More of The Wright Stuff

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0312170856.asp

John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:59 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote, in part:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0312170856.asp

I do remember reading an article suggesting that Samuel Pierpoint
Langley ought to be considered the real inventor of the airplane, even
if the Wrights scooped him. But your article shows why this isn't
true; the Wrights, and not others, solved the real problems of flight
by carefully studying its demands.

Langley deserves credit for demonstrating that powered heavier than air
flight is possible. In fact the Wrights were inspired by his efforts
(among others), though the later hostility between the Wrights and Langley
lead to some editing of history on both parts. The Wrights actually
wanted to collaborate initially, but were ignored. The whole
Wrights/Langley feud is clear evidence that brains and accomplishment
don't guarantee maturity. The real picture of what happened is much more
subtle than the partisans of either side will admit.


.......Andrew
--
--
Andrew Case |
|

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0312170856.asp


Some more comments. :-)

From memory, the catapult broke the tail on launch rendering Langley's
airplane unflyable. After restoration it had flights in excess of ten
minutes, which is more than just the few feet that the Wrights managed.
The Wright engine developed something like 11 horse power. Langley's
airplane, (designed by Mann?), a radial, had something like 56 horse
power and three times the power to weight ratio. This makes the Wright
effort ever more impressive, as they managed to do so, with such a poor
engine.

The major mistake that Langley made was in not addressing the launch and
landing issue appropriately, (they knew this but ran out of time), and
in allowing backers to force them into a fixed development project,
instead of an incremental one. That very public failure was an all or
nothing affair forced by deteriorating weather and the oncoming winter.

Results count, the Wrights made what was most likely an inferior
airplane fly first, and that was a truly great achievement.

Technically, the Wrights had pretty much lost it by around 1910. Note,
I am note sure that they even published to around 1907, very paranoid.
Some how they managed to get the far superior aileron, (invented by
someone else), covered under their original wing warping patent, (a
sympathetic legal system which they used extensively, vested interests).
Though amusingly, they persisted with wing warping for some time after
everyone else adopted the aileron.

After there initial success, the Wrights set about trying to become the
NASA of the airplane industry, quashing private development, seriously
delaying, almost preventing commercialization. The parallels are
uncannily familiar to the current launch industry. Fortunately, the
Wright brothers ultimately failed in their attempt to monopolize the
airplane industry with pathetic patents and international cartels. Even
considering their earlier achievements, I would have to say that the
Wright brothers service to the air industry, was on the whole, negative,
the air industry would have been better off without them. It is not
like they were the only ones doing it.

Pete.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:25:44 +1300, in a place far, far away, "Pete
Lynn" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0312170856.asp


Some more comments. :-)

From memory, the catapult broke the tail on launch rendering Langley's
airplane unflyable. After restoration it had flights in excess of ten
minutes, which is more than just the few feet that the Wrights managed.

That "restoration" was a complete redesign and rebuild, based on
lessons learned over several years from the Wrights...

"Rand Simberg" wrote

"Pete Lynn" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Some more comments. :-)

From memory, the catapult broke the tail on launch rendering
Langley's airplane unflyable. After restoration it had flights in
excess of ten minutes, which is more than just the few feet that
the Wrights managed.

That "restoration" was a complete redesign and rebuild, based
on lessons learned over several years from the Wrights...

I can not say that I share that interpretation, the modifications were
minor, primarily for reasons of manufacture, excepting the pontoons of
course, used to resolve the launch/landing issue, but this is an ongoing
argument...

My real issue is this. In 1969 NASA put a man on the moon, this was a
truly great accomplishment, as was the Wright brother's first flight.
This does not, however, excuse their later behavior.

How can you deride NASA yet worship the Wright brothers? They both
acted to control and restrict their respective fields, to the great
detriment of their development and commercialization. Though admittedly
NASA was slightly more successful in both regards.

How can you sustain such an internal contradiction? How can you detest
one but not the other?

Pete.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:24:05 +1300, in a place far, far away, "Pete
Lynn" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

That "restoration" was a complete redesign and rebuild, based
on lessons learned over several years from the Wrights...

I can not say that I share that interpretation, the modifications were
minor, primarily for reasons of manufacture, excepting the pontoons of
course, used to resolve the launch/landing issue, but this is an ongoing
argument...

Indeed it is, between partisans of Curtiss and the Smithsonian,
and...well...others. Let me amend it by saying that it was a complete
redesign and rebuilt based on experience gained by the time it was
done. Whether it was from the Wrights or not is beside the point, and
I don't want to belabor it.

My real issue is this. In 1969 NASA put a man on the moon, this was a
truly great accomplishment, as was the Wright brother's first flight.
This does not, however, excuse their later behavior.

How can you deride NASA yet worship the Wright brothers?

I'm not worshiping the Wright brothers. I'm just noting their
achievement of a century ago.

How can you sustain such an internal contradiction? How can you detest
one but not the other?

I don't detest NASA. Are you saying that because I disagree with some
of NASA's behavior since the late sixties, that I shouldn't honor the
achievement of Apollo?

"Rand Simberg" wrote

"Pete Lynn" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

That "restoration" was a complete redesign and rebuild,
based on lessons learned over several years from the
Wrights...

I can not say that I share that interpretation, the modifications
were minor, primarily for reasons of manufacture, excepting
the pontoons of course, used to resolve the launch/landing
issue, but this is an ongoing argument...

Indeed it is, between partisans of Curtiss and the Smithsonian,
and...well...others. Let me amend it by saying that it was
complete redesign and rebuilt based on experience gained by the
time it was done. Whether it was from the Wrights or not is
beside the point, and I don't want to belabor it.

My real issue is this. In 1969 NASA put a man on the moon,
this was a truly great accomplishment, as was the Wright
brother's first flight. This does not, however, excuse their later
behavior.

How can you deride NASA yet worship the Wright brothers?

I'm not worshiping the Wright brothers. I'm just noting their
achievement of a century ago.

Without accounting for their following failure...

How can you sustain such an internal contradiction? How can
you detest one but not the other?

I don't detest NASA. Are you saying that because I disagree
with some of NASA's behavior since the late sixties, that I
shouldn't honor the achievement of Apollo?

I have no idea how you get that. To repeat. "In 1969 NASA put a man on
the moon, this was a truly great accomplishment, as was the Wright
brother's first flight."

I should apologize for using "NASA" as a catch all for everything that
is wrong with the launch industry today, obviously this is untrue.

If one continues the airplane/launch vehicle analogy through to the
commercialization phase, (rockets are long past their first successful
flight), one would note strong similarities between the likes of NASA
and the Wright brothers. Curtis, (a strong proponent of open
development), and his ilk, might find modern day equivalents in the
likes of John Carmack and Mr. Musk. Well that is my reading of things,
and why I find the Wright brother analogy so difficult to swallow. In
no way am I disputing the greatness of their initial success, but
commercialization was not best left to them.

Pete.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:35:43 +1300, in a place far, far away, "Pete
Lynn" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

How can you deride NASA yet worship the Wright brothers?

I'm not worshiping the Wright brothers. I'm just noting their
achievement of a century ago.

Without accounting for their following failure...

Why is it necessary to account for that when discussing their first
success? I'm not discussing a general history of aviation--just the
beginning of it, as should be appropriate on its anniversary.

How can you sustain such an internal contradiction? How can
you detest one but not the other?

I don't detest NASA. Are you saying that because I disagree
with some of NASA's behavior since the late sixties, that I
shouldn't honor the achievement of Apollo?

I have no idea how you get that.

It's called an analogy. You seem to think that I shouldn't
acknowledge the Wright's achievement because of things that (you
claim) occurred after that achievement. Whether your claim is correct
or not, I disagree.

If one continues the airplane/launch vehicle analogy through to the
commercialization phase, (rockets are long past their first successful
flight), one would note strong similarities between the likes of NASA
and the Wright brothers. Curtis, (a strong proponent of open
development), and his ilk, might find modern day equivalents in the
likes of John Carmack and Mr. Musk. Well that is my reading of things,
and why I find the Wright brother analogy so difficult to swallow. In
no way am I disputing the greatness of their initial success, but
commercialization was not best left to them.

I'm not necessarily proposing that it was--just that their approach in
developing the Wright flyer was clearly superior to their competitors,
since the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

"Rand Simberg" wrote

"Pete Lynn" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Without accounting for their following failure...

Why is it necessary to account for that when discussing their first
success? I'm not discussing a general history of aviation--just the
beginning of it, as should be appropriate on its anniversary.

Because it tarnishes the analogy.

I have no idea how you get that.

It's called an analogy. You seem to think that I shouldn't
acknowledge the Wright's achievement because of things that
(you claim) occurred after that achievement. Whether your claim
is correct or not, I disagree.

Not at all, I merely request that you take care with using such an
analogy, preferably qualifying it.

If one continues the airplane/launch vehicle analogy through to
the commercialization phase, (rockets are long past their first
successful flight), one would note strong similarities between
the likes of NASA and the Wright brothers. Curtis, (a strong
proponent of open development), and his ilk, might find
modern day equivalents in the likes of John Carmack and Mr.
Musk. Well that is my reading of things, and why I find the
Wright brother analogy so difficult to swallow. In no way am I
disputing the greatness of their initial success, but
commercialization was not best left to them.

I'm not necessarily proposing that it was--just that their approach
in developing the Wright flyer was clearly superior to their
competitors, since the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Agreed. The Wright brothers definitely ran a far better low cost
development program.

Pete.