplane without in some way accounting for that. We can look at any design and understand whether it would sufficiently account for adverse yaw. From this we can easily conclude a positive, verifiable, nonspeculative historical statement: that any aircraft design that includes a mechanism to control adverse yaw has the potential to be a fully controllable fixed wing airplane. That doesn't prove that it was, but it does rule out any and all designs that lack such a mechanism. If someone wants to prove some airplane was first in controllable flight, they need to meet the challenge of this video and show how it solved for adverse yaw. It is plainly clear that Whitehead, along with other pre-wright designs like Adler etc, didn't have anything to perform this function. Therefore we can know that their designs would not have been controllable even before we get to questions like lift to weight ratios and the power of engines or propellers. We prove this not by speculating or asserting what ifs, but by specifying the type of evidence that would be necessary to make a reasonable claims, based on the known physical conditions that are required for controlled flight.
What is more, this simple criteria does not favor the Wrights except for that they are in fact the first with a well documented solution to this problem. I'm eager to see if anyone takes you up on your wager, but I doubt they will. Pseudohistorians shirk the hard work of real research because it is easier to speculate, imagine, beg rhetorical questions, and challenge other people to prove negative statements. I hope everyone with a sincere interest in how to do history the right way gets a chance to really think about this video and the research that went into it, and the critical thinking and applied knowledge that it took to come up with a robust test for falsifiability of claims. And they might want to reconsider making claims if they themselves aren't ready to do the same.
That's a great post. I never heard the term "pseudohistorian" but it's a perfect description of what I see going on in the area of early aviation. Unfortunately I think there are quite a few academics acting in this manner. Not all of course but some. I usually see this when they drift out of their lane. For example when a PhD in Astrophysics starts talking about historical ships and voyages.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles honestly talking out of field is embarrassingly common and unfortunately a good way to sell a bunch of books to people who are impressed by credentials. But even within fields it is quite common for academics to fail to distinguish between when they are substantiating a claim with evidence, or simply trying to make speculation sound persuasive using argumentation.
Thank goodness we have Facebook's independent fact checkers to tell us what's true and what isn't.
This comment reminds me dearly of Rare Earth's video on Atlantis.
It's true! Whitehead developed a super advanced engine for the day. Big Auto came in, shut it down and covered it up. Planned obsolescence and all. I'm pretty sure it had one of those 100 mpg, water fed carbs too.
I'm sure somewhere in a run-down Detroit warehouse they'll one day find all the technologically advanced concepts the industrial giants had to buy in and hide, so the could keep their hundreds of engineers busy, developing utterly pointless 2nd rate concepts for decades. The fact they haven't admitted doing so absolutely proves: this engine is still more advanced than anything on the road today.
I heard it was electric.
@@chs76945 the article shown in the video has whitehead claiming it ran on kerosene.
@@rapter229 And compression ignition. Not only did he invent the airplane, he invented the diesel engine as well!
Gotta remember, we live in a world where some people seriously believe the earth is a flat disk surrounded on its edge by an ice wall which no one has ever seen, because "they" won't let you get close to it.😄
Excellent use of analogy. And I love it when a reasonable thinker finds a way to call out some nonsense. OR, maybe someone can actually meet your challenge and we all learn something together. It’s a win-win!
I agree, win win either way. So far all I have seen from the Whitehead side is a bunch of false accusations and whining. No evidence for their case, and certainly no proof.
“This couldn’t be clearer.” I had to laugh because it was just like the cleric’s response to the explanation of Salic Law in the beginning of Shakespeare’s Henry V.
I agree with you. If Gustav Whitehead's description of his engine can be believed, selling it would have made him more famous than flying a powered glider. And if it can't be believed, well, that just calls all of his claims into question.
Saw one of those docs yesterday. Absurd. You are quite correct. RC modelers have "flown" almost anything including old shoes. Enough power will get anything into the air. To a degree Curtiss did this during his aileron patent war with the Wrights.
The EAA museum has some interesting examples. The flying canoe, lawn chair and bath tub if I recall.
I just watched someone fly around the actual Thunderbird 2 toy.
I built a rc something (I'm not good at naming my stupid inventions) that was little more than engine servos and receiver, battery and three control vanes. Went straight up never to be seen again. Didn't think about landing though, as it turned out a moot point.
Too expensive to repeat.
Good video. It's simple, explains one of the lesser known issues in airplane development, and shows a strong case for the Wrights being the inventor of the airplane. I doubt anyone will be able to claim that reward, but it'd be darn interesting if someone managed the feat.
Greg offered the reward, but he has done his research, and I am quite confident that no one other than the Wright Brothers has any valid, verifiable claim to the title of inventor(s) of the first practical airplane capable of sustained, controlled flight, having solved the specific problem of what is now known as adverse yaw. Greg's $1,000.00 stake in this challenge will be eternally unclaimed.
LOL so glad someone is finally giving the General Lee serious consideration.
It flew farther than Whitehead ever did.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Whitehead's old (circa 1900) car engine was probably less than 50 hp. The General Lee probably had a 400 hp engine.
Beautifully presented. Those who diminish the work of the Wrights without understanding what they did or how they worked raise my blood pressure. Their "headline" is "inventors of the aeroplane", their primary invention was Aeronautical Engineering. Their approach is exactly "Analysis supported by test" and we still work that way today. Their free and easy acceptance of debate and disagreement is why aviation is so safe: There is no shame in being wrong, only in not accepting it.
Now this is greatly appreciated. The desire to rewrite history seems to be a pandemic of more than just academia. Thank you Greg for taking time to look into this debacle of Whitehead.
History is easy to rewrite when all the principles are long dead, and real research is needed to learn what really happened. We're starting to see that happen in events that happened in the forties and fifties, now that that generation is dying off in droves.
@@thomashowlett8295 I was thinking more along the lines of the political elite and wizards of smart in the halls of higher indoctrination but yes, what you say has merit.
It's pretty cool how they built in the rudder compensation with the wing warping. You can see in those patent drawings, when the wing tip warped up, a cable was attached to the tip, that lead down and back to the opposite side of the rudder that pulled and turned the rudder into the direction of the turn.
Greg, the Dukes were so close to inventing the flying car, if they'd used the 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona they would have done it! BTW, looking forward to another Muscle Cars vid. Maybe 1968?
I liked seeing the source material for the Wrights. This was a most informative look at problem solving in the early days of flight.
I would absolutely subscribe to a second channel where you just debunk aviation myths that get repeated on UA-cam. I really do think we need this kind of content more than your regular content, as much as I adore every video you've put out. People always talk about Wehraboos claiming absurd things about tanks and small arms, but nobody seems to focus on calling out their absurd claims about 109s and 190s, let alone the 262.
I’ll be honest, as a person who’s I guess more open minded than some, I simply just thought. “maybe. Who knows!” About the whole whitehead thing.
Glad I finally had the time to watch this video.
Thanks Greg.
When you started reading the claimed performance numbers, I had to look at the calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st.
But it was April 1st! I mentioned that in the video description. I have a theory about it, but didn't get into it in this video.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Reading? Oh yeah I learned how to read, I must have forgotten.
Greg,
Thanks for referencing the patent documents and letters etc from the Library of Congress. I haven't had access to that direct information.
This video has finished answering a question I asked on a forum in 2005 regarding the Wright Brothers and all the me too types. A chap called Ron answered on the forum leading to a great friendship that lasted until he died in 2014 soon after we visited Oshkosh with him.
The documents he provided convinced me that the brothers were well researched and advanced the state of knowledge to enable controlled powered flight for the first time.
The zero day definitions in the patent of what we now know to be Drag, Yaw and Adverse Yaw are concise, accurate and have stood the test of time.
The document is too early to separate induced drag from parasitic drag. Now I'm looking forward to finding when and how these elements were deduced.
While it may not show nearly as advanced understanding as the Wrights I do feel that early glider projects found the usefulness of a rudder. In 1852 SR. George Cayley in the Mechanics Magazine wrote - The small irregularity of resistance made by one side of the parachute over the other, which it is impracticable to avoid, has then to be corrected by a slight side movement of the rudder, bringing its vertical surface to act in the contrary direction, and thus to bring the steerage into a straight course. In the Nicholson's journal of natural philosophy 1810 he compared it to a boat.
rob, that's exactly right. Cayley though of the rudder on an aircraft as functionally the same as a rudder in a boat. However it's not the same at all. The rudder in a plane is there primarily to correct for adverse yaw, NOT to steer the craft. That's the reason you can't win the 1000 bucks just by pointing out that someone had a rudder before the Wrights. It was actually the lack of understanding about why a rudder was needed that held Cayley and others back. Understanding Adverse Yaw was the key here and it was missing from Cayley's understanding.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Cayley was not using ailerons so the adverse yaw was probably not as apparent. There would be a difference in drag between the wings due to the bank, that would be corrected by rudder. Just like in a boat. Like he stated about correcting for the difference in drag by using rudder. In the 1810 writings he talked about the difference in boat drag due to heel. I still think he was on to it but using a difference in wording. In the 1810 writings he did state what held him back was structural issues (glider was damaged) and a lack of suitable power for powered flight. He did claim it to be stable and steerable.
As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) but George Cayley was the first person to fly someone in an airplane way back around 1805. It was in a glider that he had built and the pilot was a 10 year old boy (he needed someone lightweight). The sad thing is nobody remembers the name of the boy.
Greg, Once again thank you for telling me what I need to hear,not what I want to hear. Good stories seldom let facts get in the way! Thanks for getting both to make a Great Video.
Absolutely excellent. Thank you!
My favorite book on the subject is"The Bishop's Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright" by Tom D. Crouch. It's a terrific book. In it, Crouch argued that the Wrights succeeded like no others in four different aspects:
1. Correct data on airfoils. They developed it themselves and debunked all of the then current books on the subject.
2. Understanding a propellor is a rotating airfoil.
3. Wing-warping to control flight direction.
4. A legitimate powerplant.
They did it all, and they were amazing. They were in fact the first to fly ion a heavier-than-air craft. Zero question.
Also, as far as I am concerned, McCullough's book "The Wright Brothers" is a basically a rip-off of Crouch's work.
It's too bad for them that their propeller wasn't/couldn't be patented.
Exactly!
McCullough's book is extremely underwhelming. He might be a good writer, but his understanding of the technical aspects was so off the mark as to be misleading on a number of occasions.
@@peteranderson037 I agree about McCullough's book. The best part of his book was the Wrights post-1903.
Excellent, thanks to you for being a truthful and honest content creator, and not just a money grabber or attention seeker. Although if you were, I would not spend a second on your videos. As it were I keep watching them over and over again - and keep promoting your channel to my friends.
Grew up just outside Dayton, with a great grandmother who has the maiden name of Wright. Don’t mess with my homies.
SO many people don’t understand the fundamentals of engineering. Did it fly miles and miles the first day? No. Did it prove the concept? Yes.
Did Google index the entire Internet the first day?
We POC for a reason. Evolution is a series of incremental changes that result in forward progress.
Yes! Love when Greg gets fired up about the Wrights. I have watched his excellent "Yes the Wrights did invent powered flight" content many times. It's always time well spent.
When I was in Air Force Maintenance Officers Course (Chanute AFB) we discussed the Wrights propeller. Hand turned efficiency close enough to modern day.
Thank you. All of your Wright Brothers and Dumont videos are excellent. The others going against the Wright Brothers are just redicules.
I have it on good authority that my Great-Great-Great-Great-GrandCousin achieved powered, sustained, controlled flight in 1901 by spinning in-place really fast with his arms outstretched. He was airborne for 35 hours straight before fatefully being shot down somewhere over Albania.
I wish UA-cam would put this at the top of everyone's lists
Your previous video on prop design was the best Wright Bro video on YT and it was not even supposed to be about them. Greg's digressions are better than primary videos !!
Waiting for whitehead fan to say his plane could have delivered Hiroshima device
George Santos bombed Hiroshima from a Whitehead glider.
@@DouglasJenkins No, it was a dolphin and a whale (unless the dolphin was named George and the whale was named Santos), and the whitehead glider was painted to look like an F-16 that wouldn't exist for another 30 years. This was all possible because the flat Earth allowed Tesla long range radio reception to break JN25 in 1917 exposing the Russian naval order of battle at Tsushima in 1905. Because, you know, the internet makes you special because you can become the keeper of secret knowledge. 🤣🤣🤣
@@DouglasJenkins In drag.
@@Grandpa82547 hee hee
@muskepticsometimes9133: "Waiting for Whitehead fan to say his plane could have delivered an A-bomb."
SB: You are going to have a long wait. Whitehead fans are not that creative. They rarely engage in a discussion with a critic.
SB: If his 20 HP engine or 70 hp engines could achieve 100+ mph, it should be able to carry a 6000+ lb bomb.
I am sure that Whitehead could come up with the appropriate tall tale to fit a critique or question.
Did you notice that the power attributed to his engines declined each time he built a better engine. The pre 1903 engines are much more powerful than his post 1906 engines.
Invited to comment:
@muskepticsometimes9133
gregsairplanesandautomobiles
@XSpamDragonX
@KantiDono
@richardlewis4288
@usaerospace6707
@mikereyns5176
@jamesmason2228
@mikereyns5176
@stug41
@Niinsa62
@michaelmazzola3694
@andrewlaas911
@clarkenoble
@shoersa
@otosere2857
@jimsleestak8012
@peterstickney7608
@kyle857
@ecoriskprojects9783
@Nipplator99999999999
@radioguy1620
@timgallagher1041
@muskepticsometimes9133
@randyhavard6084
What a beautiful story. Two brothers working together. They needed to prove to each other their idea was sound before they would invest time and effort. The natural, relatively benign, conflict and competition of two brothers put to excellent use while problem solving. I am in awe of our ancestors.
And I've always heard and appreciated the term "powered flight". It separates what the Wrights did from gliders, kites and General Lees!
I just got in an argument with a coworker who claimed that somebody invented the airplane before the Wright Brothers. I completely stole all of your arguments about an airplane must be controllable
Thank you, well done.
Is the real lesson from this excellent work that it is pointless to argue about who "invented" the airplane? The Wrights were unequalled in their application of scientific method and engineering thoroughness, but even they would not have claimed to have started from scratch. They stood on the shoulders of earlier pioneers, filling in the gaps, correcting errors, and making new discoveries.The patent's description of the necessity of control in what we call the yaw axis is an outstanding intellectual insight. To describe a phenomenon before the language we now use to explain it came into use is the mark of exceptional minds and a lot of hard work. It really trivialises it to talk about "invention", as if it were an exercise of stumbling around in the dark until something works. What the Wrights did was far more than an accidental discovery. I think your grand is safe, Greg.
I had no idea people seriously doubted the the Wright Brothers were the first to achieve powered flight.
Almost all of the doubters are inspired by some kind of nationalism. Whether it be Germany with Whitehead, New Zealand with Pearse, or Brazil with Dumont, it’s all about claiming the invention for their own country.
It doesn’t matter if anyone flew before the Wright brothers. The Wright brothers’ flyer made history and within a few years people were reproducing and improving on their work.
This was an excellent video.
Moler air car took a page out of the whitehead story. Collected 26 mill for a "plane" that only flew with a cable attached to a crane.
Yup, these scams just keep on coming. The earliest one I know of was for the Aerial Steam Carriage by Stringfellow and his accomplices. I covered that one in my first Wright video.
Not only are you defending the amazing accomplishments of the Wrights (very good), you're defending the idea that truth requires objective quality evidence (FAR more important).
Outstanding work (AGAIN), Greg. You're doing your part to serve the idea that facts are more important than clicks.
Always enjoy learning about the Wright brothers, great video. Conspiracy trolls will always be around but it's good to set the record straight.
Conspiracy trolls will never be able to claim Greg's $1000.00 stake for proving that anyone proceeded the Wright Brothers in solving the problems associated with sustained, controlled flight - and specifically the problem of adverse yaw, leading to the first demonstrations of a practical airplane.
That was an amazing explanation that has my interested in hearing what problems the Wright's ran into and how they solved them.
Thanks so much for this Greg. Unfortunately, in today's world, knowledge is not a valued commodity; if it were there would be no need for you to point out its prerequisites. (So I say hurray and keep on fighting the good fight!)
Great work on this. I see the spirit of Columbo is strong in you!
That Whitehead craft looks a mixture of Cayley's fuselage under a Lilienthal Glider. Somewhere in the UK, is a steam powered craft which is supposed to have flown in the 1870's, which also looks similar. Potentially the Whitehead could have glided, he had been paid to recreate a Lilienthal inspired glider some time before but you are right, nobody have produced conclusive evidence that they understood how to control in three dimensions, certainly not Langley and probably not even Glen Curtiss until much later. Great work Greg, expertly argued. ps Still waiting for a video on my hero Charley Taylor
Curtiss was a thief.
At about 150 mph and up, the low pressure caused by the design of the rear window of 68-70 Chargers and Roadrunners, lifts the rear end off the ground. This is why the Charger SE, Daytona, Superbird have a contoured rear window.
Yes, they do generate lift, and that's proven, which is more than I can say for Whitehead's creation.
You could have put 10k as a reward, still having them as safe!
I agree, I chose $1,000 because it's believable. People see that number and know I fully intend to pay if the requirements are met.
As an occasional glider pilot, I like that you propose the understanding of adverse yaw as a critical prerequisite to controlled flight.
On the other hand, maybe in a different timeline, if the issue was due to adverse roll, we would then see the invention of alerions instead...
I also enjoyed your narrative. It was relevant, explanatory, and delivered at a nice pace. Fly safe. :)
Thanks Pompey. The Wright patent actually covered ailerons. Few people fail to realize it didn't mention "wing warping" specifically at all. Either way, adverse yaw is a factor. There are some planes that get around it, most end up with proverse yaw, which then still requires some method to control it.
There's another key that puts the Wrights in the lead - the propellers.
When you look at photographs of Whitehead's or Langley's propellers, the blades are not airfoils, but rather flat (or slightly twisted) vanes - intended to screw their way though the air like a wood screw. This will work O.K. on a small model, but it doesn't scale well.
The Wrights, through their wind tunnel testing, realized that the propeller was a lifting surface, and designed theirs as high aspect ratio airfoils, twisted to maintain a relatively constant coefficient of lift across the diameter. These are far more efficient.
Just as an add-on, Whitehead, in his letter, states that his engine does not use an electrical ignition system, but uses "heat and compression" - so he not only built an impossibly light and powerful engine, but it appears that he claims to have built an impossibly light and powerful Diesel engine - at a time when industrial diesels (All 77 of them) were the size of a small house, and they still hadn't managed to fit one into a ship's hull.
Yup, I have an entire series on props and talk about this quite a bit.
The Wright Brothers were the first to build a manned airplane with effective control, and they patented their control system. Given the evidence and the points you mentioned, there should be no debate about their achievement.
As an inventor and electrical engineer, I wanted to share a parallel from my work. I hold two patents for the first ion-propelled aircraft capable of lifting their power supplies onboard. The primary challenge in ion propulsion technology was the immense weight of the power supplies required to generate ionic thrust. Previous models, either tethered to heavy external power sources or operating in space, faced limitations because their power supplies were approximately 1,000 times too heavy to achieve lift against Earth's gravity.
This challenge was fundamentally different from what the Wright Brothers faced with propeller-driven aircraft. For the Wrights, only a somewhat lighter power supply was needed, and this was made possible by advances in aluminum refining-developed here in Oberlin, Ohio-that made aluminum more affordable and accessible. Their greatest challenge, however, was solving the problem of control, which they accomplished in 1903 with their groundbreaking patent.
You’d think these matters would all be straightforward, especially with the internet making information so readily available. However, several other groups now incorrectly claim to be the first to achieve flight with ionic thrusters, even a group at a major university. While I’ve shared solid, verified evidence on my UA-cam channel and website, most of the funding seems to go to those who aren’t focused on the truth or creating efficient, legitimate products.
It can be somewhat challenging because this should be just an exciting adventure. But it’s a reminder that history often repeats itself. I am grateful that in this age of the internet that the question of who invents what might be easier to clarify.
It sounds like you're doing incredible work. I had never heard of an aircraft powered by ion propulsion.
You will be sad to learn that the Gustav Weisskopf Museum in Leutershausen, Germany, which I went past on a bicycle tour years ago, is closed for renovations until 2023, when a new exhibition devoted to Herr Weisskopf/Whitehead will open! The museum claims, of course, that this native son built the first powered airplane. As a student of aviation history, I have always thought that the claims of well-known people to have flown prior to the Wrights (Santos-Dumont, Ader, Cody, Langley, et al) fail from their lack of successful consideration of the problem of control, let alone the people whom nobody had ever heard of (Pearce, Whitehead, some guy in Kansas who flew a chicken coop in 1899). The Wrights' thoroughness in documenting their efforts was remarkable. I think that $1000 is safe.
The guy was American at the time he did all this.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Why do you think he was American?
I believe you are referring to Herr Shiessekopf.
the Deutsches Museum in Munich also seems to be preparing a new exhibition on early flight, they have a very good video debunking whitehead on their website, unfortunately only in German:
ua-cam.com/video/62aKIWhOZx8/v-deo.html
@@Leon_der_Luftige Perhaps because he claimed to have flown over Long Island Sound?
The proof is in the pudding. If Whitehead flew, he should have had pictures taken. The triplane glider is no more than a box kite. The Wright brothers actually built a plane that would do fly on it's own. They understood the problems of control and found fixes. They built their own wind tunnel which is still used to test new designs.
A pterodactyl was the first to discover and conquer adverse yaw. I claim my $1000, to be donated to Greg for making such great videos.
Lol, I can't wait to read those pterodactyl writings.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Pursuant to my long Comment on Darwin: He knew of pterodactyls, they were a recent discovery. There's an interesting note in which he considers the wing of a bat and a bird and a pterodactyl. They're a great example of how natural selection solved the same problem by different routes, i.e. lengthening different bones of the basic quadruped forelimb. At different times in his notes this was seen as a support or a possible objection to be addressed. In his publications he referred to this but used only the bird and bat examples. The pterodactyl was too little known.
Insects were flying before your pterodactyl was a twinkle in it's mother's eye. 😉
Nicely presented. This should put an end to the argument I'd say.
Thanks Central! In honor of you I'm putting up an A8 video next.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles nice! looking forward to it.
Way to go Greg! I'm not sure why folks ever, never mind still, dispute the Wright brother's achievement here. You could end up with a lot of work/time dealing with idiots trying to claim the $1,000, because many people have a contrary type of thought process. Keep the good work flowing.
I fear he will have to deal with fools like the guy who followed Buzz Aldrin around because he thought the Moon landings were a hoax. Buzz, then in his 80s, finally punched the guy in the face when the idiot crowded in on him and called him a liar.
Your a Legend Greg, I love how you don't tolerate nonsense!
*You're
I just saw the documentary on Gustav Whitehead about a day before watching this video. I thought it was stupid but seeing Greg's video...
I am happy to see a video that so methodically debunks all the stupid conspiracy crap. Greg is doing god's work ))
Also, I am not from the USA and I live not far from where another "first before the Wright brothers" had his supposed first flight.
I simply wish that people be skeptical of the other claims and be fair to the Wright's legacy of methodical research, wind tunnels, engines and propeller pioneering.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't realise that every second country has a first to ever fly. I also find it strange that the other people that were "first" had few witnesses, didn't reliably or ever replicate their achievements or decide to tell the world what they did.
An achievement that would make someone rich, a world celebrity and remembered in perpetuity. Of course, someone who spends many years to achieve the goal will decide to say nothing, not do it again and not share their success story with others.
The Wrights had skepticism from the French. So they went to France and proved themselves.
Rant over and thanks Greg for all the great content.
Agree 100% with almost everything you said here. The closer one looks at the Wright's earliest efforts, the more there is to be impressed by. Even if they weren't the first to achieve controllable flight, and I do believe that they were, the 1903 machine was an achievement above and beyond what it accomplished in that it advanced proper engineering. Most other machines of the period were hit and miss guesses. The Wrights deserve their place in history.
Interesting stuff, as usual. In Germany, or among Germans, there seems to be a growing movement claiming that Karl Jatho flew before the Wrights. But looking at the "Kites" he made, with huge wooden stiffeners sticking out of the top of the uncambered wings, perpendicular to the airflow, it is clear that his contraptions could not have flown in any meaningful sense of the word. As late as 1909 he brought a self-made machine to the German Air Show ILA, but didn't demonstrate any flights. The first proven flight that Jatho performed was in 1910, in a Blériot replica.
Otto Lilienthal certainly flew very well, but unpowered with gliders.
@@martinsaunders2942 Yes, but only marginally controlled by weight shifting. Lack of control may have contributed to his fatal accident.
Like Greg, I get so sick and tired of people who know nothing about the physics of flight and the stupendous achievement of these brilliant and hard working engineers argue they did not invent the airplane. Thank you Greg.
A recent governor of Connecticut helped perpetuate the Whitehead story by issuing a proclamation declaring Whitehead invented the airplane not the Wright brothers. So it must be true, because an "ELECTED" politician is the BEST interpreter of scientific and historical FACTS!🤣🤣
The Governor is merely recognizing the fact that Whitehead beat the Wright Brothers. There is overwhelming proof including photos, Bridgeport Police records, Newspaper eyewitness accounts and the family themselves who still live in Connecticut that Whitehead was first. Oh, and the photos of Whitehead having flown his plane into the 2nd story of a building (how did he get it up there?)
I would like to know if this is known: Because the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, they knew how to true bicycle wheels. They used this knowledge to warp the wings. It is also because of their experience that they used this method. I also guess that the inventor of the wheel with crossed spokes. had experience of weaving.
Many features of the Whitehead machine went on to become standard. The tractor propellers. The counter-rotating propellers. The horizontal stabilizer in the back. The pilot behind the engine. The fuselage and canvas covering. The center mast supporting the wings. All features of the 1901 Whitehead machine that continued forward into aviation design.
and the wright features are used in 4.5 & 5th gen jet fighters ... weird
the invention of multi-strand steel wire allowed airplanes to be invented...
The rest is not required for stable flight. Those items are a study in how to look sharp
while hunting a ticket for reckless driving
crimony, so, all the features of a rowboat, which is what Whitehead's contraption resembles.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles And there are numerous examples of airships inspired by ocean-going steamers. The Wrights solved the problem of flight, and Whitehead is disserved by those who pit him against Oroville and Wilbur. Whitehead's 1901 counter-rotating, torque-cancelling propellers predate the 1903 Wright Flyer.
@@crimony3054 if only the idea is needed for an innovation to work, then airplanes would have been aloft well before 1900.
To address your point directly, the 'props' are in the only place they can be put on that 'airframe.' The counter rotation idea is from ships and that was done well before 1900.
That idea was considered sound mechanical thinking at that time.
I love it when you get a little prickly about the fools.
So far, nobody has come after that 1000 dollars with anything remotely credible. I really wish someone would.
I just learned that there is a monument for Whitehead in Connecticut; a fountain with a model of the 21, and a plaque that says "First in flight"! I have no idea if this is paid for by the state, or someone else, but it shows how persistent bad history can be.
They sure know how to underscore the Con in CONnecticut.
Your $1,000 is safe. I live within easy walking distance of Orville Wright’s home Hawthorn Hill in Oakwood, Ohio. I routinely take visitors to see the Wright Flyer III, which the Wrights themselves regarded as the craft in which they really learned piloting. I have looked over copies of some of the same notes and documents you describe. The Wrights solved the problems of stability and control and kept great records with a view to patenting their inventions.
The claims about Whitehead are nonsense, as you point out so much better than I ever could.
Keep up the good work. It’s the best aviation content anywhere.
As German native speaker, I had to listen three times to "Lilienthal" before I understood it. The "th" in this case is old German orthography, and is just a "t", as it is in "Neanderthal". "Tal" means Valley, so Otto's name was "Lilly-Valley".
I'm still working on Otto.
What doesn't make sense is a man who supposedly achieved such a revolutionary achievement almost immediately abandons powered flight in favor of gliders and stuff that could only fly when towed.
Excellent video Greg - I think your $1000 is safe!
Excellent lecture, and your points are well-made!
Terrific video and one that should be a model for the better and smarter UA-camrs. You didn't spend inordinate amounts of time arguing with the false claims. (This only digs them in deeper. I've shown students the Myth Busters video that refutes every single point made by the 'moon landings were faked' crowd and there are always a few students afterwards who think they've just seen proof that the moon landings were faked.) Instead you quickly move on to the critical problems controlled and powered flight had to solve and the Wrights' extensive writing, problem solving, solutions, patents on these. This makes a far more interesting video about the history and engineering.
What is amazing, and instructive, about the Wright brothers is that they set out to solve the problem of flight and over 7 years they identified and solved one problem after another. You could probably annoy a barroom full of half drunk people for years endlessly repeating some boast or claim and accomplish nothing. But just reading the David McCullough book on the Wrights you could use what you learn to solve problems around the house -- or understand a bit better what Tesla is up to. (I spent hours trying to figure out how their wind tunnel worked, It offered me insight into how you create a tool for quantifying something you haven't yet broken down. Comparisons. There's a lot that I understand that had I lived 100 years ago not only would I not understand, but would probably be incapable of understanding. After all it took months for me to understand the Wright's wind tunnel, but it only took a couple of weeks (well before that) to DIY one that produced measurements. All of us could be 'smarter' than the Wrights because we're standing on their shoulders.)
Well presented Greg. I doubt you will prevent other sites from making bogus claims because they want controversy and content not facts but you will forever have the high ground if they failed to take your challenge.
I love a good discussion. You never know what you might learn, but it seems some people are just driven to re-write history for notoriety sake.
Outstanding proof that the Wrights understood adverse yaw first and therefore understood that it had to be countered with rudder into the direction of the turn. In case anyone is wondering, adverse yaw affects helicopters too.
It has been clearly documented for at least 2800 years that Daedalus solved all of the problems involved in flight long before the Wright brothers. Get thee to your nearest museum of antiquities and they will point you to the source material. I will take my payment in Athenian owls if you please. 😁
As usual Greg, you absolutely nailed it with your previous video on the Wright Brothers, their engineering and scientific methods leading to a practical aircraft capable of sustained, controlled flight, and why all of the previous (and in some cases semi-concurrent) efforts of others were failures, incapable of doing what the 1903 Wright Flyer (and their later updated models) could actually demonstrate. All of the others who failed in their pursuit of creating the airplane were not failures like Edison's categorization of his experimentation on the way to the lightbulb. Those others kept repeating the same mistakes without really learning from them and they did not solve all of the problems associated with sustained, controlled flight. That was not so with the Wright Brothers, they truly learned from their experiments, and refined what worked, and discarded what did not. This is another awesome video which continues to expose the intellectual vacancy related to those who try to claim that the Wright Brothers are undeserving of the title of the designers, engineers, mechanics and scientists responsible for the birth of the practical airplane.
I would disagree. Otto Lilienthal certainly learned very well from his experiences and successfully evolved his gliders over a long period.
@@martinsaunders2942 Feel free to disagree, but you are wrong. Lilienthal did a lot of experimentation and gained experience, but failed to solve any of the aerodynamic issues that the Wrights later solved. They analyzed his data and conducted their own experiments and gathered data, and in doing so, found Lilienthal's data either lacking or his conclusions to be incorrect. Ultimately Otto Lilienthal's inability to address the aerodynamic problems of control led to his death. Yes he was a pioneer, and a very brave man, but he only succeeded in accomplishing the feat of repeatedly falling somewhat gracefully from a prominitory - with his final attempt resulting in a fatal crash when the glider deviated and he was unable to correct the deviation, a far cry from the unpowered gliders and wing suits of today, and nowhere near to the science and engineering that was confirmed by the Wright Brothers.
@@libertycosworth8675 There is a claim that Lilienthal's data is correct for his wing. The wing airfoil used by the Wrights was quite different.
Can you clarify the issue?
@richardlewis4288
@martinsaunders2942
@@stevebett4947 As far as any claims regarding Lilienthal's data, contact Greg. He is the expert. At the same time what the Wright Brothers found was one solution to a workable, truly functional airfoil design, not the only workable solution. Since their successful flights, there are now thousands of documented variations of aeronautically functional airfoils in NASA's (formerly NACA) records. Regardless, Lilienthal never successfully put all of the essential elements for controlled flight together, so the sufficiency (or lack thereof) of his wing is ultimately irrelevant, and his inability to maintain control over his glider is what actually contributed to his death. Greg goes into all of this videos covering the Wright brothers, starting with this one, and I suggest you watch that if you are curious regarding the ultimate fact that the Wright Brothers can legitimately claim the title of the inventors of the airplane, and the first to achieve the first sustainable, controlled, powered heavier than air flight. ua-cam.com/video/EkpQAGQiv4Q/v-deo.html
@@martinsaunders2942 Watch Greg's previous video, he covers it well.